Difference between revisions of "HTs on Global/Success"

From Hattrick
 
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
Of course it requires good players to win. Then top that up with some clever tactics and masterful long-term strategy and you are a sure winner.
 
Of course it requires good players to win. Then top that up with some clever tactics and masterful long-term strategy and you are a sure winner.
 +
}}{{forum_message|
 +
  | from      = flameron
 +
  | to        = NickMan
 +
  | msgid    = 12313243.78
 +
  | prevmsgid = 12313243.73
 +
  | datetime  = 25.12.2008 at 22:37
 +
  | keywords  = (Success), (Overspending)
 +
  | text      =
 +
''It have one and only purpose - to punish the success!''
 +
----
 +
 +
Never said that. I wonder why you feel like that?
 +
I do agree that if you wasted your resources for success you will get a painful penalty from the system compared to the old one, but any view of any system like the one in HT as if its a system that have only one way to interact with the user is false. I feel there is continuous range in which each manager position his team. If you chose the extreme path the price might be very painful, but if you didn't the price of mistake will be smaller. The more extreme your approach to success is the harder the penalty. If you build your way to the top there is no penalty, the challenge to keep position is there but any team going up will face the same challenge if you do not burn your resources to keep on top.
 +
 +
----
 +
''That's why we don't have fair system. Not that it is difficult to have.''
 +
----
 +
 +
First the definition of fair is really hard. My bet you will find it quite hard to have most users agree on any definition. Its quite clear I (and the other readers) can not know what is fair in your eyes unless you state it (from the same reason).
 +
 +
I will be happy to hear your thoughts though, and others. Assuming you actually want to discuss it of course.
 
}}
 
}}
  
  
 
[[Category:HTs on Global|Success]]
 
[[Category:HTs on Global|Success]]

Revision as of 08:42, 8 February 2009

Keywords: (Success), (Rules)

By: HT-Bjorn 2002523.90 as reply to 2002523.87
To: HG-bard 08-11-2004 at 09:44
You say that I should forget about the rules I learnt before (that it requires good players and good ratings to win a match)

LOL, that was indeed an interesting example of twisting someone's word until they take on a whole new meaning...

I did not say that. Not even close.

I am saying that anyone who wants to be successful in Hattrick needs to always be willing to add to his/her knowledge, learn new things, and even in some cases question established truths if new evidence come up.

Of course it requires good players to win. Then top that up with some clever tactics and masterful long-term strategy and you are a sure winner.

Keywords: (Success), (Overspending)

By: flameron 12313243.78 as reply to 12313243.73
To: NickMan 25.12.2008 at 22:37
It have one and only purpose - to punish the success!

Never said that. I wonder why you feel like that? I do agree that if you wasted your resources for success you will get a painful penalty from the system compared to the old one, but any view of any system like the one in HT as if its a system that have only one way to interact with the user is false. I feel there is continuous range in which each manager position his team. If you chose the extreme path the price might be very painful, but if you didn't the price of mistake will be smaller. The more extreme your approach to success is the harder the penalty. If you build your way to the top there is no penalty, the challenge to keep position is there but any team going up will face the same challenge if you do not burn your resources to keep on top.


That's why we don't have fair system. Not that it is difficult to have.


First the definition of fair is really hard. My bet you will find it quite hard to have most users agree on any definition. Its quite clear I (and the other readers) can not know what is fair in your eyes unless you state it (from the same reason).

I will be happy to hear your thoughts though, and others. Assuming you actually want to discuss it of course.