Post-6.0a Change in Red/Green Bars

[CraigSca]

SKYDOG EDIT: Focus and title of thread has changed...

[Mestor]

I am not 100% sure this is a bug or its just the universe I just created, but on a fresh install of the new patch there is a HUGE shortage of green bars -- that is to say that in glancing at the rosters around the league, nobody has a future potential of >+10 from their current ability

I dont think its a scout thing, rookie matt leinart shows up as a 78/78 in preseason and my scout is VG QB and AV Young talent

his lowest scouting spot is one fair, everything else is average or greater

Oh, and I'm not 100% sure and I have to go to work soon so I can't double check, but it should be Main Street Difficulty

I hope its just a random weird thing

FWIW all the rooks seem to be 90%+ developed on the green page

weird...

edit picture --
http://www.torz.org/mestor/fof/woahsleinart.jpg

[JMO]

I noticed the same thing as regards to lack of grren bars. In my case it was a game I had started already and was in 20th year. It was just a mess around game whilst i waited for the new patch. Anyway i noticed all my rookies from the year before had a huge ratings increase. my qb jumped from 44/85 to 77/85 and my (3rd rd :D ) LT jumped from 24/68 to 55/68. Looking through my other saved games, the patch seems to have done this to all my games.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm... we experienced some of this in the GroupThink career. Perhaps there was some sort of ratings masking that was being applied pre-patch that has now been stripped out? Tought to know whether this is a bug or just a revised implementation of stuff that has been in there all along. *shurg*

[SunDevil]

Noticing on newly create leagues and a league I start two weeks pre-patch.

[Ben E Lou]

<table border="1"><tbody> <tr> <td>Name</td> <td>Pos</td> <td>2011e Current</td> <td>2011e Future</td> <td>2011e1 Current</td> <td>2011e1 Future</td> <td>Overall Current Change</td> <td>Overall Future Change</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hudson, T.J.</td> <td>QB</td> <td>20</td> <td>48</td> <td>35 (15)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>15</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Logsdon, Ralph</td> <td>QB</td> <td>24</td> <td>42</td> <td>32 (8)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>8</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>McKnight, Emmitt</td> <td>QB</td> <td>24</td> <td>51</td> <td>34 (10)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>10</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Vick, Michael</td> <td>QB</td> <td>65</td> <td>65</td> <td>66 (1)</td> <td>66 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Calhoun, Preston</td> <td>RB</td> <td>24</td> <td>41</td> <td>25 (1)</td> <td>38 (-3)</td> <td>1</td> <td>-3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Carlson, Desmond</td> <td>RB</td> <td>47</td> <td>49</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>48 (-1)</td> <td>0</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Freeman, Ricardo</td> <td>RB</td> <td>18</td> <td>18</td> <td>26 (8)</td> <td>26 (8)</td> <td>8</td> <td>8</td></tr> <tr> <td>Genovese, David</td> <td>RB</td> <td>26</td> <td>29</td> <td>26 (0)</td> <td>29 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Jones, Kevin</td> <td>RB</td> <td>42</td> <td>42</td> <td>43 (1)</td> <td>43 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Norwood, Jerious</td> <td>RB</td> <td>43</td> <td>43</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Askew, B.J.</td> <td>FB</td> <td>50</td> <td>50</td> <td>50 (0)</td> <td>50 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Johnson, Kyle</td> <td>FB</td> <td>46</td> <td>46</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Paz, Carlton</td> <td>TE</td> <td>24</td> <td>44</td> <td>29 (5)</td> <td>43 (-1)</td> <td>5</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Roundy, Scottie</td> <td>TE</td> <td>31</td> <td>43</td> <td>33 (2)</td> <td>42 (-1)</td> <td>2</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Shiancoe, Visanthe</td> <td>TE</td> <td>44</td> <td>44</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>44 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Brown, Reggie</td> <td>FL</td> <td>47</td> <td>47</td> <td>49 (2)</td> <td>49 (2)</td> <td>2</td> <td>2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Mahoney, Ron</td> <td>FL</td> <td>22</td> <td>26</td> <td>29 (7)</td> <td>29 (3)</td> <td>7</td> <td>3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Armstrong, Mack</td> <td>SE</td> <td>22</td> <td>38</td> <td>30 (8)</td> <td>38 (0)</td> <td>8</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Jenkins, Michael</td> <td>SE</td> <td>45</td> <td>45</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Jones, Matt</td> <td>SE</td> <td>48</td> <td>48</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>48 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Mathis, Jerome</td> <td>SE</td> <td>41</td> <td>41</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>41 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Parker, Samie</td> <td>SE</td> <td>39</td> <td>39</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Roberts, Ernest</td> <td>SE</td> <td>39</td> <td>39</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Sutton, Darrell</td> <td>SE</td> <td>49</td> <td>81</td> <td>74 (25)</td> <td>81 (0)</td> <td>25</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Mohon, Chester</td> <td>C</td> <td>25</td> <td>50</td> <td>28 (3)</td> <td>44 (-6)</td> <td>3</td> <td>-6</td></tr> <tr> <td>Rabach, Casey</td> <td>C</td> <td>46</td> <td>46</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>46 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Seals, Jeff</td> <td>C</td> <td>55</td> <td>55</td> <td>54 (-1)</td> <td>54 (-1)</td> <td>-1</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Connelly, Leslie</td> <td>LG</td> <td>31</td> <td>45</td> <td>37 (6)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>6</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Forney, Kynan</td> <td>LG</td> <td>47</td> <td>47</td> <td>48 (1)</td> <td>48 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Fay, Steven</td> <td>RG</td> <td>47</td> <td>47</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Ashworth, Tom</td> <td>LT</td> <td>43</td> <td>43</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>43 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Fields, Clifton</td> <td>RT</td> <td>23</td> <td>39</td> <td>23 (0)</td> <td>33 (-6)</td> <td>0</td> <td>-6</td></tr> <tr> <td>Green, Bryan</td> <td>RT</td> <td>31</td> <td>57</td> <td>36 (5)</td> <td>55 (-2)</td> <td>5</td> <td>-2</td></tr> <tr> <td>Lake, Justin</td> <td>RT</td> <td>36</td> <td>68</td> <td>51 (15)</td> <td>68 (0)</td> <td>15</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Sanford, Ricky</td> <td>RT</td> <td>51</td> <td>51</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Morales, Alvin</td> <td>K</td> <td>30</td> <td>30</td> <td>30 (0)</td> <td>30 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Colquitt, Dustin</td> <td>P</td> <td>45</td> <td>45</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>45 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Abraham, John</td> <td>LDE</td> <td>67</td> <td>67</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>67 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Grant, Charles</td> <td>LDE</td> <td>27</td> <td>27</td> <td>27 (0)</td> <td>27 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Milner, Mitchell</td> <td>LDE</td> <td>48</td> <td>59</td> <td>54 (6)</td> <td>56 (-3)</td> <td>6</td> <td>-3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Corbett, J.J.</td> <td>LDT</td> <td>35</td> <td>35</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Johnson, Tank</td> <td>LDT</td> <td>46</td> <td>46</td> <td>47 (1)</td> <td>47 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Thomas, Gus</td> <td>LDT</td> <td>51</td> <td>51</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>51 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Coleman, Roderick</td> <td>RDT</td> <td>35</td> <td>35</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Dumervil, Elvis</td> <td>RDT</td> <td>33</td> <td>33</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Allen, Jared</td> <td>RDE</td> <td>53</td> <td>53</td> <td>53 (0)</td> <td>53 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Boley, Michael</td> <td>SLB</td> <td>44</td> <td>44</td> <td>45 (1)</td> <td>45 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Colvin, Rosevelt</td> <td>SLB</td> <td>33</td> <td>33</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>33 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hubinger, Ernest</td> <td>MLB</td> <td>8</td> <td>17</td> <td>15 (7)</td> <td>16 (-1)</td> <td>7</td> <td>-1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Lomond, Matthew</td> <td>MLB</td> <td>68</td> <td>68</td> <td>68 (0)</td> <td>68 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hagler, Tyjuan</td> <td>WLB</td> <td>42</td> <td>42</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>42 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hall, DeAngelo</td> <td>LCB</td> <td>66</td> <td>66</td> <td>66 (0)</td> <td>66 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Stoughton, Jamal</td> <td>LCB</td> <td>18</td> <td>39</td> <td>25 (7)</td> <td>39 (0)</td> <td>7</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Hawkins, Michael</td> <td>RCB</td> <td>47</td> <td>47</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>47 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Lucas, Ken</td> <td>RCB</td> <td>37</td> <td>37</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>May, Adrian</td> <td>RCB</td> <td>49</td> <td>49</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>49 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Zemaitis, Alan</td> <td>RCB</td> <td>38</td> <td>38</td> <td>38 (0)</td> <td>38 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Jackson, Dexter</td> <td>SS</td> <td>37</td> <td>37</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>37 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr> <tr> <td>Johnson, Todd</td> <td>SS</td> <td>49</td> <td>49</td> <td>50 (1)</td> <td>50 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Gibson, Derrick</td> <td>FS</td> <td>54</td> <td>54</td> <td>55 (1)</td> <td>55 (1)</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Washington, Mercury</td> <td>FS</td> <td>28</td> <td>42</td> <td>28 (0)</td> <td>39 (-3)</td> <td>0</td> <td>-3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Washington, Rashad</td> <td>FS</td> <td>35</td> <td>35</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>35 (0)</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

[KWhit]

SD, I'm assuming those ratings changes happened immediately when you applied the patch? Meaning that you didn't sim ahead at all between the two saves? Is that correct?

[CraigSca]

I'm seeing the lack of green bars as well. Was this intentional?

[SunDevil]

If it is intentional, kind of removes the whole point of having a good scout. It almost looks like the scouting error has been removed.

[Ben E Lou]

SD, I'm assuming those ratings changes happened immediately when you applied the patch? Meaning that you didn't sim ahead at all between the two saves? Is that correct?It just happened that my career was saved immediately after training camp, and that's a time when I do change tracking (2011e). All I did was load up the saved career with 6.0a, and did the 2011e1 print to file. It's in the same place as 2011, sill in exhibition week 1.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Anybody recognize this guy???

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><td>Freeman, Ricardo</td> <td>RB</td> <td>18</td> <td>18</td> <td>26 (8)</td> <td>26 (8)</td> <td>8</td> <td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

HINT: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=54192

[highfiveoh]

If it is intentional, kind of removes the whole point of having a good scout. It almost looks like the scouting error has been removed.

I really hope this isn't the case. I was really looking forward to the change, especially in my MP league. Stats were going to be key. I can only recall a couple of guys saying they didn't like the new scouting error.

[amdaily]

The lack of green bars is a huge problem. Just started a new career and finished up my first draft. It's like everyone is fully developed.

I didn't save pre-draft, but I was closely looking at 2 CB's, which to my recollection, were 45% or 35% developed. After camp they are:

84/86
76/83

[Ben E Lou]

I don't know. I happen to think that Freeman may be better than 26/26, and that FL Ron Mahoney (jumped from 22/26 to 29/29 with the new version) may be better than 29/29. If they are, then perhaps their original scouted ratings were TOO far off to be realistic.

[DolphinFan1]

I'm seeing some of my guys more developed but some are not. So this may just be a correction on the scouting error.

[Solecismic]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

[Mestor]

Well I don't know if its scouting error or even a bug

but if my NFL scout tells me that my rookie QB who hasnt played a down of NFL football is fully developed I'm pretty sure he'd be looking for work VERY soon

I don't mind misrepresented ratings but this is just weird : o


edit - well okay, right from the horses mouth. it is WAD then?

[MizzouRah]

That screenie of Leinhart bothers me.

[MizzouRah]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

Didn't see this post yet, so that's fine if it's intentional... I think.

I always play on the highest level.. so we'll see.

[SunDevil]

That screenie of Leinhart bothers me.

me too. With this new system, what are you suppose to take from that screen shot. He is completely developed but with a really high volatility will he mostly decline?

[amdaily]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

Then the experience bar should really be on the player card. If all players are going to be near fully developed from the get-go, I'll be forced to right click on each and every player to see which one has the experience to be starting.

