ETA on a response to Tec's question?

In other words . . . huh?

Damned if that doesn't read like a ******* politician wrote it.

Doesn't answer the question asked, pretends to answer another question while not actually addressing anything.

Yikes

I'm just going to keep managing my prospects the way I always have.  If they're position players, they're in the starting lineup unless they dip below 98%.  If they're pitchers, they're in the rotation getting the ball every fifth day, or they're in the bullpen if they're at 100%.

Maximize games played, and AB/IP together.

CS really has become quite horrible.   I've been an apologist for years.  YEARS.   Just judging from these forums, I've assumed tickets have included such garbled mess that there's no way to decipher the question so they answer in Yoda-speak.   But this question, and many others, is straight forward and based on a Dev Chat response.  A clear answer should be simple enough.

Highly disappointing, but I suspect the answer was gibberish on purpose. The original info on games sounded like a slipup and they did not want to reveal any more.

Posted by damag on 2/10/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Damned if that doesn't read like a ******* politician wrote it.

Doesn't answer the question asked, pretends to answer another question while not actually addressing anything.

Let's dispel this notion right now that WIS doesn't know what it's doing. It knows exactly what it's doing.

Posted by dakar on 2/10/2016 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Highly disappointing, but I suspect the answer was gibberish on purpose. The original info on games sounded like a slipup and they did not want to reveal any more.

So you're assuming the Dev Chat answer is correct?

so... putting the dev chat response together with this response:

1) Games Played is the only priority for playing time-related development
2) 135 games played is equal to 162 games played

So, I would take that to mean we should have SP prospects in the bullpen and set up to pitch in at least 135 games. For position player prospects, we should start them and make sure they get to at least 135 games played.

note that admin did not dispel the idea of maximizing games played. as was mentioned earlier, it was a politician's "non answer answer."

if the answer to Tec's question was, "no. you should be maximizing AB's and IP's, along with total games played." then it would have been simpler.

also, in the Dev Chat the question was A) ABs/IPs, B) games played, or C) combo of both.

admin clearly and simply answered: "games played."

so admin had two chances to tell us that ABs/IPs matter in development, and both times did not tell us that ABs/IPs matter.

All along I've hated when forum posters deliberately spread misinformation about how to play these games, okay?

But HBD has been different from every other WiS product I've played, because it's the first time I've felt like the developers are guilty of cooking misinformation into the game.  Things like the impact of coaching, how ratings work together, what the FAQ and How-To's make you think you need to do.  Sure I get that if everyone knew exactly how the game works, then the whole exercise would become very formulaic.  But there's a ton of smoke and mirrors in HBD, and this is just one more example.

Posted by bigham23 on 2/10/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
so... putting the dev chat response together with this response:

1) Games Played is the only priority for playing time-related development
2) 135 games played is equal to 162 games played

So, I would take that to mean we should have SP prospects in the bullpen and set up to pitch in at least 135 games. For position player prospects, we should start them and make sure they get to at least 135 games played.

I think what they were trying to say was this - There are 144 games in each non-SS level. MiLB players probably - don't - get any benefit in any kind of extra play above what would essentially be a full season of minor league ball. Maybe that is considered 135 games (92-95% of a team's games played). Who knows. So if an owner figured out that by working in off days, promotions, and (I guess) spring training, that they could get a player over that 135/144 games played mark, it would do them no good. If they played in 150 games combined, the added 5-15 games would net them no additional improvement.

Now what "While those strategies would net the player games played, it's more about is the player playing in enough games that matters." means I am not sure. Is it a case where a 'game played' isn't essentially an appearance, but any appearance with X number of innings? Maybe. Lets say it is 4 innings player for a position player. Then perhaps the ultimate goal is to get a player in 135 games in which he plays at least 4 innings.

But thats just a guess, because whoever wrote Tec's CS response probably rode the short bus.