Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/11/2009We've gotten a large amount of feedback since player potential was introduced that indicates a need to tweak player improvement. We're implementing and testing some changes now.

The overall effect of the change will be slower development of players. Currently, most players are developing over about a 2 year period. We'd like that to stretch that out so most players peak as juniors and seniors. Of course every player has a different combination of potential, work ethic, and practice plan, so that peak will vary from player to player.

We're not planning any changes at this time to potential itself.

This change will likely be released some time next week and will immediately take effect in all worlds

if I read this right, this is not a change at all, everything is working the same except slower??? am I missing something???

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 2/11/2009. . . but after two years you'd end up at 74 to 76 sure not much if any growth in two years time but it gives us something to use practice minutes on otherwise once its capped we are stuck keeping 8 lousy minutes in it hoping it doesn't decrease.

But if I were able to exceed 70, then that means my potential was higher than 70 to begin with.

I think there's some confusion because under the current rate of improvement, it's hard not to hit potential in every category. Once we slow down the rate of improvement, you won't necessarily be maxing everything out, even after 4 years.

People hate seein that a player can't improve is the problem. Like Zhawks just said, we want to see players still move even if it's slowly. Once they hit that low potential, then they may only improve 2 -3 points in a year, but in real life some players greatly exceed expectations. Some players with no hype in certain areas sometimes exceed those expectations and become good at it. It would be the random or maybe even the WE factor....

OR - i thought the same thing - it's not really a big change

Or thats how i read it too. i think you might be miss reading what we dislike seble its not the fast growth rate we are fine with that we just don't like the fact that our players stop improving. slowing it down isn't the complete answer.

... the issue to consider with potential is that in real life, the scouting reports give potential for a player to improve, but no scouting report ever knows that a player will not pass that cap.

Quote: Originally Posted By jjboogie on 2/11/2009OR - i thought the same thing - it's not really a big chang

what is a big change, is if you took a 55 STAM recruit with high potential in the last class, and now will wait 4 years for him to get into the 70's, rather than 1? Or if you took a high potential juco, who now is useless?

These things gotta be thought thru

right seble. so you could have come in at a 45 and high potential, reached it realitivly quick then after two more years you got a little bit better. just from continued practice.

BUT - I really appreciate the fact seble is addressing this - I'd gladly live with ST flaws in this, if indeed LT fixes can be found.

Another thought is to let us practice offense and defense sets individually for the players so our unused minutes can still go into something useful.

fine seble here's a way for you to look at this. i'm going to use you as an example again. and your 70 potential. lets say 45 is your base as a fr. you work up til your 'cap' at 65 where your mega growth shuts off and you can use the exponential curve. .

. . . like as you reach 100 but instead of 100 your 100 would be 70 so you'd still be growing and growing at what might look above potential but you're just slowly finishing the maxing out process

Doesn't this adjustment also give certain teams definite advantages and others disadvantages? Teams who have had big recruiting classes the last couple seasons have now gained a distinct advantage on those who had small classes. They will have had the benefit of more players getting the large improvements. If it was to be completely fair it should not take effect until an entire roster has been run through

Scott, what if anything is being addressed regarding the offseason regression of high WE players. I had a 92 WE player that had higher ratings starting his sophomore season compared to when he started his senior season. He actually stayed even throughout the year and then regressed in the offseasons.

Quote: Originally Posted By bigslick_ak on 2/11/2009Doesn't this adjustment also give certain teams definite advantages and others disadvantages? Teams who have had big recruiting classes the last couple seasons have now gained a distinct advantage on those who had small classes. They will have had the benefit of more players getting the large improvements. If it was to be completely fair it should not take effect until an entire roster has been run throug

Whose roster? It would be a continuous cycle of roster turn over and never implemented.