[CraigSca]

This makes a lot of sense to me now. The guy could have skyhigh scouted ratings, but his experience (or lack thereof) will effect them accordingly.

It's a little more under the covers now, and I tend to agree that this info should be more readily available (though I personally can deal with it).

[CraigSca]

dola

Which may make that aging veteran, who's bars are flat-lining, more attractive to pick up as a free agent. Maybe his experience can make up for the fact he can no longer run a 4.4 40.

[highfiveoh]

So what does 'Current' mean by definition now?

[MalcPow]

Then the experience bar should really be on the player card. If all players are going to be near fully developed from the get-go, I'll be forced to right click on each and every player to see which one has the experience to be starting.

Good point. I actually like the change, as the green bars always seemed to be a false way to represent things, but then you should also be able to see a player's primary positional experience level on the scout overview roster screen as well.

[Mestor]

dola

Which may make that aging veteran, who's bars are flat-lining, more attractive to pick up as a free agent. Maybe his experience can make up for the fact he can no longer run a 4.4 40.

I'm not sure that would be the case, as it would imply experience acts as a sort of multiplier on the current ratings, which I think is wrong. Instead - I believe - experience gets you the full use of a players current bars, so that he will be playing at 100% of his falling ratings.

Thinking about this further, since player development remains unchanged I'm not too concerned about this, its just the visual feedback that will take getting used to, but it will still take QBs probably until yr 4/5 before they break out, RBs will still be able to take the rock all day their rookie year, etc etc.

It'd be tough to get a frame of reference for new players though, to know how experience effects certain positions.

[wade moore]

If I'm understanding how this works correctly, I think I'm going to REALLY like it.

It's just going to take some time to get used to.

[Izulde]

I just now noticed the XP bars in the demo.

Are they still vertical in the 6.0a patch? Because it's giving me a real headache having to turn my head to read the positions and bars.

[amdaily]

dola

Which may make that aging veteran, who's bars are flat-lining, more attractive to pick up as a free agent. Maybe his experience can make up for the fact he can no longer run a 4.4 40.

More importantly, is the AI correctly differentiating between current ratings and experience? I have yet to see a clear cut case where it opts to start a player with a lower current rating.

For example, a rookie FL with a 50 rating and maybe 50-55% experience starts over a 49 rated 4th year player with 100% experience at the position.

Jim - why can't experience for the players current position just be added as another red bar at the bottom or top of the scouting report? The right click can be used to see his experience at other positions. Frankly, this is very tedious to click back and forth.

[Ben E Lou]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

Here's my working theory on interpreting this, fyi:

RED=bottom end of how good the scout thinks this guy could be
GREEN=top end of how good the scout thinks this guy could be

If the above is correct, then guys like QB T.J. Hudson above (35/48) are scouted as "Hmmm...he could end up being anywhere from a career backup to a midrange starter." Guys like MLB Matthew Lomond (68/68, I think in year 3) are scouted as "Probably will be a star player." My hope (and assumption) is that the 68 for a 3rd-year guy isn't all that accurate all the time. If what I'm thinking is correct, then the scout is SAYING that he has no doubt that Leinert is a can't-miss star player.

EXPERIENCE BARS=Sounds like these are heavily tied to what we know as "% Developed."

Thoughts?

[MizzouRah]

Here's my working theory on interpreting this, fyi:

RED=bottom end of how good the scout thinks this guy could be
GREEN=top end of how good the scout thinks this guy could be

If the above is correct, then guys like QB T.J. Hudson above (35/48) are scouted as "Hmmm...he could end up being anywhere from a career backup to a midrange starter." Guys like MLB Matthew Lomond (68/68, I think in year 3) are scouted as "Probably will be a star player." My hope (and assumption) is that the 68 for a 3rd-year guy isn't all that accurate all the time. If what I'm thinking is correct, then the scout is SAYING that he has no doubt that Leinert is a can't-miss star player.

EXPERIENCE BARS=Sounds like these are heavily tied to what we know as "% Developed."

Thoughts?

Sounds like what I was thinking and if it is, I think I'll like this new way - although in might mix me up in TCY. :)

[SunDevil]

Thanks for explanation Skydog. But what others have brought up about the experience display and the ai deciding which player to use based on ratings and experience is something that we should keep an eye on.

[highfiveoh]

My thoughts are that this seems like something Markus Heinsohn would add in a patch. Having to click on a player, then click on his bars to get his experience level is extremely tedious. The scout overview screen is almost useless now.

[Izulde]

So are the XP bars still vertical? Or did Jim make them horizontal as would a) be in keeping with the rest of the screens and b) be a *lot* easier to read.

I still have a headache from looking at those vertical bars.

[Ben E Lou]

Thanks for explanation Skydog.To reiterate: Here's my working theory on interpreting this, fyi:

[amdaily]

So are the XP bars still vertical? Or did Jim make them horizontal as would a) be in keeping with the rest of the screens and b) be a *lot* easier to read.

I still have a headache from looking at those vertical bars.

Still vertical.

[Izulde]

Still vertical.

Oi, thanks. I'm going to have to pass on buying then until that's changed.

It wouldn't be so bad if the position letters weren't sideways.

[Icy]

Skydog's explanation is thet only that i can find making sense.

It would mean that current/future are more like minimum/maximum for each bar and the experience bar is the developed %.

For example, if a guy has 50/70 in hole recognition and is 50% developed, his current hole recognition would be between 25/35, if it's this way, i like it, will take some time to get used but it's more realistic.

[CraigSca]

And taking this even further...

Your scout rates this guy as completely great, but he's lacking in exp. Is there a chance that this second-coming of Johnny Unitas just never gets to that level, even though your scouts (and other scouts) are telling you the guys has every skill required to be an outstanding QB?

This would be really cool, because no longer could you see the guy is a bust, just from his training camp.

[Icy]

Dola, I agree that we need the experience bar displayed in the player card without having to right click, or at least the % developed under the current/future Scouted rating. It's basic info to judgue our players and we shouldn't need to right click on all them.

[Mestor]

Skydog's explanation is thet only that i can find making sense.

It would mean that current/future are more like minimum/maximum for each bar and the experience bar is the developed %.

For example, if a guy has 50/70 in hole recognition and is 50% developed, his current hole recognition would be between 25/35, if it's this way, i like it, will take some time to get used but it's more realistic.

That begs the question - given an RB 100% developed @ 40/50, is he always playing at a certain number between 40 and 50, or week 1 hes playing at 40 and week 2 hes playing at 48, and week 3 at 44, etc etc. Does the number vary or is a player locked in.

I would assume it would vary - keeping in mind the way green/red relations worked previously (ie a player could play up to his potential some weeks)

[Icy]

Umm if this is how we are hinting it, then some stuff is outdated in the game and is not ready for this game change.

For example, what is the use of searching and sorting players by "current / potential" if it doesn't mean anymore "how good he is / how good he will be"? As you guys can test, the list is more or less the same sorting one way or another.

Shouldn't it be sorted by experiece or % developed instead?

[molson]

And taking this even further...

Your scout rates this guy as completely great, but he's lacking in exp. Is there a chance that this second-coming of Johnny Unitas just never gets to that level, even though your scouts (and other scouts) are telling you the guys has every skill required to be an outstanding QB?

This would be really cool, because no longer could you see the guy is a bust, just from his training camp.

Cool. So you'd have to decide when to give up on a struggling QB with potential, and decide how quickly to throw him into the mix as a rookie to see what you have.

I like the change (if it works), and while I certainly wish XP could be on the scouting overview, you'll have a vague idea of experience based on years in the league.

[cuervo72]

Mary Tyler Moore?

[highfiveoh]

Umm if this is how we are hinting it, then some stuff is outdated in the game and is not ready for this game change.

For example, what is the use of searching and sorting players by "current / potential" if it doesn't mean anymore "how good he is / how good he will be"? As you guys can test, the list is more or less the same sorting one way or another.

Shouldn't it be sorted by experiece or % developed instead?

It's half-assed implementation is what it is. That's why I brought up a certain other programmer's name. It's not the kind of thing I associate with Solecismic.

[14ers]

Skydog's explanation is thet only that i can find making sense.

It would mean that current/future are more like minimum/maximum for each bar and the experience bar is the developed %.

For example, if a guy has 50/70 in hole recognition and is 50% developed, his current hole recognition would be between 25/35, if it's this way, i like it, will take some time to get used but it's more realistic.
Could you please use the rookie card of Matt Leinart above to explain your theory?

[Icy]

Could you please use the rookie card of Matt Leinart above to explain your theory?

It's what i was thinking about now, not only Leinart but 80% of the rookies in the test league i just started. It's not that they are 50/70 but that they are more like 69/70 so my theory is not working at all.

Right now i'm clueless and can't find the use of current/future if:

#1- Both are so close, almost the same for most of the players.
#2- Searching players by current/future return almost the same players because #1.

So why not just to have red bars and remove the green ones? Right now the experience % is already the difference that we saw before with red and green bars.

[highfiveoh]

Who likes being able to see the bars in the depth charts screens again? Keep in mind now that you can't check out a guys experience from the depth charts.

[amdaily]

I've got to set this game down.

If experience is the now supposedly the main factor in determining a players skill, yet is inaccessible short of 3 clicks, is unsearchable, and not displayable by more than 1 player at a time, then I'm sorely disappointed.

[Hammer]

Its very different, I think we should all give it a go before jumping one way or the other. It does make sense to me, and I quite like it right now. But it will be a bit tedious when FA comes around, perhaps.

[Mestor]

Well I didn't get a chance to check the depth chart screens myself before i left for work, but according to skydogs patch thread the experience is listed on the depth chart screen. Well at least, the yr experience, and not the positional experience.

Which I think would be a large determining factor in the %ability being played at.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/patchscreenie.jpg

I hope its okay to repost that screen SD, I don't want to be stealing your b/w or anything, so I just linked it.

[Icy]

Look what i mean, here are two screen shots, sorting the league players by current and future, as you can see there are only some minor changes, so what is the use of current/future right now? Maybe it's just me who doesn't understand it but i must admit I'm really clueless now, please somebody enlight me.

CURRENT
http://www.prodeportes.com/fof2k7/current.jpg

FUTURE:
http://www.prodeportes.com/fof2k7/future.jpg

[twothree]

Player Scouting Report Screen

The red portion of the scouting bar refers to your scout's assessment of the player's current expertise in the selected attribute. The green portion of the scouting bar refers to your scout's assessment of the player's future potential in that attribute.

I just wanted to point out that the above quote is still in the help file. Also, for reference, here is the relevent help file entry on position experience.

The list shows all the positions related to the player's current position, along with a bar showing his relative experience level for each position. A fully developed player will have a bar that reaches all the way to top of this miniature screen.

[Ajaxab]

If experience is the now supposedly the main factor in determining a players skill, yet is inaccessible short of 3 clicks, is unsearchable, and not displayable by more than 1 player at a time, then I'm sorely disappointed.

" although I'm not sorely disappointed. Could the process be really annoying? Definitely.

[jbergey22]

Look what i mean, here are two screen shots, sorting the league players by current and future, as you can see there are only some minor changes, so what is the use of current/future right now? Maybe it's just me who doesn't understand it but i must admit I'm really clueless now, please somebody enlight me.

CURRENT
http://www.prodeportes.com/fof2k7/current.jpg

FUTURE:
http://www.prodeportes.com/fof2k7/future.jpg


Doesnt make sense to be. From looking at your lists, there is little or no difference in current rating or future potential.

The only thing I can think of is Reggie Bush has a current expected potential of 82 and future expected potential of 85. This still seems very backwards way of doing this, this will make Free Agency a real chore.

[Narcizo]

Look what i mean, here are two screen shots, sorting the league players by current and future, as you can see there are only some minor changes, so what is the use of current/future right now? Maybe it's just me who doesn't understand it but i must admit I'm really clueless now, please somebody enlight me.


