wiz!

what i was trying to say is that capped out skills do not regress if set to zero practice.

to say it in another way... you do not need 7-10 (not sure how you ever needed 10 except for FT) minutes to maintain a skillrating.

am i making sense?

now, i guess i could be wrong about it. but i wanrt to make clear what i am saying because wiz kinda said "youre right" and then ignored what i had just said.

do you need 6 or 7 minutes to maintain capped ratings? I say no from what i have seem . they will stay pretty much where they are with no practice minutes at all.

i like caps and potential because no matter what type of coach you are you can't and shouldn't be able to coach every player "up" to the same ratings.

yes, i do think that they need to stop the steroid era of DI but they need to keep caps and potential in play imo. we need to have different players when they come into your program. not play-doh guys you can mold into whatever you want. you also can't and shouldn't be able to coach "up" a player from a 40 perimiter to a 90. just doesn't happen, nor should it imo. that's the ridiculous nature of the zhawks camp argument for me.

lower the ratings of DI recruits, keep caps and potential and lets move on.

There was a cap in the old potential system, a very very soft cap, to get a guy where you wanted him in one rating required you to let another skill improve less (ole d didn't you just bring something up about this, how to increase the meaning of practice minutes?), now that control is gone.

nams, you are saying that coaches in real life have no ability to either a) shape their players the way they want or b) coach a player up? I completely disagree.

how come I was not able to get 40 guys up to 90, was I missing something, there are 9-12 skills, at 50 improvement per skill, that would be 450 - 600 pts of improvements, on 650-700 level guys, that would be 1100-1300.

I seem to recall 120-150 pts of improvement in the good old days in a career, with maybe 30-35 tops in one or two categories. I think total player ratings have gone up, not down with potential, just have less control over where and how the improvement occurs.

On the other hand, Zhawks, are you saying that any player can become anything, only based on the amount of effort the coach spends teaching them?

I like potential in general. I wouldn't mind having the current system except remove the hard cap and replace it with a cost multiplier based on the potential rating. As an off the cuff example, .75* cost for high potential, 1.0 times for average, and 1.25 for low(Obviously not those specific numbers but, you get the idea.)

Quote: Originally posted by oldresorter on 12/09/2009how come I was not able to get 40 guys up to 90, was I missing something, there are 9-12 skills, at 50 improvement per skill, that would be 450 - 600 pts of improvements, on 650-700 level guys, that would be 1100-1300.I seem to recall 120-150 pts of improvement in the good old days in a career, with maybe 30-35 tops in one or two categories.  I think total player ratings have gone up, not down with potential, just have less control over where and how the improvement occurs.

600 pts of improvement for one player? psshhh. thats nothing. i would get 800 points of improvement all the time :P

Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 12/09/2009On the other hand, Zhawks, are you saying that any player can become anything, only based on the amount of effort the coach spends teaching them?

I like potential in general. I wouldn't mind having the current system except remove the hard cap and replace it with a cost multiplier based on the potential rating. As an off the cuff example, .75* cost for high potential, 1.0 times for average, and 1.25 for low(Obviously not those specific numbers but, you get the idea.)

A coach in real life has a trillion times more ability to develop their players then we do in HD, actually come to think of it an infinite amount more, seeing as how we have 0 currently.

And please don't get me wrong, I think potential is a great idea and does have a place in HD, it has just been very poorly implemented and never fixed. Yeah sure we had a small slowdown a few years back, which really did nothing. Some players now maxout sometime early in their junior year instead of at the end of their sophomore year. I do think the system can be fixed to give everybody what they want and I have shared my idea of tying in the speed of how fast players develop directly to a players playing time numerous times. That would give the coaches who want more control, well more control - play your young guys and they will develop more steadily. It would also allow for a hard potential cap. I think a soft cap is better, but won't argue that as I do feel that our 'hard cap' isn't quite as hard as some think seeing as how you can usually squeeze out another point if you are lucky enough after getting the maxed out message, but I would more prefer to have those last 5 points (give or take depending on player) be harder to squeeze out, in effect that would create a 'hard cap' that would seem more like a soft cap.

Quote: Originally posted by thewizard2 on 12/09/2009

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 12/09/2009wiz,  im not sure thats true... that you need to put 7-10 minutes to maintain capped out ratings.for some reason, intended or not,  it seems like capped ratings never go down,  even with zero practice.  or at least they go down very little like a point a season or so

You're correct, you still need 7-10 minutes to maintain maxed out ratings. Here was my point. Hypothetically, let's say you need 1,500 practice minutes in a particular skill to "max out".

If you have them use 25 minutes of practice per skill, you will reach max potential at the end of their sophomore season. But then you would need to use up an additional 10 minutes of practice time for the next 60 games to maintain the ratings. That's about 600 extra minutes, where you could achieve the same result with only 1500 minutes of practice time.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the strategy behind putting a whole bunch of minutes into a skill, however, since potential was added, I haven't seen anything significant from 12 to 20 minutes of practice.

You are really wasting 7 mins to keep a rating in place? 0 has held all my maxed out areas (even as low as 3 on FT shooting) other then on low WE players. I need about 3 minutes to hold the ratings in place on some.

It doesn't make sense, why wasn't this announced then? It's always been 7-10 minutes before. What changed?

If you maxed out before potential and didn't set your practice minutes to 7-10, the ratings would drop.

Quote: Originally posted by thewizard2 on 12/09/2009It doesn't make sense, why wasn't this announced then? It's always been 7-10 minutes before. What changed?

If you maxed out before potential and didn't set your practice minutes to 7-10, the ratings would drop.

it changed with the potential release. it will drop with 0, but it drops really, really slowly in most cases. like .2 points per year or something.

Quote: Originally posted by thewizard2 on 12/09/2009It doesn't make sense, why wasn't this announced then? It's always been 7-10 minutes before. What changed?

If you maxed out before potential and didn't set your practice minutes to 7-10, the ratings would drop.

I don't think so. Before potential I often had 3 minutes on areas and that was enough to hold them in place. High WE guys even at 0 they would only drop a couple points over there whole career.

Random thought of the day... (yeah, I haven't looked at the site since my last post)...

... I'd still have 10+ teams if Potential weren't here. It's stupid. I can't stand it's implementation. It could be the fact that they've stated that it's going to stay in the game that drives me away.

Oh what I would give to be able to actually develop players in the manner that I see fit, instead of being locked into some mold that they start with.

I've said it for a year now... gone are the days of WhatIfSports, here are the times of ThisIsSports.

mlat, I agree that the old way gave you a lot more 'whatif' - you really think there is no way to fix FSS? I think there is, but it would be another big change (the one i mentioned a few posts ago).

a top coach's parting shots in world 4:

I think I got my firt HD team in the summer of 2004 and while realism has never been a strong point of the game it has gotten noticably worse the past couple of seasons. Plus its just boring not being able to coach players to be what you want them to ......be. I don't think I spent more than 30 seconds looking at my team any day during the entire season except for trying to figure out how out to set my depth chart (to no avail of course). Just annoying, frustrating and boring... no reason to keep ......paying for that kind of joy.