Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 9:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jeffdrayer on 3/4/2016 8:48:00 PM (view original):
My two cents:
The more things that are determined by "luck," the fewer things that are determined by "being good." In all things in life, all any person strives for is control. Every advance in the world -- be it sports, technology, culture, everything -- is created to decrease the role of luck in our daily lives.
We don't think about it, but we abhor the concept of luck. Yes, we enjoy when we get lucky. But we hate being unlucky. The magnitude of crushing disappointment associated with being unlucky far outweighs the magnitude of joy at being lucky. Therefore, adding luck to a game where it's not necessary will only continue to create over time a greater amount of negative feeling than positive feeling.
Life is hard enough. People play a game because they would like one place in their life where their hard work and intelligence nets a proportionally large reward. Not because they want yet something else besides their job, marriage, kids, other people's kids, world events, politics, the weather, the economy, etc that's left to the winds of chance.
There's a reason we're basketball fans, and not fans of the National Coin Flip League.
Any time you add luck where it's not necessary is a bad idea.
"Luck" is the only way for a simulation to implement variance...at least without implementing some crazy cellular automata-type system.
As basketball fans, if we knew the better team was going to win 100% of the time, we wouldn't watch. There is variance involved. How else could you explain why player's don't 'always make' or 'always miss' free throws?
Managing luck involves MORE skill than managing certainties.
Without some level of luck, most of us would never have even a chance at winning a national title in HD. No suspense. No excitement.
I'm not necessarily arguing that more luck is always better. I'm saying it, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Like a dressing on your salad. Boring without it, a soup with too much.
slow down there tiger - you are changing the argument now. is the need for more variance, or more equality? those are NOT the same thing. there is a lot of variance in this game. except for a dozen or two shorts bursts (some of which should be expected by random chance), championships in each division in each world are won by a wide variety of people. this isn't a game where the top 5 guys are winning all the titles.
variance also does nothing to improve the mean (average) outcome. so, you think mid majors would be happy, if they won 1 of 10 titles (as a group) because the game was more about luck - but conversely, their down seasons, when luck swung the other way, they were considerably more screwed than today? no, becomes their average outcome would still be ****. what this game needs is more equality. the mean, not the variance, needs to shift.
i don't disagree with your salad analogy - its just irrelevant. i don't disagree that luck is the way to introduce variance - its just irrelevant. the problem here is equality, not variance. we need strategic fixes here, to address real problems.
Replying to the shorter of the responses.
I'm not mixing arguments, you misunderstood my one about the 10k getting value. I'm not making a "soccer mom" fairness argument. I'm arguing that, over time, with a lottery system, you average out
to get your money's worth. I was comparing styles of auctions.
This is one of the things driving the discrepancy in recruit value. The A+ teams almost always win battles, so not only do they get more cash, they rarely waste it. Lesser schools have to risk what they have WAY more than A+ teams do because going for good recruits
will get them nothing. Does every single $ need to get something back? No, not every $, and I don't think it will, but holy ****, the current system is extreme. It ******* sucks.
On to means and variance, getting the means closer will not solve this, because success is not normally distributed about the mean for any mid-major schools. You have a strict ceiling that most people will never break through without taking significant risks. The only semi-successful mid-majors need their entire conference to be full before they get anywhere.
The old system accidentally fixed this by creating enough recruits that 'maxed out' that there were some left over.
by your logic, in any imperfect system, you can draw no correlations, no conclusions from apparent cause-effect relationships. nice try, but its total BS!
No, what I'm saying is you can't draw any correlations from
this system. That's all I said, your example of the last system having solved something was a sharpshooter fallacy.
Here's really what I'm getting at here. The core of the current system involves how you get players, and how you use them. Everything else is a side effect. Changing the side effects that the existing players are recommending is putting lipstick on a pig.
let me hazard one other reason, that most of the game's most successful coaches have a relatively similar take on how to fix this inequity - maybe it has something to do with our underlying understanding of how this game works. i hate making statements like this, but i see no way around it: nobody disputes that i can look at any situation in this game, and predict how it would play out, way above where virtually anybody else can. nobody disputes that i can consider one real setup, and explain the hypothetical outcomes that would result from a wide variety of changes, far better than most. how is examining changes to the underlying system any different? the truth is, the reason that many vets strongly maintain their opinions on this subject, is because we believe we have a good understanding of this problem, and how to fix it. we've been on this problem for ages, warning about it since it went into beta. and even though we've yelled about this, far louder than any other issue, for 5 years, we've been ignored, and had to watch as the game we love was destroyed. so yeah, i'm bitter. this is not a hard problem. it should have been fixed 5 years ago. so yeah, i'm ******. that's why.
I will go with another analogy. HD is a car. You guys know the car as well as anyone - veritable grease monkeys. You've seen it through repairs, upgrades, being ignored. In fact, you're probably a master mechanic.
The car could get better, sure. You guys know how to make the car faster, more comfortable, aerodynamic, etc. You all have great ideas as to how to make the existing car twice as good as it is now.
But, it will never fly.
Seble is trying to turn the car into a plane - while it's driving, at that. Right now, he's changing the engine from a HEMI 429L V8 to a Pratt & Whitney PW1000G, and you guys won't shut up about how that's a ****** engine for a car. You're not wrong, you're just arguing about the wrong thing.