I agree with you Icy. I don't understand what the distinction between current and future is now. As far as I can see it seems that current ability has been replaced by experience, which is all well and good (ish) so long as
a) the experience is easily viewable (preferably the experience in the listed position, and
b) the AI makes its choices based on that information, not some bogus "current" ability.

I would suggest replaceing the current ability on all screens with (future ability * experience in listed position / 100) (ie what I always thought "Current ability" was).

[amdaily]

(ie what I always thought "Current ability" was).

Precisely. Wasn't current ratings just a representation of the players ability/potential mutipled by his experience?

This change just makes no sense whatsoever.

[Hammer]

I just went into an SP game I started previously. When I pressed recommend pre patch my first string QB was a 34/34 13 year vet. Second string was 16/57, a rookie.

Now when I press recommend my first string is the 16/57 (now 65/65) rookie, second string a 33/41 rookie, third the veteran.

This indicates to me the AI is ignoring the experience of the rookies, and just looking at the current. The 33/41 is basically a very poor player if we incorporate his experience, and has no business being a no.2 ahead of the veteran.

I hope Jim can explain why this is so, but I have the feeling we have a problem here, and probably need a patch 6.0b.

[twothree]

Here is something I have noticed. After a draft your new rookies will still have percentage developed listed on their player card. This percentage is exactly where their experience bar is for their current position; however, I have not seen any easy correlation between this percentage developed (experience bar height) and the current/future ratings of the player.

My rookie class

Examples:

Percentage Developed Current Future
60 53 56
59 61 71
54 32 49
52 44 46
41 35 37
32 38 56
26 27 42


Perhaps player position and your scout's rating contribute to this variation. If you want to figure out what current and future ratings now mean, I think the best place to look might be at newly drafted rookies, who have their exact percentage of player development displayed on their player cards.

[JMO]

Yea, the AI is sorting by the current ratings. My wlb i just drafted(11% dev) is starting ahead of my 46/46 guy of last year on the recommended depth chart. Countless other examples of this also. This could mess with the single player AI in a big way.

[JMO]

edit:double post

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Unless this can be explained and implemented better, can we have the green bars back, please. Everything was running smoothly until . . .

[MizzouRah]

Ahhhh... might have to wait to dig in. :(

[amdaily]

Unless this can be explained and implemented better, can we have the green bars back, please. Everything was running smoothly until . . .

Ditto. Completely unplayable in its current form. AI sorting is a train wreck and there is no easy way to make personel decisions with the experience rating buried as it is.

[cwilloughby]

I guess I don't understand the need for the change. Especially when it has been working fine in 6.0 up until this point.

Personally, I have always loved about FOF was the fact that you had to weigh the value of starting a 12/60 rookie versus a 46/46 vet, and that you could look at his current abilities in key areas (Avoid Drops, etc.) to make the final decision. If we was a little slack in something like Route Running, but had a huge green bar, you knew he would improve so you would give him the go anyway.

It's very interesting that these rookies are being rated and treated as if they are at their potential strength, when in all actuality they should be getting rated and sorted by their current skills in most instances. Now, instead of having the option to examine their current abilities in key areas and make the decision on a case-by-case, you have to do the math and assume that they are currently some percentage of what is displayed, even if they may be a 0 in that specific ability.

This is a big step back in scouting, analyzing, and depth chart management IMO.

[twothree]

I just went into an SP game I started previously. When I pressed recommend pre patch my first string QB was a 34/34 13 year vet. Second string was 16/57, a rookie.

Now when I press recommend my first string is the 16/57 (now 65/65) rookie, second string a 33/41 rookie, third the veteran.

This indicates to me the AI is ignoring the experience of the rookies, and just looking at the current. The 33/41 is basically a very poor player if we incorporate his experience, and has no business being a no.2 ahead of the veteran.

I hope Jim can explain why this is so, but I have the feeling we have a problem here, and probably need a patch 6.0b.

It does appear that this change to current and future ratings broke the AI's ability to set depth charts.

[Peregrine]

This change is really messing up the way I play this game and I can only hope it's some kind of bug, OR there will be a logical explanation for how the new system works, until then I guess I'll have to go back to the older version.

[Honolulu Blue]

The green bars first came into existence in FOF2. In FOF Classic, there was just one bar for potential, listed under the other rating bars for those with 3 or fewer years experience. I don't think a return to that system would be all that bad, but that's not where the current system seems to be.

Like that 4th round rookie pick that's carrying the clipboard, "Has potential, needs seasoning."

[Deattribution]

This *could* be nice, assuming it's working properly but only with a proper explaination on the change. I'd be willing to adjust... but...

It'll be unacceptable if this just becomes one of the 'FOF mystery features' that nobody really knows how it works or what it does.

[AlexB]

BUF - 2007 resign what appears to be an approx 80% developed 53/53 JP Losman to a 6 year $40.45m deal, including a $14m bonus, tying up $2.320m per year in pro-rated signing bonus over the contract.

They draft a what appears to be a 0% developed 56/64 QB with 1.05 in the draft, sign him to a $21.3m 5 year deal including $12.5m bonus. Week 1 of the full season, you can't even see a bar on his experience screen, and he gets the start :(.

There were a few other iffy decisions (Pennington has lost his job to a 5-10% developed starting with similar current, Willie Parker gets thanked for 300 carry, 1300 yard season by being dropped to #2 to a 35-40% developed rookie with the same current), but this was the worst given Losman's resigning and the 0% development of the rookie

I don't hate the idea in itself, but the information isn't easily accessible (four clicks per player - open card, open experience pop up, close experience up, close player card to find out current ability) and the AI seems to have a problem with it in some cases, although not as bad as I was expecting having read this thread to be fair.

To me no-one argued that the current/future bars were a problem, just that URFAs were way overrated.

[Deattribution]

To me no-one argued that the current/future bars were a problem, just that URFAs were way overrated.

Agreed here. I never seen the outcry for the change with several other things needing adjustment or adding already.

Sadly, I think we're going to see alot of flaws that were already in the AI get credited to this change even if it's not at fault especially since we don't even know how drastic it really is.

[Ajaxab]

This *could* be nice, assuming it's working properly but only with a proper explaination on the change. I'd be willing to adjust... but...

It'll be unacceptable if this just becomes one of the 'FOF mystery features' that nobody really knows how it works or what it does.

I agree. Although it's great to have ambiguity in some areas, this would be one that should not need theorizing. I am willing to theorize about how one graph works with another or how a graph works with a set of numbers (e.g. M2M2 coverage rating vs. Pass defense %), but theorizing about simply what a graph is trying to communicate is a stretch. IMO, the switch unnecessarily muddies what used to be much clearer.

[MizzouRah]

BUF - 2007 resign what appears to be an approx 80% developed 53/53 JP Losman to a 6 year $40.45m deal, including a $14m bonus, tying up $2.320m per year in pro-rated signing bonus over the contract.

They draft a what appears to be a 0% developed 56/64 QB with 1.05 in the draft, sign him to a $21.3m 5 year deal including $12.5m bonus. Week 1 of the full season, you can't even see a bar on his experience screen, and he gets the start :(.

There were a few other iffy decisions (Pennington has lost his job to a 5-10% developed starting with similar current, Willie Parker gets thanked for 300 carry, 1300 yard season by being dropped to #2 to a 35-40% developed rookie with the same current), but this was the worst given Losman's resigning and the 0% development of the rookie

I don't hate the idea in itself, but the information isn't easily accessible (four clicks per player - open card, open experience pop up, close experience up, close player card to find out current ability) and the AI seems to have a problem with it in some cases, although not as bad as I was expecting having read this thread to be fair.

To me no-one argued that the current/future bars were a problem, just that URFAs were way overrated.

Say it aint so.. :( Sounds like this change is really screwing things up.

[Dutch]

To me, part of the fun of player development was "filling in the green". That sense of accomplishment that takes 3, 4, 5, 6 seasons to accomplish. Or realizing that those damned green bars won't ever fill in. I LOVE that part of the game. That is going to be gone forever? :confused:

[dbd1963]

To me, part of the fun of player development was "filling in the green". That sense of accomplishment that takes 3, 4, 5, 6 seasons to accomplish. Or realizing that those damned green bars won't ever fill in. I LOVE that part of the game. That is going to be gone forever? :confused:

+1 to this thought.

Also, I happened to save at the beginning of the offseason, and I notice as I scout the draft that I'm hardly finding an "Very Underrated" players, when I used to find a dozen or so easily. I have found three, and two are top draft choices, the other a top ten. I can imagine this following on from the change in the way the game is handling potential now.

[JPhillips]

I just can't understand why a change of this magnitude was incorporated in a patch. Either it was something that Jim didn't feel comfortable with after testing it pre-release or he completely redesigned player use logic in a couple of weeks.

This is a huge disappointment and by all appearances it completely destroys the AI.

[amdaily]

To me, part of the fun of player development was "filling in the green". That sense of accomplishment that takes 3, 4, 5, 6 seasons to accomplish. Or realizing that those damned green bars won't ever fill in. I LOVE that part of the game. That is going to be gone forever? :confused:

This was especially apparent this year, and I loved it. Realizing your 20/60 Vince Young is a bust because his red bars haven't began to fill up the green space after 3 full seasons as a starter.

Now such a player starts at 60/60, is a starter from day 1, and incrementaly increases his experience the more he plays.

I don't know why the forumla was messed with, it has worked for years :(

[Capital]

To me, part of the fun of player development was "filling in the green". That sense of accomplishment that takes 3, 4, 5, 6 seasons to accomplish. Or realizing that those damned green bars won't ever fill in. I LOVE that part of the game. That is going to be gone forever? :confused:

As I was reading this thread, this is the exact thought I was having. It was a way to visually seeing the fruits of your labors on an individual player level, even before the player put up some nice numbers. I really didn't have a huge problem with the previous version, as nothing was what I considered a major showstopper. I may go back to the previous version.

Or wait for another clarification/explanation from Solecismic.

[spleen1015]

With the patch coming out, I planned on buying this on Friday. I don't know if that is the case anymore. I guess I will wait until there is further feedback on this issue. I hope there is a misconception and Jim can clear the air.

[Pumpy Tudors]

With the patch coming out, I planned on buying this on Friday. I don't know if that is the case anymore. I guess I will wait until there is further feedback on this issue. I hope there is a misconception and Jim can clear the air.
"

[QuikSand]

Here's my working theory on interpreting this, fyi:

RED=bottom end of how good the scout thinks this guy could be
GREEN=top end of how good the scout thinks this guy could be

If the above is correct, then guys like QB T.J. Hudson above (35/48) are scouted as "Hmmm...he could end up being anywhere from a career backup to a midrange starter." Guys like MLB Matthew Lomond (68/68, I think in year 3) are scouted as "Probably will be a star player." My hope (and assumption) is that the 68 for a 3rd-year guy isn't all that accurate all the time. If what I'm thinking is correct, then the scout is SAYING that he has no doubt that Leinert is a can't-miss star player.

EXPERIENCE BARS=Sounds like these are heavily tied to what we know as "% Developed."

Thoughts?

Can't rule it out, I guess... but I simply can't square the continued use of the terms "current" and "future" if this really is the case. I don't have a better explanation or interpretation myself, but I'll be greivously disappointed if this is the case.

[Deattribution]

I'm a bit torn and disappointed here I've been waiting for this patch to start up a serious career but after going through one draft and seeing most top rookies rated in the high 60's to 70's (86/86 LTs and 76/81 DTs for example) after training camp I'm not sure if I should wait... again.

This originally was more of a rarity to see, it felt like a stud pick when you got a high rated nearly fully developed player ... now it seems like everyone is in that department.

Honestly, I'm also really confused on how this was suppose to just silently slip by in the patch with no explaination or even a mention that there would be serious changes to scouting error. You'd think with the release of the patch there'd be at the very least a minor note of it and not left for someone on the board to bring up.

[wade moore]

With the patch coming out, I planned on buying this on Friday. I don't know if that is the case anymore. I guess I will wait until there is further feedback on this issue. I hope there is a misconception and Jim can clear the air.


Yeah, I think there's still a lot of confusion. A lot of folks are going off of what SkyDog's speculation was as if it was fact, when it was just him speculating on how he thinks it works.

