Posted by schuyler101 on 6/25/2010 2:35:00 AM (view original):
how about making development a little less predictable?

I'm all for varying development arcs, but they should still be discernible. Maybe not so predictable that adv scouting is worthless (and I say this as someone who budgets $0 for it on all my teams), but you kinda need to have some idea which players are likely to become good and when in a dynasty game like this.

I suggested in another thread tying adv scouting to the likelihood that you'd see diamonds in the rough, but that might be a "solution" to two things that aren't really even problems. Carrying no adv scouts does not come without risk, after all.

Posted by mitchrapp on 6/25/2010 5:41:00 AM (view original):
Then it's just random. You can't have a game that all it's parts are random.

There is a ton of middle ground between almost formulaic improvement (which is nearly what we have now) and completely random. You could do it a number of ways, including just increasing the range of possible improvement, going with more "fuzzy" indicators (either A-F grades, or something like HD with "High", "Average", and "Low" potential), or even making something like Makeup of *much* more importance, so that the 99 makeup guy may see 2-3 times the improvement of the basketcase with a 20 makeup (that would provide variation).

Not sure any of those examples are the long-term solution, but there are plenty of possibilities between what we have and just random.

You guys love to complicate the issue.   If this is even an issue.  As travis said, 0 ADV does have it's disadvantages.  I, for one, trade less now that I'm at 0.   If I'm not somewhat reasonably sure about a prospect, I either don't trade him or trade for him.

I think increasing the importance and/or the interaction between patience, temper and makeup is the way to go, rather than changing the numbered rating system.

For example, you might expect a guy with high patience and makeup to take longer to reach his projections but stay at his peak for a little longer than other players. High patience/low makeup guys might become late bloomers, but a riskier bet. Guys with bad tempers might respond less favorably to coaching and, thus, be less likely to improve.

I'm not sure how much those components already factor into development, but increasing their importance (à la coaching loyalty) might be a good way to tweak the development patterns. But it still wouldn't do much to prevent owners from zeroing out their adv scouting budget.

I've already provided the simple solution to 0 ADV.  I know, for a fact, that it would destroy my strategies and force me to use ADV.

What was your solution? Believe it or not, I don't archive your comments or anything. Sometimes I don't even read them.

I wasn't directing it to you.   It's just that everyone likes to complicate things that would require MASSIVE changes to the engine.   If you're interested, it's on page 1.   It's not like you have to dig thru dozens of pages.   And, unlike most, I'm brief so you won't have to read a book.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 10:32:00 PM (view original):
Simple.  The amount of IFA/HS/College budget determines how many players you see, ADV determines the accuracy of their projected ratings.


He says as he punches himself in the nuts.

Ah, the first time I read this I didn't notice it was different from the current setup. But wouldn't this just devalue IFA/HS/College scouting? That is, unless low (let's say, sub-$12m) budgets were pretty severely penalized. Or at least noticeably.

I can't honestly answer that.   It seems that 20m doesn't let you see everyone but, when I've got 10m, I hardly ever see anyone drafted early.   There may already be a severe penalty.  Or, maybe, some of the owners with 20m aren't seeing those guys either.

I have a young team as it stands, but as they progress and get to the ripe age of 27, I can see a lower adv scouting budget being a manageable thing. In my league there is a big focus on team prospect reports, which is fun, but means there is also a lot of prospects being traded, so if you were to drop your AS budget dramatically, you would definitely need to refrain from the prospect trading frenzy.

IF HBD made INFA, Col, and HS scouting numbers only and used ADV scouting for accuracy it would lead me to increase my ADV scouting BUT I would decrease my college and HS scouting budgets an equivalent amount (Infa already varies based on my prospect budget).  These are presently high because I am interested in accuracy NOT number of players seen (there are only so many good players and it really will not matter if I see 10 out of 30 of them or 20 out of 30 of them if I am picking 26th - what matters is accuracy).  So this just re-arranges the chairs on the deck of the Titantic.  If I am going to spend more on scouting then I need to get more - ie true advance scouting of my opponents (see previous post)

If WIS went with Mike's suggestion to make projected HS, College and Int based on Adv Scouting you could still go without advanced scouting if you just based everything on current ratings because player development is so predictable.  Its the same reason most of us feel comfortable trading for a prospect with zero advanced scouting.  For instance, a 18 or 19 year old with current ratings in the 60's is lamost always a future stud. 

Posted by new on 6/25/2010 11:34:00 AM (view original):
If WIS went with Mike's suggestion to make projected HS, College and Int based on Adv Scouting you could still go without advanced scouting if you just based everything on current ratings because player development is so predictable.  Its the same reason most of us feel comfortable trading for a prospect with zero advanced scouting.  For instance, a 18 or 19 year old with current ratings in the 60's is lamost always a future stud. 

+1

Posted by travisg on 6/25/2010 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by schuyler101 on 6/25/2010 2:35:00 AM (view original):
how about making development a little less predictable?

I'm all for varying development arcs, but they should still be discernible. Maybe not so predictable that adv scouting is worthless (and I say this as someone who budgets $0 for it on all my teams), but you kinda need to have some idea which players are likely to become good and when in a dynasty game like this.

I suggested in another thread tying adv scouting to the likelihood that you'd see diamonds in the rough, but that might be a "solution" to two things that aren't really even problems. Carrying no adv scouts does not come without risk, after all.

Disagree.  Need to vary development arcs A LOT-- to the point where only ADV will give you that "some idea" who is good and who isn't (except for the studs).  Examples-- some players (other than older intls) need to peak prior to the 4th season in the pros; some players (other than those that suck enough to get DitR status) need to have real growth after the 4th pro season.  Some players need to do nothing for a season or two then rapidly progress.  Letting patience and makeup influence would be OK but wouldn't get at the real problem.

The predictability of development is (IMO) by far the biggest remaining problem with HBD.

Posted by new on 6/25/2010 11:34:00 AM (view original):
If WIS went with Mike's suggestion to make projected HS, College and Int based on Adv Scouting you could still go without advanced scouting if you just based everything on current ratings because player development is so predictable.  Its the same reason most of us feel comfortable trading for a prospect with zero advanced scouting.  For instance, a 18 or 19 year old with current ratings in the 60's is lamost always a future stud. 

I really disagree with this.