Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:46 pm
If you read my posts, I may come of as arrogant, but Im not. When a person gives me a piece of advice I take it. But I don't take it as fact, just experience. And when I don't understand his reasoning or his conclusions I will question them. If he feels like he is being argued with than he would be correct. Arrogance is when you give advice or opinion and expect to recipient to take it as is without question. How can a person be more arrogant that that?
If you state something you consider is right, don't expect everyone to take it as is. Defend your point. By defending your point you teach the person arguing with you that you know what your talking about and he will take your opinion more as well-founded. But to get irritated or upset because he argues with you seems counter productive for both parties, better just to ignore the guy and leave it at that.
There is no such thing as a dumb question, when you argue with a person you both teach him, and you see if the opinions you hold are indeed fact or just something you think is fact. You teach him and you teach yourself.
I believe that the best strat manager isn't a person who has learned the auto draft. He is the best auto draft manager not the best strat manager. If you believe me to be wrong then don't complain about my arrogance and stupidity, tell me why I am wrong in holding that opinion or just ignore me as being a foolish and ignorant.
If you cant argue your point then perhaps your point isn't well founded.
I gave my reasons why I think what I think, if im wrong tell me why.
I state that a live draft tells how good you are at strat that an autodraft, tell me why this is a wrongly help opinion. I can tell you why its a rightly held opinion, defend your point and at the end we can see who is correct, or end up learning that both opinions are inconclusive. It would be enjoyable to find out no?
Complaining about newbies having opinions makes it seems that open discussion and argument is reserved to those who have played the game longer, or have been on the site longer, but if that is true, you being an experienced player, can hold that knowledge for only yourself or spread it around, and if the newbie questions your knowledge don't get upset, defend your point, if you decide to answer a question you take on the responsibility of a teacher do you not? and if your opinion is worth its salt, you should be able to tell the newbie why. Teachers teach, not get upset when challenged, not become impatient. This isn't the martial arts or the army, this is a knowledge mind involved game not a physical training program.
So to conclude and teach me right if I am incorrect,
People play stratomatic online because of its ease. No need to get together with a bunch of guys in person, no need to schedule times to play the windows game. People are busy people, and online strat allows those that love the game to continue participating in it where if online strat didn't exist they may have to leave playing it altogether. But it is in the end a substitute. If online strat could be exactly like the board game but quicker, that is the goal. To be more precise, If strat online could be a reflection of how you manage a team, without you having to always manage it, that would be awesome. You program Hal to be a reflection of exactly how you manage, and then let hal play for you. Saves time and you enjoy the game too. The attraction is that strat online is mostly hassle free, all the irritants of other people, time schedules, missing games, falling behind, time constraints, are largely reduced in strat online. But in the end its a substitute. You gain ease, but lose control. I don't think it would be much of a leap that if the online game allowed you to make hal do exactly what you wanted in all situations, it would be just as good as playing the board game or windows game. Program hal to your exact specification and let it play.
The auto draft option is used for the same reason, you pick 25 players rank them and wait for others to do the same. No need for schedules, time commitments, you join and draft at your leisure when you are available to do it. All independent of others. That freedom is desirable as there is no stress to it. But again its a substitute for a live draft. If you become good at an auto draft doesn't mean you would be good at a live draft and vice-versa. In an auto-draft the skill comes in learning how the auto draft works, not in how live drafts work.
You get an idea on where players are usually drafted and you rank those players higher than your opponents. Or you avoid certain players because they will usually be chosen before you get to draft them. Or you draft certain positions first, so if you miss your pick, the talent in that position is higher than other positions so that your replacement is not much or any downgrade. Im no expert of the auto draft and I haven't studied it long enough to know all the ins-and-outs of it. But to get good at it you need to learn a whole other set of principles than of a live draft.
And these principles once-learned make you good at an auto-draft, not good as a strat manager. Its what you do after the auto-draft that determines that. And with a good auto-draft you have an advantage over your opponent before anything starts. Its not much of a competition when you start with ten 10mil players and your opponent starts with two. So in reality, the auto draft shows who is best at the auto draft, not at managing a strat baseball team. If you are a great auto draft player it is no wonder of you have 20 seasons and make the playoffs 12 times, or 15 times. But since the auto draft is just a substitute for a live draft, in order for strat online to function with ease because of the avoidance of having groups of people be in front of their computer at the same time, the learning of that skill has little to do with determining how good of a strat manager you are. A live draft is a better indicator.
So much of this game is due to odds or chance, the things that involve choice and decisions, and reduce random chance, the better it determines the skill level of a player. Its that way in all gaming and its that way in strat as well. A live draft, because it is you doing the picking, involves no chance like the auto draft does, and there is a better indicator of the skill level of the player.
No one who has played strat chose, or would choose, and no one in the major leagues would choose, an auto draft over a live draft if they had the time to do a live draft. Unless they used the auto draft long enough to be better at it then their opponents. Learning how to do well in a live draft is a skill set that has been since strat, or baseball itself, started as the determining factor and first indicator on how good you are as a manager. The auto-draft is poor substitute. It lacks the ability to choose exactly who you want when its your turn to pick, and since this choice is the determining fact on whether you are successful or not, the auto-draft is a poor indicator on how good a strat manager you are.
If you disagree state your opinion why, defend it, and I could be totally wrong, let's find out.
Scott.