I think maybe we all need to take a step back and maybe see if Jim can clear up some of how this works.

[AlexB]

As I was reading this thread, this is the exact thought I was having. It was a way to visually seeing the fruits of your labors on an individual player level, even before the player put up some nice numbers. I really didn't have a huge problem with the previous version, as nothing was what I considered a major showstopper. I may go back to the previous version.

Or wait for another clarification/explanation from Solecismic.

I think the latter comment is the key. Until then it's mostly a collective case of 'Huh?'

While the changes to the patch look lovely and would help majorly, this major change is a show stopper to me.

[QuikSand]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

Quoted for convenience.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, I think there's still a lot of confusion. A lot of folks are going off of what SkyDog's speculation was as if it was fact, when it was just him speculating on how he thinks it works.

I think maybe we all need to take a step back and maybe see if Jim can clear up some of how this works.Yes, let me re-iterate that my theory was a theory. The post from Solecismic left me just as confused as most of you, so rather than jumping to conclusions, it was an attempt to come to a logical explanation/interpretation of what he said. I've heard one other theory for what is supposed to be going on here, too. It is:

CUR/FUT=what we're used to
EXP: likelihood of playing up to CUR/FUT any given week

I haven't opened the game since early this morning, and some of you obviously have and have looked at who the AI does and doesn't start. I think we need a bigger body of knowledge before we jump to the conclusion that this isn't working as designed. At this point, the primary question in my mind is still, "How IS this designed?"

[Bad-example]

I bought the game on the first day but haven't played more than about fifteen minutes. I like to wait until Jim's games are fully patched before delving in. I am not impatient but it is starting to look like we won't be seeing a true final version until after Jim's big move. I have confidence he will ultimately make things right.

[QuikSand]

I guess this is splitting hairs, but i'm reading Jim's comment to say that the *big* change here was not really in this patch, but rather in the new game from the outset. That if you're playing the pre-patch version of FOF 2007, you are still facing this issue, whatever it is -- and that you are (probably) skipping right over some very important information that you need to right-click to uncover. And if you just aren't in that habit (like me) or were assuming it only really had use if you were contemplating moving/playing a player out of position (like me) then you hadn't done the right-click experience thing more than a handful of times.

I'm completely flustered by the continued use of the old terminology (well, on top of the familiar old red/green bars) if indeed their meaning is now completely different.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

One thing that people seem to be missing is that it sounds like the implementation hasn't changed from 6.0 to 6.0a, just the margin of scout error. I've noticed several comments about making a huge change in a patch. I'm not so sure that a tweak to scout error constitutes a "huge change." We've only had FOF2K7 for 2 weeks. It sounds like we didn't have enough game experience to have noticed this change.

[Ben E Lou]

I guess this is splitting hairs, but i'm reading Jim's comment to say that the *big* change here was not really in this patch, but rather in the new game from the outset. That if you're playing the pre-patch version of FOF 2007, you are still facing this issue, whatever it is -- and that you are (probably) skipping right over some very important information that you need to right-click to uncover. And if you just aren't in that habit (like me) or were assuming it only really had use if you were contemplating moving/playing a player out of position (like me) then you hadn't done the right-click experience thing more than a handful of times.Heh. You beat me to it.

[QuikSand]

Heh.

[QuikSand]

I think I owe you a coke or something now.

[kingfc22]

To me, part of the fun of player development was "filling in the green". That sense of accomplishment that takes 3, 4, 5, 6 seasons to accomplish. Or realizing that those damned green bars won't ever fill in. I LOVE that part of the game. That is going to be gone forever? :confused:

Ditto to this thought for me as well.

[wade moore]

I guess this is splitting hairs, but i'm reading Jim's comment to say that the *big* change here was not really in this patch, but rather in the new game from the outset. That if you're playing the pre-patch version of FOF 2007, you are still facing this issue, whatever it is -- and that you are (probably) skipping right over some very important information that you need to right-click to uncover. And if you just aren't in that habit (like me) or were assuming it only really had use if you were contemplating moving/playing a player out of position (like me) then you hadn't done the right-click experience thing more than a handful of times.

I'm completely flustered by the continued use of the old terminology (well, on top of the familiar old red/green bars) if indeed their meaning is now completely different.

You summed up some of what I was trying to say very well. If nothing else, I definately think that the idea that something changed dramatically with the patch is wrong. All that change is scout error on the red/green bars. *If* those red/green bars mean something different, they meant something different before the patch also.

And your last sentence I totally agree with. My concern is that one of two things is going on - either the meaning has changed without a change in the terminology or documentation or we are all just totally not understanding Jim's post and reading our own information into it.

[BigPitt]

this is getting close to OOTP status? Not really I guess but the bad thing is we
were told that another patch was not coiming for some time.

Pribably still better than Max Football even without a patch but I sure am not a buyer with all the problems indicated. And no word from Jim.

[MizzouRah]

this is getting close to OOTP status? Not really I guess but the bad thing is we
were told that another patch was not coiming for some time.

Pribably still better than Max Football even without a patch but I sure am not a buyer with all the problems indicated. And no word from Jim.

DO NOT EVER MENTION MAX FOOTBALL IN RELATION TO FOF AGAIN!

Atari football is better than Max football. :)

[wade moore]

Something else to note...

Position Experience Screen

Use the Position Experience Screen to view your player's experience level at each specific position.

You can see this list by right-clicking in the scouting Report area of a player's information screen.

The list shows all the positions related to the player's current position, along with a bar showing his relative experience level for each position. A fully developed player will have a bar that reaches all the way to top of this miniature screen.



I'm still not 100% sure how to interpret this, but I think we may be making major leaps in our assumptions.. that 2nd idea of how this works that SkyDog posted is mine, and for some reason this makes me think it even more.

[AlexB]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

Which brings up the question of why we can't see it more easily ;)

But OK - experience is the key: how do we explain the JP Losman/0% developed/experienced rookie example in particular I posted above?

Basically, as Capital said, we need more from Jim before we can work this out I think.

[RedKingGold]

Pribably still better than Max Football even without a patch but I sure am not a buyer with all the problems indicated

And a paper cut is still better than death.

[RedKingGold]

If this truly is the case, a function to be able to view our roster (and free agents/other teams players) in terms of total percent development would make a lot of sense.

This does seem like a conscious decision that Jim made before the patch, and I still have faith (even if it is blind) that it works to the degree he expected it to work. I do wish he could explain it a little clearer, though.

[Deattribution]

But OK - experience is the key: how do we explain the JP Losman/0% developed/experienced rookie example in particular I posted above?


This is something that makes it harder for me to believe this was all design and we're just seeing it 'clearer' with the patch. I've played several years pre-patch and I've never seen the AI factor in positional experience when deciding who starts.

[yabanci]

Dola:

One thing that people seem to be missing is that it sounds like the implementation hasn't changed from 6.0 to 6.0a, just the margin of scout error. I've noticed several comments about making a huge change in a patch. I'm not so sure that a tweak to scout error constitutes a "huge change." We've only had FOF2K7 for 2 weeks. It sounds like we didn't have enough game experience to have noticed this change.

I don't know. I look at this and see "huge change."


http://www.prodeportes.com/fof2k7/future.jpg

[Icy]

This is something that makes it harder for me to believe this was all design and we're just seeing it 'clearer' with the patch. I've played several years pre-patch and I've never seen the AI factor in positional experience when deciding who starts.

Exactly, the problem is not only how we see the current/future bars now, but that the AI is also doing starting the players based on current and not on experience so something must be wrong after the patch even if the game was designed this way.

It doesn't make any sense to have all the rookies starting instead of the vets just because their current is higher as it seems that the "current" is not what we used to call "current" in the past.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't know. I look at this and see "huge change."
Let me clarify what I meant by "huge change." It may be a large change to the numeric potential of scout error from 6.0, but not a large change to the way it was implemented. Two very different things, in all likelihood. I don't consider changing the numeric potential to be a huge change. If he changed the entire implementation of scouting, then that would be a huge change, but based on his earlier comments about scouting error, it appears that the former seems to be the case here.

[AlexB]

I don't know. I look at this and see "huge change."


http://www.prodeportes.com/fof2k7/future.jpg

I think SD in effect is saying that if his theory is right, what those numbers read are a from-to prediction of potential?

Along the same lines, pre-patch this would have been listed as one number - i.e. Future.

If this theory is right, Icy is also right, that this view is in effect redundant, and there is no way of sorting what we used to know as 'current'.

But the fact that we couldn't sort by 'current' if the theory is right suggest to me that the theory is not 100% right, as while graphics are not necessarilt Jim's thing, functionality is, and I'm sure we must be able to sort by some sort of current ability...

[Godzilla Blitz]

AI roster decision making aside, my initial reaction is that while the new system may be fine, the way the information is displayed to the gamer doesn't make it easy to figure out a player's current ability. As it seems now, the gamer has to:

1. Look at the red bar screen
2. Right-click to pull up the player development screen
3. Check the percentage of development at the position of choice
4. Return to the player card
5. Estimate the current ability by doing some in-the-head multiplying with the red bar values and the percentage of development at the chosen position.

That's a lot of work when you consider the number of players a gamer evaluates in a given year, especially if the new system is designed to replace a system where it was "too hard to get a fix on a player".

It would seem to be easier to have green bars replace the current red bars and overlay red bars to represent the percentage of development at the player's current position. You could still have the player development screen, and it would still be useful, but the most important information would be on one screen in a quick-to-interpret, visual form.

This does make some assumptions on what the red bars now mean, and how the current system is working however. (And I don't have the game yet, so I'm basing my information on this thread.)

[QuikSand]

... it seems that the "current" is not what we used to call "current" in the past.

I just can't chew on that. It's not like it's a made up word or a nebulous phrase, where you have some license to do whatever you like with it.

It's one thing to say (juist hypothetically, of course) that "big play receiving" means catching a 50-yard bomb, while "getting downfield" means turning a short pass into a big gain. Okay, so most of us would have reversed those labels, and might have some trouible kleeping them in mind properly... but it's not like it's *completely* baffling once you get yourself set straight. At the very least, you can just remember that the two things mean what the other one sounds like.

If a rating labeled as "current" under "overall impression" means something other than how good is the player right now, then it's simply using a word in a way that doesn't make any intuitive sense at all.

[AlexB]

Although maybe not ;) (edit re: SD's post)

[cuervo72]

Let me clarify what I meant by "huge change." It may be a large change to the numeric potential of scout error from 6.0, but not a large change to the way it was implemented. Two very different things, in all likelihood. I don't consider changing the numeric potential to be a huge change. If he changed the entire implementation of scouting, then that would be a huge change, but based on his earlier comments about scouting error, it appears that the former seems to be the case here.

Of course, that's assuming we really knew how it was implemented in the first place. Which if this is a small change...well, apparently I didn't. Because I haven't the foggiest what is going on here.

[Icy]

I just can't chew on that. It's not like it's a made up word or a nebulous phrase, where you have some license to do whatever you like with it.

It's one thing to say (juist hypothetically, of course) that "big play receiving" means catching a 50-yard bomb, while "getting downfield" means turning a short pass into a big gain. Okay, so most of us would have reversed those labels, and might have some trouible kleeping them in mind properly... but it's not like it's *completely* baffling once you get yourself set straight. At the very least, you can just remember that the two things mean what the other one sounds like.

If a rating labeled as "current" under "overall impression" means something other than how good is the player right now, then it's simply using a word in a way that doesn't make any intuitive sense at all.

Agree, that and the current/future sorting views that are unuseful in the players search are why i said before that i think that this is a bug and not how the game is designed to work because i doubt Jim would leave that feature and "current/future" terms in the game knowing they don't have any use.

[SunDevil]

Of course, that's assuming we really knew how it was implemented in the first place. Which if this is a small change...well, apparently I didn't. Because I haven't the foggiest what is going on here.

I am in the same boat.

[MalcPow]

I just can't chew on that. It's not like it's a made up word or a nebulous phrase, where you have some license to do whatever you like with it.

