Posted by benjihall on 8/26/2010 2:12:00 PM (view original):

I really disagree with your first point, like the collaborative effort here.  It would be a lot worse if they came of with something that no one liked.

 

Collaboration is great, but WhatIf needs to produce some effort on there side first, or else all their work is done for them.  Seble has had years of feedback, if he actually reads it, to know what the current problems are.  We are then told he is working on sweeping changes and the end result is worse than the current?  This is crazy.  If they really want the power users to help fix it they should at least let them play for free.

Benji

I don't have the experience in dealing with WIS like you do and only have experience with this verison of the SIM.  And agree with the sentiment that there has to be a better way in involving the 50-60s players in the SIM more than they are now.  But if we can reduce the cost of defense , get rid of the cookie cutters, have a more leniet position effectiveness and have (finally) 09-10 players.  That's pretty good but to a few people in here that seems like a bad thing to say.

And by the way Seble have you done the 3rd verison of the salary chart yet?

thing is, leibo, there will always be cookie cutters.  It will just be different cookie cutters.  The very definition of a stat-based simulation relies on coming up with some kind of goal, some kind of template, to be successful.  I need X rebounds, X assists, X 3pm, etc... that's the very definition of cookie cutter.  But after the salary structure is the same for an extended period of time, people find out the most efficient way to reach X number of all of the required things.