Poll-Suggestion-Change Logic for WE improvement Topic

utahjazz88
Posts: 44 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 92 1 13
Prospect
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
6/1/2014 3:14 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
This may be accurate, but it is not consistent with my understanding or experience as to how ratings improve. I believe that there is still a significant difference the further you get from the middle.

If you can point me to the specific HD update that you are thinking about, I'd be very interested in reading it.
6/1/2014 4:43 PM
gomiami1972
Posts: 3700 (2)
Hall of Famer
10 1 1 550 49 117
Pro
Posted by dacj501 on 6/1/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by oldave on 6/1/2014 6:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by alblack56 on 6/1/2014 5:29:00 AM (view original):
I agree with weena
I agree with al
I agree with dave
I agree with dacj
6/1/2014 6:27 PM
brianxavier
Posts: 956 (0)
Hall of Famer
166 1
Rookie
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/1/2014 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 6/1/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by oldave on 6/1/2014 6:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by alblack56 on 6/1/2014 5:29:00 AM (view original):
I agree with weena
I agree with al
I agree with dave
I agree with dacj
I agree with gomiami
6/2/2014 9:20 AM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/1/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
This may be accurate, but it is not consistent with my understanding or experience as to how ratings improve. I believe that there is still a significant difference the further you get from the middle.

If you can point me to the specific HD update that you are thinking about, I'd be very interested in reading it.
That changed with potential.   The ratings only slow down the closer to get to the MAX rating.  It has nothing to do with "middle".

A player with a current passing rating of 70 and max passing rating of 90 will improve faster than a
player with a current passing rating of 50 and max passing rating of 60.

What is your definition of middle?
6/2/2014 10:04 AM
jsajsa
Posts: 631 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 1 133 3
Rookie
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
Even in my recent experience this is not true by non-WE ratings. Players still seem to have a harder time improving very low ratings, even when their potential there is through the roof, than when the rating is further away from 0. I'm also interested in seeing where they posted this update.
6/2/2014 10:07 AM
coachvegas44
Posts: 310 (0)
Hall of Famer
85
Prospect
Based on observations, it seems to me, there are 3 basic kinds of players in HD.  Those who want everything to be like Real Life. Those who would prefer as much like RL as possible but understand it's a game first loosely based on College Basketball. Therefore it has to be adjusted to programming capabilities. Those who don't care whether it's like RL or not. This topic seems to be in the last category.

WE and improvement in WE in HD is very much like RL. In 30 years of playing and 20 years of coaching I never experienced a person with a low WE make dramatic improvement in WE just because of coaching. By the time you get your 18 year old in college his work ethic is an embedded characteristic of his personality. Can you improve his WE? Absolutely, but it will not be as dramatic as a kid who comes to you willing to work hard. Why would you want to change  a category in HD that they have so right? They have it as close to RL as I think it can be based on my experience. That's why I voted No!
6/2/2014 1:25 PM
utahjazz88
Posts: 44 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 92 1 13
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/1/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
This may be accurate, but it is not consistent with my understanding or experience as to how ratings improve. I believe that there is still a significant difference the further you get from the middle.

If you can point me to the specific HD update that you are thinking about, I'd be very interested in reading it.
As mully stated, I believe it was addressed when potential was first implemented.  Prior to potential, it was basically impossible to improve a very low rating.  This used to be a huge complaint of the HD community...coaches were upset they couldn't improve their players' ratings if it started very low.  Now, for other ratings aside from WE, ratings improve at the same pace based on how far that player is from their potential.  For example, player A has a PE of 20 and a potential PE of 40.  Player B has a PE of 50 and a potential PE of 70.  All else being equal, they will improve at the same rate.  Whereas, that would not happen for the WE rating.  It just does not make sense that it is easier to improve a WE rating from 30-37, than it is to improve a WE rating from 15-22.  
6/2/2014 7:35 PM (edited)
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/2/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/1/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
This may be accurate, but it is not consistent with my understanding or experience as to how ratings improve. I believe that there is still a significant difference the further you get from the middle.

If you can point me to the specific HD update that you are thinking about, I'd be very interested in reading it.
As mully stated, I believe it was addressed when potential was first implemented.  Prior to potential, it was basically impossible to improve a very low rating.  This used to be a huge complaint of the HD community...coaches were upset they couldn't improve their players' ratings if it started very low.  Now, for other ratings aside from WE, ratings improve at the same pace based on how far that player is from their potential.  For example, player A has a PE of 20 and a potential PE of 40.  Player B has a PE of 50 and a potential PE of 70.  All else being equal, they will improve at the same rate.  Whereas, that would happen for the WE rating.  It just does not make sense that it is easier to improve a WE rating from 30-37, than it is to improve a WE rating from 15-22.  
The only thing I found that sort of says that was in a Dev chat from 2009 (Link):

can you talk about the rate of change in skill ratings - it used to be that ratings that were low - single digits - or high - 90+ or even 85+ changed only very very slowly. 1. is that still true? 2. does the rate of change slow as a player gets close to his potential cap? 3. will that be more so or less so with the newest change? (metsmax - Hall of Famer - 1:38 PM)

It's now much easier to improve low rated categories than it was in the pre-potential days. The rate of improvement does slow as they near their max potential.