It's one thing to say (juist hypothetically, of course) that "big play receiving" means catching a 50-yard bomb, while "getting downfield" means turning a short pass into a big gain. Okay, so most of us would have reversed those labels, and might have some trouible kleeping them in mind properly... but it's not like it's *completely* baffling once you get yourself set straight. At the very least, you can just remember that the two things mean what the other one sounds like.

If a rating labeled as "current" under "overall impression" means something other than how good is the player right now, then it's simply using a word in a way that doesn't make any intuitive sense at all.

This is the heart of the problem. It goes against every experience I have with Jim's products to think that what is happening right now is intended. He prides himself on packing useful information onto a variety of screens to save users clicking time and allow them to make decisions (the whole point of the game). Right now we're getting redundant information, and the relevant information is being arbitrarily kept a screen and a couple clicks away. Something's messed, I'm sure he's working on it and will fix it quickly. I don't mind ditching the green bars in favor of an 'experience-based' system, but the way we're presented with information needs to change as well then.

[AlexB]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

Bearing in mind the discussion on red/green bars, Jim's quote here might shed some light on the value of the summer league given what the help file says:

Use the Summer button to send a player to La Ligue Etrangere Solecismique, which is Front Office Football's foreign summer league. You may send one second-year player to this league every season. He will gain experience, and he might become a better player entirely.

From what the help file says, this makes me think the whole rating system has changed this version.

[AlexB]

Although also from the helpfile:

'The red portion of the scouting bar refers to your scout's assessment of the player's current expertise in the selected attribute. The green portion of the scouting bar refers to your scout's assessment of the player's future potential in that attribute.

As you gain experience with Front Office Football, you'll learn more about how to use scouting reports.'

[BrianD]

Let me clarify what I meant by "huge change." It may be a large change to the numeric potential of scout error from 6.0, but not a large change to the way it was implemented. Two very different things, in all likelihood. I don't consider changing the numeric potential to be a huge change. If he changed the entire implementation of scouting, then that would be a huge change, but based on his earlier comments about scouting error, it appears that the former seems to be the case here.

It seems like this change has had a huge effect on how the AI sets their lineups and goes after players. This would seem to mean that either human players have to completely change their thinking to match what the AI is doing, or the AI is missing the experience factor and will be at a huge disadvantage.

I would't be surprised if Jim eventually posted an 'oops' about this and made another change to fix this one.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I guess this is splitting hairs, but i'm reading Jim's comment to say that the *big* change here was not really in this patch, but rather in the new game from the outset. That if you're playing the pre-patch version of FOF 2007, you are still facing this issue, whatever it is -- and that you are (probably) skipping right over some very important information that you need to right-click to uncover. And if you just aren't in that habit (like me) or were assuming it only really had use if you were contemplating moving/playing a player out of position (like me) then you hadn't done the right-click experience thing more than a handful of times.

I'm completely flustered by the continued use of the old terminology (well, on top of the familiar old red/green bars) if indeed their meaning is now completely different.

I agree also that this is probably what happened, but how we were not notified in the original purchase of FOF2K7 of this major change to scouting and player ratings. It would seem we were flying blind to begin with.

However, this does not explain the crazy AI depth chart decisions.

[Fritz]

I look at that screen shot and think "hey, another Miami fan."

Seriously, I have enjoyed the red/green bar system that the game uses, and while I value the inclusion of experience, I would miss the familiar way of doing business.

[Solecismic]

The scouting is done very differently in FOF 2007 than in the past. I felt, especially from playing the draft, that the old style of large green bars was just overly random. It was too hard to get a fix on a player - with both the red and the green being potentially subject to a large scouting error. They are more tied together now.

So I condensed the bars, especially on the lowest level of play. Red doesn't necessarily mean exact. I did not change the player development algorithms.

This will take some getting used to. But each game is different, takes some serious adjustment. Experience is much more important now (right-clicking in the ratings area).

I'm not doing a good job of explaining this. I got a couple of hours of sleep, which helps.


Three changes have been made from 5.0 to 6.0:

1. The scouting error is larger in 6.0 than in the past.

2. Players develop more quickly. My research shows that contributions are expected much sooner in a career. The average starter is younger. The average career is shorter.

3. Specific positional experience is now revealed (albeit rather inconveniently). This has been in the game for a couple of versions now, but never exposed.

This will take some getting used to.


However, the scouting error is too large now, and the game isn't displaying that in a useful manner. Either the red is too high, so no green is displayed, or the green is too low, also eliminating the green because red takes precedence over green.

Since errors are tied together, there aren't cases where red goes down and green goes up (which would be like a scout saying "I think he's overrated, but he'll be better than you can imagine in the future").

The changes aren't optimal given the current presentation, and this has made the positional experience chart more useful than green. And since positional experience is an extra click, this is not a good design.


One definition that might help:

The red/green percentage, which is obfuscated by the scouting error, is based on positional experience at a player's primary position. That hasn't changed from past versions.


What do I need to do?

1) In designing, I hadn't realized the importance of the positional experience screen. That should not be an extra click.

2) The scouting error is too high and making the game too random. The change I made from 6.0 to 6.0a, which was to more tie the red/green scouting error together, confuses more than it helps.

So I need to reduce the scouting error and reduce the level of that tie.


What is the AI doing?

The AI bases its depth chart decisions by combining the red/green chart with the positional experience chart. It is working as it should.


What am I going to do?

I need to go over this. People don't like change. On the other hand, someone just said they think the game is a disaster because they can't set playing time for a third running back, ignoring the whole third-down and short-yardage back settings. I'm never going to make everyone happy at FOFC and FOFC only represents a small percentage of my customer base.

The fact that I'm here and responsive is a double-edged sword. Whatever I do is going to make some people happy and a certain percentage bitterly unhappy. That second group, unfortunately, is going to be more vocal. That's just the way forums work. On the positive side, I get immediate uncensored feedback. I've always taken pride in the fact that I'm not afraid to see that feedback. Even during time periods when I don't post, I still lurk here.


I'll post again when I've come to a conclusion. I don't want this one issue to ruin what is a monumental amount of new work. This was the most ambitious release I've ever done, and I'd like to step back and enjoy it myself soon.

[Vince]

I'm thinking perhaps simply making the positional experience for the player's current position visible on the player page, then requiring an extra click for other positions, might be a perfectly viable solution.

For example -- one extra bar on the player card. For a QB, it would be his QB positional experience. Right clicking would still bring up the positional experience chart as is now, but his experience at the current position would be easily accessible without having to click again.

[RedKingGold]

I'm not doing a good job of explaining this. I got a couple of hours of sleep, which helps.


Three changes have been made from 5.0 to 6.0:

1. The scouting error is larger in 6.0 than in the past.

2. Players develop more quickly. My research shows that contributions are expected much sooner in a career. The average starter is younger. The average career is shorter.

3. Specific positional experience is now revealed (albeit rather inconveniently). This has been in the game for a couple of versions now, but never exposed.

This will take some getting used to.


However, the scouting error is too large now, and the game isn't displaying that in a useful manner. Either the red is too high, so no green is displayed, or the green is too low, also eliminating the green because red takes precedence over green.

Since errors are tied together, there aren't cases where red goes down and green goes up (which would be like a scout saying "I think he's overrated, but he'll be better than you can imagine in the future").

The changes aren't optimal given the current presentation, and this has made the positional experience chart more useful than green. And since positional experience is an extra click, this is not a good design.


One definition that might help:

The red/green percentage, which is obfuscated by the scouting error, is based on positional experience at a player's primary position. That hasn't changed from past versions.


What do I need to do?

1) In designing, I hadn't realized the importance of the positional experience screen. That should not be an extra click.

2) The scouting error is too high and making the game too random. The change I made from 6.0 to 6.0a, which was to more tie the red/green scouting error together, confuses more than it helps.

So I need to reduce the scouting error and reduce the level of that tie.


What is the AI doing?

The AI bases its depth chart decisions by combining the red/green chart with the positional experience chart. It is working as it should.


What am I going to do?

I need to go over this. People don't like change. On the other hand, someone just said they think the game is a disaster because they can't set playing time for a third running back, ignoring the whole third-down and short-yardage back settings. I'm never going to make everyone happy at FOFC and FOFC only represents a small percentage of my customer base.

The fact that I'm here and responsive is a double-edged sword. Whatever I do is going to make some people happy and a certain percentage bitterly unhappy. That second group, unfortunately, is going to be more vocal. That's just the way forums work. On the positive side, I get immediate uncensored feedback. I've always taken pride in the fact that I'm not afraid to see that feedback. Even during time periods when I don't post, I still lurk here.


I'll post again when I've come to a conclusion. I don't want this one issue to ruin what is a monumental amount of new work. This was the most ambitious release I've ever done, and I'd like to step back and enjoy it myself soon.

Reason #2862 why I will purchase every Solecismic game that Jim puts out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Why not make the red bars represent the info on the position experience chart and the green bars represent the basic rating. Or isn't that what was always done? I'm still confused. It now seems it will be very very difficult and tedious to scout free agents and my own roster without a separate column showing experience/percentage developed. It needs more than just putting the chart on the player card.

But thanks for working with us on this, Jim.

[dbd1963]

Reason #2862 why I will purchase every Solecismic game that Jim puts out.

Ha, I always buy them and love them, but I do want to whine a little about the green bar filling in thing that was fun to watch. I only want that back, and of course, some of the green bar guys to be busts.

I think Vince's idea of the "present position experience" bar being added to the player card is excellent.

[Cotton]

I like it. Good improvements. I like the old style position, jersey number, and rating dots better, but a large part of that is just familiarity, probably. The extra depth charts are a MAJOR improvement, and I look forward to seeing some for special team formations, too. Though, I'm not sure people understand those positions all that well... ;)

I also like all the gesticulating and posturing and pondering and debating that goes on before waiting for an answer... That was fun!

[SunDevil]

What is the AI doing?

The AI bases its depth chart decisions by combining the red/green chart with the positional experience chart. It is working as it should.


I do not think that is true.

I just went into an SP game I started previously. When I pressed recommend pre patch my first string QB was a 34/34 13 year vet. Second string was 16/57, a rookie.

Now when I press recommend my first string is the 16/57 (now 65/65) rookie, second string a 33/41 rookie, third the veteran.

This indicates to me the AI is ignoring the experience of the rookies, and just looking at the current. The 33/41 is basically a very poor player if we incorporate his experience, and has no business being a no.2 ahead of the veteran.

I hope Jim can explain why this is so, but I have the feeling we have a problem here, and probably need a patch 6.0b.

From what I understand it's still somewhat a work in progress, it's suppose to be tweaked more in a patch but currently they *try* to hold onto their core players but eventually they end up going crazy. Seattle in one of my games released their entire roster, including the #1 overall pick from the previous year. They had 140 million in lost cap space with a salary cap of only 144 million.

You definitely deserve a break and you have done a great job with this game, there are just a couple of issues that really mess with the enjoyment of the game not to mention the challenge. Thanks for your replies Jim.

[Izulde]

Jim, I appreciate the feedback and I was wondering if as part of the re-design that the experience bars for all positions will be made horizontal with the the position text itself set so that you don't have to turn your head to read it?

Although I'm the only one who's mentioned it thus far, I doubt I'm the only who's had that difficulty. :)

[AlexB]

I'm thinking perhaps simply making the positional experience for the player's current position visible on the player page, then requiring an extra click for other positions, might be a perfectly viable solution.

For example -- one extra bar on the player card. For a QB, it would be his QB positional experience. Right clicking would still bring up the positional experience chart as is now, but his experience at the current position would be easily accessible without having to click again.

And perhaps adding it as a third column on player search & roster screens, although I imagine that's not a short job...

FWIW the post above explains things pretty well, and from the 'What do I need to do?' bit, I would say from my point of view, that also seems to be the answer.

If I'm rading things correctly ,things were too far out 6.0, and too tight in 6.0a, which would go along with most of the posts here, although as you say, whether that's most of the opinion is another matter. i think in this case it probably is.

Cheers for the explanation Jim - sounds like all is hand.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Jim, I appreciate the feedback and I was wondering if as part of the re-design that the experience bars for all positions will be made horizontal with the the position text itself set so that you don't have to turn your head to read it?

