Are projected ratings assigned with makeup in mind, or are they based on if a player's makeup was 100?

If I had to guess, I would say it assumes 100 makeup.  But that's good question for admin, if you can get a decent response out of them.

I believe projected ratings are independent of makeup.

That's actually a really interesting question. I would tend to agree with mhul/tec and think it was independent of makeup, but I would like to see this answered in the DevChat.

It almost has to be independent, right?

I think there are simply some ratings you just aren't going to reach, even with 100 makeup and perfect development.

Or maybe they use 100 makeup as a baseline, and then adjust accordingly for advanced scouting.

Don't agree .... seen to many instances of players with low makeup projected to small gains as opposed to high-makeup players projected to much higher gains.  Players' makeup is something you have very litttle control over .... why should a low makeup player be projected to levels he'll never reach in a hundred years?

"why should a low makeup player be projected to levels he'll never reach in a hundred years"

Shouldn't understanding, or at least making an informed guess as to whether or not projections are reasonably attainable, be part of the game?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/16/2011 8:04:00 PM (view original):
"why should a low makeup player be projected to levels he'll never reach in a hundred years"

Shouldn't understanding, or at least making an informed guess as to whether or not projections are reasonably attainable, be part of the game?

Not only that, but you scouting is going to have an effect, too.  So I'm not sure makeup could have that much of an effect.

Posted by isack24 on 2/16/2011 3:25:00 PM (view original):
It almost has to be independent, right?

I think there are simply some ratings you just aren't going to reach, even with 100 makeup and perfect development.

Or maybe they use 100 makeup as a baseline, and then adjust accordingly for advanced scouting.

I think that with 100 makeup and perfect development, a player will hit his maximum projections. If not, that's a big problem in the game.

Posted by mbriese on 2/16/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 2/16/2011 3:25:00 PM (view original):
It almost has to be independent, right?

I think there are simply some ratings you just aren't going to reach, even with 100 makeup and perfect development.

Or maybe they use 100 makeup as a baseline, and then adjust accordingly for advanced scouting.

I think that with 100 makeup and perfect development, a player will hit his maximum projections. If not, that's a big problem in the game.

and 20M in scouting

The question is around whether or not we should knock down projections according to makeup when ranking players, or if that's already taken into account when the projections are made.

Posted by mbriese on 2/16/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 2/16/2011 3:25:00 PM (view original):
It almost has to be independent, right?

I think there are simply some ratings you just aren't going to reach, even with 100 makeup and perfect development.

Or maybe they use 100 makeup as a baseline, and then adjust accordingly for advanced scouting.

I think that with 100 makeup and perfect development, a player will hit his maximum projections. If not, that's a big problem in the game.

But there's no such thing as "true projections," so I don't really see why there would be a problem.

I believe there is a "true projection" for players.  Can't see how the development engine would work if there wasn't.

Sure, but we don't see it.  So not sure how the 100 makeup/perfect development is relevant, even if true.

Too many variables.  Coaching has not been mentioned, but it is also a factor along with health, makeup, medical, training, etc..

Plus, as you point out, nobody can ever know what the true projection actually is (even with $20m advanced scouting).

All you can really do is strive to get the maximum development as you can by following all the best practices.