This certainly says that it is "much easier" to improve those low categories than it was in pre-potential days (I wasn't here for those), but it doesn't go so far as this thread has indicated. My own limited experience/observation suggests to me that it is still a curve of sorts (though perhaps far less than it used to be).
6/2/2014 4:05 PM
zags27
Posts: 462 (0)
Hall of Famer
144
Rookie
I usally like to disagree with Dac... so I had to wait for 2... to agree with BrianX..... who agreed with GoFins
6/3/2014 11:57 AM
fd343ny
Posts: 2251 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 605 36
Veteran
Posted by dedelman on 6/1/2014 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fd343ny on 6/1/2014 6:56:00 AM (view original):
the best situation would be if there were differences among players - and you could figure it out with evals

so, one guy with a WE of say 5 might increase only very slowly even if given plenty of minutes

another guy with a WE of 5 might improve at a much faster pace

eval might signal potential to improve WE and the rate of improvement - "this kid has been unmotivated, but talking with him and his parents, I think with the right coaching he could really turn that around".......
This would be cool.
just bringing back to the fore this suggestion - make this a kind of texture - not everyone the same...we need more texture in recruiting and this would be a good way to do it.

Imagine a kid with single digit WE - but where his eval says skys the limit on his WE in the right environment - folks who do FSS would think he's a bum, but an eval could make him a diamond in the rough....
6/3/2014 12:15 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by zags27 on 6/3/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):
I usally like to disagree with Dac... so I had to wait for 2... to agree with BrianX..... who agreed with GoFins
6/3/2014 1:23 PM
utahjazz88
Posts: 44 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 92 1 13
Prospect
Posted by fd343ny on 6/3/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dedelman on 6/1/2014 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fd343ny on 6/1/2014 6:56:00 AM (view original):
the best situation would be if there were differences among players - and you could figure it out with evals

so, one guy with a WE of say 5 might increase only very slowly even if given plenty of minutes

another guy with a WE of 5 might improve at a much faster pace

eval might signal potential to improve WE and the rate of improvement - "this kid has been unmotivated, but talking with him and his parents, I think with the right coaching he could really turn that around".......
This would be cool.
just bringing back to the fore this suggestion - make this a kind of texture - not everyone the same...we need more texture in recruiting and this would be a good way to do it.

Imagine a kid with single digit WE - but where his eval says skys the limit on his WE in the right environment - folks who do FSS would think he's a bum, but an eval could make him a diamond in the rough....
This is an interesting idea fd.  They'd have to be careful in introducing it though.  Not too many coaches would be happy signing guys with 30 WE, which they won't be able to improve.  Right now, a lot of the great players start out with pretty low WEs.  I'd maybe be for the idea of implementing potential for the WE category, but they should put a floor on how much guys can improve. (ex: every player will at least be able to improve their WE 20 points.) They can incorporate it into the existing FSS, so when people scout states they can see that player's WE potential.  I'm not for only listing it in evals though because the eval system is poorly designed.  Coaches would be unable to plan ahead.  Although, if a a coach wants to use evals after, they'd be able to see if the player is "high-high" potential.  
6/3/2014 1:56 PM
jsajsa
Posts: 631 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 1 133 3
Rookie
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/2/2014 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/1/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Dac, that is one of my biggest points.  Other ratings do not improve slower the closer you get to 0 or 100.  It is all based on where their potential is.  Someone who has a passing rating of 20 and high potential will improve just as fast as someone with a passing rating of 50 and high potential.  What you are saying used to be the case where it was extremely difficult to improve a low rating, but they implemented a fix for that problem several years ago.  The only rating category they did not fix was WE.  

It does not make sense that just because rating is closer to 0 that it should be much harder to improve.  
This may be accurate, but it is not consistent with my understanding or experience as to how ratings improve. I believe that there is still a significant difference the further you get from the middle.

If you can point me to the specific HD update that you are thinking about, I'd be very interested in reading it.
As mully stated, I believe it was addressed when potential was first implemented.  Prior to potential, it was basically impossible to improve a very low rating.  This used to be a huge complaint of the HD community...coaches were upset they couldn't improve their players' ratings if it started very low.  Now, for other ratings aside from WE, ratings improve at the same pace based on how far that player is from their potential.  For example, player A has a PE of 20 and a potential PE of 40.  Player B has a PE of 50 and a potential PE of 70.  All else being equal, they will improve at the same rate.  Whereas, that would not happen for the WE rating.  It just does not make sense that it is easier to improve a WE rating from 30-37, than it is to improve a WE rating from 15-22.  
Sorry to rehash an old thread, but I just wanted to prove the falsity of the poster's point that no matter how low a rating is, it will improve at a rate based on distance from potential.

Bluth www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/RatingsHistory.aspx had the exact same amount of minutes in his PER rating in his sophomore season as he did in his freshman season. As a freshmen, he started at 10 and grew a mere 13 points. His sophomore season, now that he's further away from 0... 22 points of growth, with technically another day of improvement to go.
7/9/2014 10:53 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
i tend to agree that current rating, as a factor in growth, still applies. you still grow faster at 50 than 90 or 10. its just that its a much smaller factor now that potential has been added as a factor as well.

also, i think its wrong to call the work ethic growth rate a glitch, when its worked that way forever, and we and the game admins have all known its worked that way forever. its by design, not a bug. 

i voted no but would be fine if they let low work ethic players grow, it still would stunt their growth significantly. i think its good that work ethic exists as a meaningful factor and don't want to see it go away, but its also annoying when quality players are knocked out by single digit work ethic. if players with low work ethic gained 5-7 or whatever when starting, i don't think it would make work ethic meaningless, it would just allow *some* growth, still significantly diminished. i'd be ok with that, but im not excited about it either.
7/10/2014 11:47 AM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
Poll-Suggestion-Change Logic for WE improvement Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.