Although I'm the only one who's mentioned it thus far, I doubt I'm the only who's had that difficulty. :)

I agree with this message.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not doing a good job of explaining this. I got a couple of hours of sleep, which helps.


Three changes have been made from 5.0 to 6.0:

1. The scouting error is larger in 6.0 than in the past.

2. Players develop more quickly. My research shows that contributions are expected much sooner in a career. The average starter is younger. The average career is shorter.

3. Specific positional experience is now revealed (albeit rather inconveniently). This has been in the game for a couple of versions now, but never exposed.

This will take some getting used to.


However, the scouting error is too large now, and the game isn't displaying that in a useful manner. Either the red is too high, so no green is displayed, or the green is too low, also eliminating the green because red takes precedence over green.

Since errors are tied together, there aren't cases where red goes down and green goes up (which would be like a scout saying "I think he's overrated, but he'll be better than you can imagine in the future").

The changes aren't optimal given the current presentation, and this has made the positional experience chart more useful than green. And since positional experience is an extra click, this is not a good design.


One definition that might help:

The red/green percentage, which is obfuscated by the scouting error, is based on positional experience at a player's primary position. That hasn't changed from past versions.


What do I need to do?

1) In designing, I hadn't realized the importance of the positional experience screen. That should not be an extra click.

2) The scouting error is too high and making the game too random. The change I made from 6.0 to 6.0a, which was to more tie the red/green scouting error together, confuses more than it helps.

So I need to reduce the scouting error and reduce the level of that tie.


What is the AI doing?

The AI bases its depth chart decisions by combining the red/green chart with the positional experience chart. It is working as it should.


What am I going to do?

I need to go over this. People don't like change. On the other hand, someone just said they think the game is a disaster because they can't set playing time for a third running back, ignoring the whole third-down and short-yardage back settings. I'm never going to make everyone happy at FOFC and FOFC only represents a small percentage of my customer base.

The fact that I'm here and responsive is a double-edged sword. Whatever I do is going to make some people happy and a certain percentage bitterly unhappy. That second group, unfortunately, is going to be more vocal. That's just the way forums work. On the positive side, I get immediate uncensored feedback. I've always taken pride in the fact that I'm not afraid to see that feedback. Even during time periods when I don't post, I still lurk here.


I'll post again when I've come to a conclusion. I don't want this one issue to ruin what is a monumental amount of new work. This was the most ambitious release I've ever done, and I'd like to step back and enjoy it myself soon.GREAT post, Jim. Thanks for looking into this and helping clear up some of the confusion. I, for one, really appreciate it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And perhaps adding it as a third column on player search & roster screens, although I imagine that's not a short job...

FWIW the post above explains things pretty well, and from the 'What do I need to do?' bit, I would say from my point of view, that also seems to be the answer.

If I'm rading things correctly ,things were too far out 6.0, and too tight in 6.0a, which would go along with most of the posts here, although as you say, whether that's most of the opinion is another matter. i think in this case it probably is.

Cheers for the explanation Jim - sounds like all is hand.

Huh? I'm still totally confused as to how this works.

[AlexB]

I do not think that is true.

I would guess that it's tied into scouting error, or just that every now and again AI GMs will make a horrible decision every now and again.

It's called the Terry Donahue module

[Masked]

I do not think that is true.





I read Jim's message differently. The AI is doing what it is supposed to do - start the 65/65 rookie because he is "better" than a 34/34 veteren. The problem is that the current 65 is being calculated wrong because the error is too big.

[Coder]

I read Jim's message differently. The AI is doing what it is supposed to do - start the 65/65 rookie because he is "better" than a 34/34 veteren. The problem is that the current 65 is being calculated wrong because the error is too big.

So you think that what we're used to consider as current/potential is more like... current low/current high and that we no longer see potential?

(just trying to understand this)

[Gallifrey]

Reason #2862 why I will purchase every Solecismic game that Jim puts out.

I agree. Thanks Jim for digging into the code again and taking a look around.

And thanks for another great game.

[JPhillips]

One definition that might help:

The red/green percentage, which is obfuscated by the scouting error, is based on positional experience at a player's primary position. That hasn't changed from past versions.

So if I understand this correctly the red/green setup that we are accustomed to takes experience into account. So the positional experience chart should generally echo what our scout tells us.

What I'm getting is that the positional experience chart shouldn't be new information, but instead just more in depth information from the scout. Its also a way to see possibilities for position change.

Given this I'll agree that it's probably a small change from Jim, but it still has changed gameplay dramatically.

[Masked]

So you think that what we're used to consider as current/potential is more like... current low/current high and that we no longer see potential?

(just trying to understand this)

I interpreted what Jim post as saying that current/future means what we thought; however, the ratings are being calculated incorrectly (or technically correct but with too large of an error).

In reference to SunDevil's and Hammer's posts, what I think Jim means is that the AI is doing what it is supposed to do however the data the AI is basing its decisions on is incorrect. Therefore, what we see is the AI making bad decisions because we know what the player looked like prior to 6A - the AI does not have this info.

I am just tryign to understand too so I may be completely wrong.

[CraigSca]

It sounds to me that scouting, which is an inexact science, has been made more inexact. In a game such as this, we're SO USED to trusting our scouts over true in-game performance that we consider this heresy.

Again, the exhibition season becomes much more important, as well as following logs and individual boxscores (if you don't want to go the Solevision route).

While this will take getting used to, this is much more accurate and true to the real NFL.

Rather than searching for free agents with a certain rating above a certain number and immediately signing that guy to a contract. We now narrow our searches using that contract, but then also look at his statistical background to make sure what my scouts tell me actually translates to in-game performance.

One unrelated question - I assume we're all on Wall Street here. I wonder if there are more green bars in the "easy" difficulty version of the game, since scouting errors are diminished?

[Icy]

Umm I must read this all again tomorrow once I get up, too late at night here and I can't think properly.

I still don't understand how does this work in 2k7 and what current/future means now or even if current/future are the adequate terms, or maybe it's my lack of English knowledge to understand this.

I hope all will be more clear for me soon as the discussions keeps going on.

[SunDevil]

Rather than searching for free agents with a certain rating above a certain number and immediately signing that guy to a contract. We now narrow our searches using that contract, but then also look at his statistical background to make sure what my scouts tell me actually translates to in-game performance.


Which is fantastic except for the fact that you have no reference to college performance when drafting new players, which means you have to rely on your scout's opinion. And with drafting and developing players a large part of the game, how is it that this is now any better with these changes?

[Doug5984]

I'm very confused. With current not meaning current ability- Is a rookie who is 70/70 and 0 experience better or worse than a 4th year guy who is 45/45 and lets say 70% experience? If the 70/70 has 0 experience, how well would he play in relation to a guy who has 100% experience? Would he be the same as a 30/30, or 35/35? This is where I get very confused.

[Icy]

Ok, after re-reading Jim's post again and some other clarifications I think understand it now.

- Green is potential that could be reach or not (as seen by the scout).
- Red is current experience on the primary position (as seen by the scout)

All ok until now, it was same way in 2k4 and I always saw it that way. That was the reason of the red bars going down when the player had an experience reduction after a position change.

- In 2k7 the scouting error is to high, so both humans and the AI are seeing too random ratings (both green and red) and having the same problems knowing which player is better.

- Jim is considering to lower the scouting error and to add the experience bar in the main player card instead of one click away.

Am I right?

About Jim comments that we don't like changes in a game. While being true that most of users respond negatively after a change in any software, I'm afraid in this case the problem that some of us are having is not that we don't like changes in general, but that those changes are not working as they should as you have recognized (scouting error too high to be usable in a game for both the humans and AI).

[Barkeep49]

So I read through this and think:

Well if it eventually is displayed the way Jim wants that's a pretty cool design. But as a quick simmer, it basically explains why I was basically in a range of 7-9 to 9-7 with my teams. To do well takes far more time than I normally invest in a season.

[dubb93]

This game just went on the shelf for the immediate future. There is a huge bug somewhere. The game pre-6.0a patch was playable. This is not.

I highly doubt in real life a team would outsource their scouting reports to China and hire a bunch of nascar fans to translate them into english. This is what it feels like I'm reading when I play FOF 2k7. Not a big deal, just I don't feel the game compares to FOF 2k4 or even TCY or BBCF. I'll spend my gaming time elsewhere until the bug is found.

EDIT: By does not compare, I simply mean in terms of evaluating a team and the ability for the AI and human to field a team based on evaluating players.

[JeffW]

Which is fantastic except for the fact that you have no reference to college performance when drafting new players, which means you have to rely on your scout's opinion. And with drafting and developing players a large part of the game, how is it that this is now any better with these changes?

Yeah, not only that, but most football metrics are high variance and highly dependent on the talent surrounding the player. We also don't have any stats on players until after the first season, and even then 1 season of sample size is fairly useless, so you can't make accurate stat based judgments until deep into a career.

[dubb93]

Again, the exhibition season becomes much more important, as well as following logs and individual boxscores (if you don't want to go the Solevision route).


Don't you wish the community had not flamed the people asking for exhibition stat tracking now? You can look at each box 1 game at a time, but when ever people asked for them to be tracked the entire pre-season, all on one screen, they were flamed and asked, what the point was.

[CraigSca]

Personally, I wouldn't mind exhibition stat-tracking at all. I don't want them permanently tracked, you can certainly blow them out when beginning the real season. However, I do see value in tracking the exhibition stats during that initial 5 week period.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'm glad I didn't patch... The game seems to work better in its original incarnation.

[dbd1963]

The patch solved a lot of little issues that were bugging me so I'm glad I did patch. The players underneath the scouted ratings haven't changed, so I can work around the way it is now.

As far as AI GMs starting rookies who aren't as good as vets, I actually do that sometimes when I've got a rookie that I know (or think I know) will be better than the vet when he gets the position experience, so it's not an unheard of idea.

[Vince]

It sounds to me that scouting, which is an inexact science, has been made more inexact. In a game such as this, we're SO USED to trusting our scouts over true in-game performance that we consider this heresy.

I don't know about you or others, but this is very far from the way I analyze players in ANY game in which I know there is scout variance. The first three things I look for in a player are stats, stats, and then stats. Ratings only come into play for a player who has less than three years' experience, in my opinion. They're a useful tool to sort lists by, but after that, I sort out the chaff by looking through the statistics.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

As far as AI GMs starting rookies who aren't as good as vets, I actually do that sometimes when I've got a rookie that I know (or think I know) will be better than the vet when he gets the position experience, so it's not an unheard of idea.

I completely understand this. I've been annoyed by 6.0 doing things like starting journeymen veterans on one-year contracts over promising rookie/young players. I think the pendulum has swung too far in the opposing direction (and from Jim's post I think he realizes this.)

I have used a system in 2004 and 6.0 of starting a young player if he appears to be ready to take over the position and be better than the starter during the season. (an example would be starting a 35/48 QB over a 45/45 guy, but not a 25/48 over a 45/45) It now seems that with the ratings the way they are, a player who needs to sit for a few years and develop would be starting over a solid player, and there is no way the AI will bench a player who simply is not ready to play, but has great potential. This could really put a human player at an advantage over the AI... (If a QB throws about 6 INT's a game for 8 straight games, will a computer team bench him if he shows 91/91, but is only 2% developed?)

I think Jim is working on making a better balance for the next patch. This way Ryan Leaf doesn't come in and start over Joe Montana!

[SunDevil]

I don't know about you or others, but this is very far from the way I analyze players in ANY game in which I know there is scout variance. The first three things I look for in a player are stats, stats, and then stats. Ratings only come into play for a player who has less than three years' experience, in my opinion. They're a useful tool to sort lists by, but after that, I sort out the chaff by looking through the statistics.

Which is fantastic except for the fact that you have no reference to college performance when drafting new players, which means you have to rely on your scout's opinion. And with drafting and developing players a large part of the game, how is it that this is now any better with these changes?

Deja Vu?

