Guy with 56 WE and average potential as an incoming freshman gained 1 point in speed from the beginning to the end of his sophomore season. Do I have a gripe? Is it fair?

Average ranges from like a 7 improvement over a players career to 19 or 20. Your guy could've improved 6 in speed his freshman year and then maxed out. I had a guy come in with 60 reb and avg, and graduated with 67 reb.

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 1/18/2010
Average ranges from like a 7 improvement over a players career to 19 or 20. Your guy could've improved 6 in speed his freshman year and then maxed out. I had a guy come in with 60 reb and avg, and graduated with 67 reb.

I think Plunkett gained either 3 or 4 points in speed during his freshman season, however not sure what he gained during the offseason. Then the one point this season. I don't know, from 7 to 20 seems like such an extreme range for "average potential".

Maybe this will be a change in the next update?

I don't know, I think it would be nice to obtain this information through either coaches calls, FSS, evals etc. It just seems like you're rolling dice here.

Who knows, I like the fact that it's a large range so you can't easily guess where your player will end up. That was the drawback of the old system IMO, you could recruit a player and based on WE predict almost exactly what his final rating would be. While there is still some of that in potential era since there are varying caps for each improvement level you can get far more improvement than you expected or not nearly what you thought you would get (this part is only for average).

Quote: Originally posted by thewizard2 on 1/18/2010

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 1/18/2010Average ranges from like a 7 improvement over a players career to 19 or 20. Your guy could've improved 6 in speed his freshman year and then maxed out. I had a guy come in with 60 reb and avg, and graduated with 67 reb.

I think Plunkett gained either 3 or 4 points in speed during his freshman season, however not sure what he gained during the offseason. Then the one point this season. I don't know, from 7 to 20 seems like such an extreme range for "average potential".

Maybe this will be a change in the next update?

i agree that 6 to 20 is an extreme range. also, i find it completely ridiculous that low potential is broken into two categories, while medium is as one. seble is aware of the issue, and has agreed it is not desirable. but, when i talked to him about it, he didn't seem to feel it was too high a priority. i don't believe it is coming in this update, from what i've seen in the beta test forums. the one thing seble brought up as preventing him from making the change is the difficulty in deciphering the english text of the evals. the work around i see is to include the potential (such as, high high) in the message, under the assumption that nobody gives a **** about deciphering the english text. i honestly don't know anybody who thinks it makes the game more enjoyable, but i also haven't asked too many people... maybe i am wrong.

if this is an important issue for you, you might want to send in a ticket, requesting that evaluations potential messages be simply reworked to allow a breakdown for medium potential. if you don't care about the english text, i'd mention that too. as a programmer, this sounds like a pretty easy change to me, with little margin for error (which is important because it means you can squeeze it in at the end of beta testing without really going through a complete testing cycle).

Anyone in favor of FSS changing potentials to Very Low, Low, Average, High, Very High? I know I've had the same problems. In some cases I've had players with similar WE improve more over a career with Average potentials than players with High potentials, and vice versa with Low potentials.

Thought Evals revealed it? There was a forum on this not to long ago. There is different messages you get that tells you if its high-high and stuff like that.