as i have said before, and i will just continue to... i think this represent a fundamental generic argument that is going to face all changes to anything in the game. Now for each case, we need to layout the costs of changing to the masses and the benefits of changing it.
The benefits to changing it would be to add a dimensionality to the game that is maybe uniteresting at the moment.. like the staff system.. if shot blocking is irrelevant, than maybe we should get rid of it, or we keep it just as a remenant of realism so that our game sounds more like basketball but isnt really part of people's conversations about the game. But clearly the game would be more interesting if you had to make a more nuanced tradeoff when considering a center with good defense but poor shotblocking, or vice versa... arguing to yourself.. you know what i really need is a shot blocker to alter the shots of all the guys who are just lighting up my SG who can score but can't defend. Or on the flip side saying.. no ... i dont really need that, i'm just getting killed by the opponents center dunking over me.
On a related point, and i'm sorry for talking about two different issues in the same thread.. i would really like to hear someone lay out a similar sort of story about how adding SF training options makes for a more interesting decision, rather than simply making it easier for you to make the most optimal decision. Cause I personally think that sort of process is mind numbing, kinda of like "farming" in WoW or what have you. Now maybe people like that.. but I think the game that we as a team have tried to make is something different.
anyway... on the flip side, I will not deny that making any change is going to disadvantage some users. So lets take a closer look at who this is going to disadvantage.... There are some users now who have been training shot blocking, or happen to have high shot blocking skilled players because they perhaps wrongly surmised it was more important than it was, and now they are going to be rewarded for making that decision. On the flip side, there are people who maybe correctly decided that shot blocking was unimportant, and so they bought players who sucked at shotblocking and were good at everything else because the market was overvaluing shotblocking.. and now they will be punished for that.
I guess we could look and see how many teams are there that have players with significantly higher/lower shot blocking ability. I think there is at least a plausible case to be made that most teams are actually just ignoring shot blocking and so have neither a particularly high or particularly low shot blocking.
I will say this... although I am sympathetic to the fact that any change is going to disadvantage some people, I cannot accept that buzzerbeater must therefore not attempt to make itself a better game, and so that argument must stand up to scrutiny and we must as a community accept some degree of unfairness if we are going to avoid being stuck in a boring quagmire. We also shouldn't stumble ahead blindly and not listen to what the users are saying and make changes willy nilly.... I hope we are striking the right balance.
EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ
(66639.86)Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:57:38 PM