[PSUColonel]

I'm thinking perhaps simply making the positional experience for the player's current position visible on the player page, then requiring an extra click for other positions, might be a perfectly viable solution.

For example -- one extra bar on the player card. For a QB, it would be his QB positional experience. Right clicking would still bring up the positional experience chart as is now, but his experience at the current position would be easily accessible without having to click again.



The logo probably doesn't need to be as large as it is, this would be an ideal way to create some space on the player card to see the experience bars.

[cuervo72]

GREAT post, Jim. Thanks for looking into this and helping clear up some of the confusion. I, for one, really appreciate it.

+1

It may take me stepping through it a couple times to fully get it, but this will certainly help. Knowing the basis of the system and figuring out the best way to deal with it is much better than trying to figure out the system itself. :)

I think seeing a player's experience at various positions is a very good thing, btw - I've often wondered what was stored under the hood here, as long as it is in addition to what's already there.

[Logan]

So I downloaded the patch right away, only to find this thread which got me pretty worried, pretty fast. I understand the changes made, and I could certainly get used to them eventually. But at the same time, if they're not being implemented correctly (and I believe Jim has acknowledged that...you'll have to excuse me, as I literally muted my TV while I read this thread so I could better concentrate on how people were explaining this issue), I'm not sure if I can keep playing before it's corrected. This bummed me out, as I wish I read the thread before downloading (my mistake, of course).

Thinking I was stuck with 6.0a, I went ahead and re-downloaded the extras (logos mostly) that were erased with the patch. When I downloaded Icy's file for the modified fonts (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1285329&postcount=1), I realized that it is a pre-patch exe, which makes me happy once again. I think I'll keep playing this version until this gets fixed, as I wasn't terribly bothered with a majority of the issues before the patch. Just pointing out this possibility for anyone who would like to easily go back in time.

[Tasan]

To me, this change makes the draft easier to understand, I think. The bars you see for the draft are the ranges your red will fall in, not what might be red or might be green. Maybe I just didn't see this clearly before or something.

[Galaril]

With the patch coming out, I planned on buying this on Friday. I don't know if that is the case anymore. I guess I will wait until there is further feedback on this issue. I hope there is a misconception and Jim can clear the air.

Same. $40 is not cheap for a game in my wife's opinion. I really haven't ever liked the fact that if it wasn't for people like SkyDog we would not know half of what this game is doing. There is no manual and now we are getting patches with no written or verbal patch notes. WTF. I got to say Jim is a good guy but if he was any other developer people would be going crazy. He has earned a free pass on this one from many loyal customers.

[cuervo72]

There is no manual

Not completely fair, as there is a help index in the game. It might be nice if it was presented in the form of one document, but there have been many times when there have been complaints of something not being documented (including from myself) when it actually was in the game help. It does seem as though Jim has a habit of leaving some things to discovery, which is sometimes nice ("hey, bonus!"), but at the same time, if it goes unnoticed (it wasa good 2.5 years before anyone in the FOFL noticed the forensics tourney) or is misinterpreted...

[mhass]

Does it seem right that drafted rookies would come out with "experience" per the rainbow bars? I'm using a TCY draft which may explain it, but I'd assume that "experience" would be 0 for every rookie and I'm four picks in to my first 6.0x draft and the first four have rainbows as much as half way up.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Forensics Tourney? Are you saying there is a speech and debate tournament in this game and I didn't know about it?

[kingnebwsu]

Or is it...

CSI: Miami 28
CSI: New York 17

in the first ever forensics bowl?

[cuervo72]

Forensics Tourney? Are you saying there is a speech and debate tournament in this game and I didn't know about it?

http://www.thefobl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21814&highlight=forensics

[johnnyshaka]

Forensics Tourney? Are you saying there is a speech and debate tournament in this game and I didn't know about it?

What? Is somebody here a master debater?

[Narcizo]

Does it seem right that drafted rookies would come out with "experience" per the rainbow bars? I'm using a TCY draft which may explain it, but I'd assume that "experience" would be 0 for every rookie and I'm four picks in to my first 6.0x draft and the first four have rainbows as much as half way up.

Drafted players have experience. I think that, in order for running backs to be able to come out of the gates and contribute immediately they will have to be assigned more experience than a quarterback - so I guess that experience sort of means "knowledge of all the things that you need to know in order to perform to your ability at an NFL level". And that's a bit of a mouthfull so "experience" will have to do.

With Jim's explanation I think this sounds like a great improvement. I've always wondered what level, for example, a left tackle playing right tackle will perform at, etc etc. I think everyone reacted to the everyone having red bars and no green. I don't fully understand the explanation of scouting error (surely there should still have been some divergent red/greens) but I've been having problems understanding why scouts are always over-estimating draft classes so that's nothing new. With the two fixes that Jim has mooted I think the game will be a lot richer and satisfying. Probably not ideal for quicksimming, which is a shame, but even more rewarding on a detailed level.

I'm still a bit confused about the difference between current and experience though. For example does a player have to have full experience to play at their current ability? That's how I read it. But in that case why have a player with 40 current ability and experience bars only halfway up? Does that mean that their current ability is actually 20? Or is their current ability always worked out based on the highest experience bar, irrespective of where the bar actually is, so a left tackle with 40 current ability, 50% experience in left tackle and 30% right tackle will play at a 40 level at left tackle and, erm, 24 at right tackle? Or will he play at 20 at left tackle and 12 at right? I'm an idiot - I've just reread Jim's post and it seems quite clear that the difference between the red and green is based on the positional experience in the primary position - in other words it's 40 at left tackle and 24 at right tackle. I really should try and pay more attention

I still think I'll plod away on the unpatched version even if I'm only fooling myself until this makes more sense to me in the game. The huge scouting error really does effect the way the game plays and I really haven't found any huge bugs in the prepatched version. Now I just have to download it again as I overwrote the original version.

[Caratacus]

So (if I'm understanding this) the "Red/Green %'s" are the players ability minus his experience.

If this is the case, now that we can see a players experience for ourselves is there any need to have the Green %?

Could we not just have the red bars showing his specific abilities? and then use the experience as our guide to decide if a player is ready to start. It would seem more realistic that way.

Obviously his current position experience would have to be visible on the player card and searchable in free agency.

[QuikSand]

edit - I'm leaving this here, but please be advised that it looks like this thinking was flawed -- and that the real underlying issue here is massive scout error, rather than a completely new visioning of the ratings system. Go ahead and read if you're interested, but my best attempts to square this particular theory with the comments from Jim are failing, so I assume I must be wrong... and that there's no need to discout the "current" rating again for lack of experience.

Well, since this doesn't seem to be very well settled, I'll try to take another hack at it.

What we really want to know is the variable "how well should this guy play, at this position, right now?" Let's call that variable NOW.

I think we can set up this function in these terms:


Curr = Current Rating (the red bars, understanding there's some degree of scout error at work)

Exp% = The player's experience rating at the position in which he is slotted to play (visual estimate of this is available from the right-click menu)

Rust% = Measure of the degree of "season rust" that the player suffers from (I'd want to express this as "% Rusty" to be consistent, meaning we'd need to translete the game output into a number - work with me here)


I think it's oversimplifying this whole thing to suggest that the function is a direct multiplicative process... rather, I think we need to add two yet-unknown modifiers:

Xm = Modifier on how important the Experience factor is (range 0-1)

Rm = Modifier on how important the Rust factor is (range 0-1)

For these two, I'd think of them as an upper bound on how much penalty a player suffers from a weakness in this area. Let's say that a player is completely inexperienced at his position -- maybe that makes him suffer a 20% penalty to his apparent ratings. In that case, Xm would be 20%, or 0.2. Same for the rust factor -- if a player with "extreme" rust (translated to 100%) would suffer a 40% penalty to his skills, we'd set Rm at 40% or 0.4. That's the concept here -- these are unknowns, but I think you need them in the picture to more accurately describe what's going on here.


With that, I think we could come up with a meaningful formula -- the real way to express "how well should this guy play, at this position, right now?" (with the necessary caveat that the composite rating may not be the best overall indicator of performance, but that's a given to all of this) -- and it ought to look basically like this:

NOW = Curr x [ 1 - (Xm x (1 -Exp%)) ] x [ 1 - (Rm x Rust%) ]

If your guy is completely experienced and not at all rusty, then this formula just simplifies to his current rating. To the extent your guys is not completely experienced or is riusty, he will suffer appropriate limited penalties for each, in some unknown mangitude.


An application:

Let's say your player scouts with a current rating of 60. He shows 80% experience at his position, and no seasonal rust. Pretty typical youngish starter, I'd guess. We'll factor in that the potential magnitude of the "experience effect" is 25% (which is about what I'd guess it to be, though perhaps a bit higher). I'll assume the rust factor is also 25%, though it won't come into effect here. If all that is true, then here's what you ought to expect from your player right now:

NOW = 60 x (1 - (0.25 x 0.2)) x (1 - (0 x 0.75)) = 60 x 0.95 x 1 = 57

In other words... your guy suffers a limited penalty from not being fully experienced. In this example, it works out to 20% inexperience x 25% importance of experience = 5% penalty, or 3 points off his current rating of 60. Had he also been suffering from rust, there would be a similar penalty for that, of appropriate magnitude.


As nearly as I can tell, this is the best way to describe the function that leads to players' ability to perform right now in their position. Honestly, we may never have any idea what the real world values of Xm and Rm above are, but that's not exactly unprecedented for Solecismic products. But I am hopeful that this might be a useful way to put this into perspective.

[wade moore]

I heart Quiksand.

[Dutch]

It actually is starting to sound to me that the blue bars should just replace the green/red bars...and the blue bars size should be based on the scouting margin of error. Worse scouts, bigger bars.

[Narcizo]

It actually is starting to sound to me that the blue bars should just replace the green/red bars...and the blue bars size should be based on the scouting margin of error. Worse scouts, bigger bars.

I was thinking the same thing, certainly on teams other than your own. On your own team you could see the red/green bars. I suspect it would be a bit difficult to implement but it would be good if the blue bars narrowed after a player had gained a reputation in the league.

[CraigSca]

I never considered that experience wasn't a multiplier in a strict 0 to 1.0 sense.

Quik, is this conjecture on your part, or have you found something in-game to make you believe that the experience factor runs at most XX%?

[Ben E Lou]

NOW = 60 x (1 - (0.25 x 0.2)) x (1 - (0 x 0.75)) = 60 x 0.05 x 1 = 57That should be .95 rather than .05, but I think you're spot-on in your interpretation.

[Ksyrup]

The AI bases its depth chart decisions by combining the red/green chart with the positional experience chart. It is working as it should.


This was my biggest issue/fear with the patched game, so as long as Jim has confirmed that this is working properly (and I guess you can quibble with whether a low-experience but high combined current/potential young player should start over a high-experience but lower combined current/potential older player, but that's the way the game is set up to work), I can wait for what appear to be forthcoming changes to presentation of the position experience and an adjustment to the scouting error.

At least, that's what I take from Jim's post.

[QuikSand]

That should be .95 rather than .05, but I think you're spot-on in your interpretation.

Edited, thanks.

[Narcizo]

Except Jim said (I think) that "true" (ie not scouted) current ability is a function of "true" future potential (not scouted) and positional experience. But I guess Quik's calculation is as good as it gets while the scout reports are so out of whack.

[QuikSand]

I never considered that experience wasn't a multiplier in a strict 0 to 1.0 sense.

Quik, is this conjecture on your part, or have you found something in-game to make you believe that the experience factor runs at most XX%?

Well-founded conjecture.

[QuikSand]

Except Jim said (I think) that "true" (ie not scouted) current ability is a function of "true" future potential (not scouted) and positional experience. But I guess Quik's calculation is as good as it gets while the scout reports are so out of whack.

As long as there is some degree of scout error, we're *never* going to know the exact starting point for such a forumla. Even if the game is re-patched and the degree of scout error is radically changed, the formula above doesn't change. We can only start with what we have, and that is the scouted current rating. Everything in the game is premised on the underlying knowledge that there is some error in scouting inherent in everything we see. No way around it, regardless of its magnitude.

[KWhit]

A lot of people seem to have missed this point in Jim's post.

