Why is that canned crap?  Just because you don't like the result?  If you are less than a point over the line between potentials, 20 minutes of practice can EASILY make somethign improve less than a point, and fall UNDER the line.

What was the Eval?  Perhaps you were wrong about what it meant?

Here's dacj501's list of eval messages. My guess is the message was for speed or LP, as you may have automatically thought it was high-high because you saw the word "much" or "lot" in all caps.

my question is why are there so many of these guys, that are so close to the borderline?  All of these guys with average potential that are so minisculely close to low that 7 minutes of practice time for one practice makes them low.  I know it can happen, but it seems to be happening to a lot of recruits right now in multiple categories.  I started a similar thread recently where my recruit had 2 of these average potential categories that immediately went to low and one that was high that went to average after one practice.  That just seems more than co-incidence that he had 3 of these 6.99 type growth areas that 7 minutes of practice was enough to switch him.

Are there 'That many' or are you just noticing them more?  I've rarely come across that issue myself.   Can't recall doing it any time recently, in fact.

yes meeper, exactly that.   Spd.  I have no real issue with the fraction answer, btw.  Nor do I have an issue with eval wording being somewhat misleading. irl there are no guarantees either.  As for canned crap, it is that simply because it's the same cut and paste answer any 1 of 50 coaches who asked the question will have gotten.

The bigger issue is that a recruit who looked pretty decent (even at the Low/High potential) , now looks like a much lesser, less serviceable player on a team that needs no further problems rebuilding. That being said, he's still a viable player, he's just not as shiny as he used to be. 1 practice into his career.

If the answer is the correct one, why should they change it?

Still trying to see why that is, in any way, a ticket worthy issue and I am just not seeing it.  

Perhaps you are too high up in the pulpit to have a clear view............

What does that have to do with anything?   Really?  Those players exist.  It does suck for you that you got one, but it doesn't mean that that is something 'problematic'. 

You sometimes get disappointing players.  I doubt you will ever complain about the guys that unexpectedly grow by 45 points in low post or perimeter.
 

 

LOL. Last response here. no need to hijack this thread entirely for a minor difference of opinion.   My reply to you is simply that I have been thru more than 1 update in the programming/features of this game. I have yet to see one go thru without hiccups. That is to be expected, it's simple common sense that programming updates will have issues. If no one questions them, how do they get corrected?

BY all means, question ... I just fail to see the existence of 'disappointment' players as an error.

I don't either. People want simulated realism. Disappointment players are a very real thing. You have a number of them every season in every sport. It happens.

This guy, for example, has been a major disappointment for me.  As things stand, he's likely never to be more than a bench player.  Live and learn.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/2/2012 11:11:00 AM (view original):
BY all means, question ... I just fail to see the existence of 'disappointment' players as an error.

+1

There has to be a cutoff somewhere.  If you recruit a guy because of certain high potentials without knowing whether he's high/high, then I think you should start assuming that he's only going up 20.  If you're assuming it's going to be 27, then you're going to be disappointed, but there's nothing wrong with the game.

If you use conservative estimates for growth then you will find yourself happy more often than disappointed.