The Next Update for HBD Topic

travisg
Posts: 2126 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 265
Prospect
Posted by patrickm885 on 10/5/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Hey guys,

We have finished evaluating all of the submissions and we are planning to release an update very soon. Below you will find the items included in the first phase of a proposed 3 phase HBD update:
  • HOF Qualifications have been increased. Too many players that are not qualified were on the nomination list.
  • HOF Voting Results page
  • World scoreboard page
  • LIVE has been removed from the standings
  • Baserunning rating has been added to many pages
  • Fatigue column is now on the watch list page
  • Maximum number of players that can be watched has been increased to 60
  • HOF voting results in the world content will now always display top 6 vote getters regardless of induction
  • Private world rules page has been improved
  • Minor bug fixes
Thanks again to all of you that made submissions here, in the council, and in the submissions thread!
All of these will improve the HBD experience without tinkering with the game engine. Perfect.
10/5/2011 1:04 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
Posted by moethedog on 10/4/2011 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I'm back to this.  Fix the Defensive Ratings.  Either make the position dependent, or limit some guys to IF and some guys to OF (or OF/1B) and a few as utility types who play both.

NoGG SS should be albe to immediately become a GG CF.  No GG RF should be just as good at 3B.

I think "Positions" should be like "Offense and Defense IQ" in HD.  You start with a certain rating in various positions.

The more you play a position the better you are at it with some positions having connections to others.  Just because you have 80, 85, 85, 85 doesn't mean you are a good SS if you only ever play CF.  Also, if you have 40, 40, 40, 40 and are playing RF all the time and "know" the position doesn't mean you will be good at it.

This would make it so that, if you change a guys position on a whim, their would be a learning curve.  
10/5/2011 1:08 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I like that idea.  You would have a SS-IQ, a 2B-IQ, etc,  It could be a modifier on the invidual ratings already in place, and would progress (or regress) with experience (or lack of) over time. 

So for example: a SS with a range of 90 and a SS-IQ of 95 might be a lot more competent at short than a CF with a range of 90 and a CF-IQ of 65 would be in center.

An added benefit is that it might make spring training a little more meaningful if you could get more progression of the defensive IQ rating by having a player "learn" a different position during ST.
10/5/2011 1:28 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
You would need utility guys, guys that are acceptable fielding everywhere but hit worth crap. Your John McDonald types, if you will.

I would also say that the learning curve is no more than a year. You think about actual players that made the move, and it did not take them years to learn the position.

How well they did it was another story, but the time to get to that cap of "this is how well I'm going to play this position" did not extend past one season.
10/5/2011 1:50 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
I think Utility guys could happen easiest by just making sure you play then an a variety of positions.  Most Utility guys wouldn't be an A at their positions, but like a B at several. 
10/5/2011 1:59 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Then you need to add a "Utility" setting for the defensive assignment for a player.

Unless you want to micro manage your rookie team.
10/5/2011 2:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
While that may be a good idea for the owner who spends a lot of time on the site, it also alienates the guy who checks in 3-4 times a day.   I'm totally against dumbing down the game but increasing the difficulty even more limits the customer base.
10/5/2011 2:43 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2011 2:43:00 PM (view original):
While that may be a good idea for the owner who spends a lot of time on the site, it also alienates the guy who checks in 3-4 times a day.   I'm totally against dumbing down the game but increasing the difficulty even more limits the customer base.
All you would need to do is set the defensive roles once.  Otherwise they just need the at-bats, which is part of player development already. 
10/5/2011 3:52 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
You could even add this to the "recommendations" button.  Auto sets the "Save Projected Position Recommendations" and bamb, done.
10/5/2011 3:53 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So, in essence, I can set all my minor leaguers at each position and they'll develop at every position as long as they get AB?

Or do I have to make sure the player listed at C/1B/2B/3B/SS/LF/CF/RF plays all those positions?
10/5/2011 3:55 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
I think it should like this (granted with some modifications):

18 y/o Rookie Player A Has 80, 85, 85, 85: Plays at SS. Has marked in his "position" ALL positions except C.  

Develops at a rate of: 

Starts with / Develops at a rate of

1B: D / 0.5
2B: C- / 0.7
SS: C / 1.0
3B: C- / 0.5
LF: D- / 0.3
CF: F / 0.1
RF: F / 0.1

Projects to:

1B: B-
2B: B
SS: A
3B: C+
LF: C
CF: D-
RF: D-

This guy

Maybe something where a guy is marked as Utility. Requires less AB's, Develops at all positions at a really good rate, but has a B+ ceiling.

The fewer secondary positions you have, the faster and higher ceiling your grades develop.  So the above player only plays SS and get some double switch time at 2B only, you can get more out of him.

You can even have a "promotion reminder" type email to give your guys some innings at another position if you want him to be more dynamic.  The "older" your player, and more minor league innings they have at a position, the easier it is (and less time) to move up the grade at another position.
10/5/2011 4:25 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
Generally speaking some positions would be easier to learn. For example, 1B & Left field.  Maybe the better your ratings the easier to learn as well, but there is a learning curve.


10/5/2011 4:26 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

And we're back to "While that may be a good idea for the owner who spends a lot of time on the site, it also alienates the guy who checks in 3-4 times a day.   I'm totally against dumbing down the game but increasing the difficulty even more limits the customer base."

 

10/5/2011 4:27 PM
travisg
Posts: 2126 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 265
Prospect
I don't understand why folks are so bothered by the current defensive flexibility. You can drop in on most any world and find players playing out of position, and I am certain that more real-life teams could benefit from moving players around the defensive spectrum. They just don't because real-life players have egos, so they're loathe to move down the spectrum, and real-life managers have jobs to keep, so they're hesitant to move players up the spectrum. We don't have those same limitations, yet not everyone maximizes their defensive potential.
10/5/2011 4:31 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 35
Prospect
Maybe. I just don't see it as that intense of a change.  All it would fundamentally do is make it difficult for guys to have exceptional defense at a position they have never played.   
10/5/2011 4:32 PM
◂ Prev 1...16|17|18|19 Next ▸
The Next Update for HBD Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.