The red/green percentage, which is obfuscated by the scouting error, is based on positional experience at a player's primary position. That hasn't changed from past versions.

The red and green bars' meanings haven't changed from FOF2004. The scouting error changes that Jim made just make them look wacky and are possibly causing the AI to possibly overvalue youngsters (because it sees their current ratings to be too high). It sounds like Jim is looking into this, so let's try to keep things in perspective.

[QuikSand]

A lot of people seem to have missed this point in Jim's post.

I'm still trying to square my thinking with that snippet from Jim, actually. I felt like I had this thing conceptually figured out... but now I think I may be double-counting the experience factor, in essence. Not sure, but if I reach a new conclusion, I will edit the "formula" above.

[KWhit]

I'm still trying to square my thinking with that snippet from Jim, actually. I felt like I had this thing conceptually figured out... but now I think I may be double-counting the experience factor, in essence. Not sure, but if I reach a new conclusion, I will edit the "formula" above.

Yes, I agree that you may be counting the experience modifier twice (at least as far as the player's primary position is concerned). My thinking is that the equation would be simpler. Something like:

NOW = Curr x [ 1 - (Rm x Rust%) ]

Because I believe that experience for the primary position is already factored into the "Curr" variable (including scouting error, of course).

[QuikSand]

Some coincident thinking on this from Narcizo's "Artie Markiewicz" thread..

So, trying to use Markiewicz as a clue to hos the red/green situation is currently constructed...

He's a guy now rated 61/61 by our scout, in our patched GroupThink game. In his graphic, he has only a trifle of apparent green, a few points worth in "courage."

I'm trying to square this with the fact that Markiewicz's "experience" at FL, his starting position, is only about 50%. If reds were simply a function of greens this variable -- I just don't see how a 50% experienced guy comes out as 61/61 and nearly all red.

But there is supposedly the lingering issue with "scout error." So is that the answer?

What kind of player is Artie Markiewicz right now?

-Is he really more or less a 30/60 guy, whose reds are showing up way too high?

-Is he something like a 50/60 guy, where there's a capped effect of experience, and his reads are still shoing up too high?

-Is he really fuilly developed, and the red and greens are mor or less correct... but that the apparent red ratings are mitigated in their effect by the fact that he doesn't have much experience?


I'm at a loss.. but this case study seems useful to me.


Bottom line: how can a guy with only about 50% experience at his current primary position still show up as 61/61 and have almost no trace of green in his snapshot?

Can the scout error really be this dramatic and absurd?

[eiskrap]

Some coincident thinking on this from Narcizo's "Artie Markiewicz" thread..




Bottom line: how can a guy with only about 50% experience at his current primary position still show up as 61/61 and have almost no trace of green in his snapshot?

Can the scout error really be this dramatic and absurd?


Sorry to butt in here, but I don't really get whats wrong with that... Why can't a young/rookie player have the current ability to be a good/great player, but he won't perform consistently at that (or even near that) level until he gains that the required experience?

[KWhit]

Some coincident thinking on this from Narcizo's "Artie Markiewicz" thread..




Bottom line: how can a guy with only about 50% experience at his current primary position still show up as 61/61 and have almost no trace of green in his snapshot?

Can the scout error really be this dramatic and absurd?

I think so. If you look at all players in the league, most all of them are fully developed if you look at their Curr/Fut ratings. However, in case after case, their experience doesn't back this up. For Markiewicz, the 61/61 is not a valid indicator of his Curr/Fut at this point - which Jim has said is due to scouting error changes he is looking at. I'll have to take his word that that is what is causing this oddity, but from his post, it sounds as if what SHOULD be displaying in his Curr/Fut rating is something much closer to 30/60.

[QuikSand]

Sorry to butt in here, but I don't really get whats wrong with that... Why can't a young/rookie player have the current ability to be a good/great player, but he won't perform consistently at that (or even near that) level until he gains that the required experience?

It's not that it's wrong... I'm just trying to figure out what the hell it is.

When Jim says that the current is just the future modified by experience (actual quote ios above) then I'd expect any player with a fairly low experience ratiung to have a pretty bnig gap between his current and future rating. This guy doesn't. What gives?

I'm still at the point of trying to figure out who this stuff works. What Jim is saying and what we're seeing don't square very well, to me, unless there is not just an increased degree of scourt error, but a massive one.

[Icy]

Sorry to butt in here, but I don't really get whats wrong with that... Why can't a young/rookie player have the current ability to be a good/great player, but he won't perform consistently at that (or even near that) level until he gains that the required experience?

You are mixing things. "Current" can't be mixed with "abillity to be a good/great player"

Current: Today's ability

Future: Ability to be a good/great player once he gains experience.

Anyway we are trying too hard to find explanations to something that is a bug or not designed properly. Jim already knows it and admited that he doesn't like it a lot either. I expect news from him once he figures how to fix it so maybe better to stop to burn my brain about it.

[eiskrap]

You are mixing things. "Current" can't be mixed with "abillity to be a good/great player"

Current: Today's ability

Future: Ability to be a good/great player once he gains experience.

Anyway we are trying too hard to find explanations to something that is a bug or not designed properly. Jim already knows it and admited that he doesn't like it a lot either. I expect news from him once he figures how to fix it so maybe better to stop to burn my brain about it.


I think you might have got things a little but mixed up, by mixing up ability and experience. I would say that a rookie like Reggie Bush has nearly all the ability of Tiki Barber, but doesn't have the experience to make the best use of it. So they would have similar red bars, but Tiki having more experience, and thus using his current ability better. Which to me is what we are seeing in the game at the moment.

The way I see it is that it works pretty well at the moment, and the only change that needs to be made is the scouting error reduced a little so that red bars are no longer bigger than green bars.

[Icy]

I think you might have got things a little but mixed up, by mixing up ability and experience. I would say that a rookie like Reggie Bush has nearly all the ability of Tiki Barber, but doesn't have the experience to make the best use of it. So they would have similar red bars, but Tiki having more experience, and thus using his current ability better. Which to me is what we are seeing in the game at the moment.

The way I see it is that it works pretty well at the moment, and the only change that needs to be made is the scouting error reduced a little so that red bars are no longer bigger than green bars.

Ah ok, i underestand you now but while what you say makes sense too, i'm more in the quicksand way of thinking. That green bars (current) are the red bars (future) modified by experience.

So a 60/60 player with 50% experience is a 30/60 player and the green bars should be half of the red ones. If you add scouting error to it, then there should be some variance, but not from 30/60 to 60/60. That is why i think the scouting error is not a bit big but huge, as it is up to 30 points in that example.

[BrianD]

I think you might have got things a little but mixed up, by mixing up ability and experience. I would say that a rookie like Reggie Bush has nearly all the ability of Tiki Barber, but doesn't have the experience to make the best use of it. So they would have similar red bars, but Tiki having more experience, and thus using his current ability better. Which to me is what we are seeing in the game at the moment.

The way I see it is that it works pretty well at the moment, and the only change that needs to be made is the scouting error reduced a little so that red bars are no longer bigger than green bars.

I don't know that the game does work this way, but it would seem to be a reasonable design option. Bush could come in at 71/75 - already a good player but still room to grow a little more - but with a 30% experience rating. This could mean that he could have a game-to-game (or play-to-play) volitility which allows him to perform anywhere from 31 to 71. He would be a rookie with all of the immediate potential to be a superstar from day one, but enough volatility to have him make plenty of poor plays due to inexperience.

I think it could make sense as a possible design, but it doesn't seem from Jim like that is what is going on.

[eiskrap]

Ah ok, i underestand you now but while what you say makes sense too, i'm more in the quicksand way of thinking. That green bars (current) are the red bars (future) modified by experience.

So a 60/60 player with 50% experience is a 30/60 player and the green bars should be half of the red ones. If you add scouting error to it, then there should be some variance, but not from 30/60 to 60/60. That is why i think the scouting error is not a bit big but huge, as it is up to 30 points in that example.

Yeah I get what you're saying... I'm probably looking at this from a completely different way to you as I never played 04 and so had no real idea about what the bars meant previously. But to me, in the patched version at least, the red bars represent current ability with no experience factored in... which you have to do yourself by looking at the experience graphs.

[Passacaglia]

I wonder what affect something like that would have on changing positions.

[dbd1963]

It actually is starting to sound to me that the blue bars should just replace the green/red bars...and the blue bars size should be based on the scouting margin of error. Worse scouts, bigger bars.

That's an idea that makes sense for the gamer maybe, but it's not exactly realistic. I kind of like having scouts "lie" to you because of their error, rather than having a representation of their error on the player card.

[gbeats]

Phew, just read all 4 pages of this post! :rolleyes: :eek: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I’ve not actually downloaded the new patch yet, so just wondered, would I be as well waiting until this issue has been resolved before downloading, or does it work well enough as it is?<o:p></o:p>

[AlexB]

Ah ok, i underestand you now but while what you say makes sense too, i'm more in the quicksand way of thinking. That green bars (current) are the red bars (future) modified by experience.

So a 60/60 player with 50% experience is a 30/60 player and the green bars should be half of the red ones. If you add scouting error to it, then there should be some variance, but not from 30/60 to 60/60. That is why i think the scouting error is not a bit big but huge, as it is up to 30 points in that example.

This is my understanding of it, or at least how I think it's supposed to be!

[twothree]

Established players won't retire unless there's a career-ending injury, they're completely unwanted, or they're somewhere in the twilight of their careers. All careers follow some sort of performance path. The path rises quickly toward maturity, then has a gradual curve over the peak of the career before curving quickly toward ineffectiveness. That curve will differ for each player, and my research shows that it differs by position.

Here's a chart showing what I found when studying career length and performance by position:

Position Maturity Begin Peak End Average Years Average GS
QB 5th Season 13th Season 5.5 37
RB 3rd Season 9th Season 4.1 25
RCV 2nd Season 10th Season 4.5 31
OL 2nd Season 12th Season 5.0 46
P 2nd Season 14th Season 7.3 106
K 1st Season 16th Season 6.5 95
DL 3rd Season 10th Season 4.8 41
LB 3rd Season 10th Season 4.5 37
SEC 4th Season 11th Season 4.6 38

Needless to say, your franchise quarterback isn't going to retire just because he's in his 6th season and that's the average length of a quarterback's career. He'll know when it's time to go.

Three changes have been made from 5.0 to 6.0:

2. Players develop more quickly. My research shows that contributions are expected much sooner in a career. The average starter is younger. The average career is shorter.


Since this section of the help file did not change from 5.0 to 6.0, does that mean 6.0 now models the above help file entry more closely? Or, is this help file entry now further from what is modeled by 6.0?

[Dutch]

That's an idea that makes sense for the gamer maybe, but it's not exactly realistic. I kind of like having scouts "lie" to you because of their error, rather than having a representation of their error on the player card.

You are absolutely right, at least in reality.

If I ask my scout what they think of Player X...on a scale of 1-10, I want the sumbitch to tell me 4....not 2-8. :)

[VPI97]

Can the scout error really be this dramatic and absurd?
My initial reaction to the issue is that Jim misplaced a decimal point while calculating scout error. Dunno if that's what happened or not.

[MalcPow]

It's not that it's wrong... I'm just trying to figure out what the hell it is.

When Jim says that the current is just the future modified by experience (actual quote ios above) then I'd expect any player with a fairly low experience ratiung to have a pretty bnig gap between his current and future rating. This guy doesn't. What gives?

I'm still at the point of trying to figure out who this stuff works. What Jim is saying and what we're seeing don't square very well, to me, unless there is not just an increased degree of scourt error, but a massive one.

The scout error or variance is pretty big, and I'm wondering if there might be another problem that has sprung up. In 2k4 if you looked at a potential draft pick's %developed and your scouts estimate of his current/future ratings, the two were fairly close, i.e. a player might be rated 20/60 and have a 34% developed rating. There was variance of a percent or two at times, but for the most part, your scout's current/future assessment, even if ultimately incorrect, seemed to move in lockstep with the % developed rating.

In 2k7, even prepatch, this was not the case. We weren't able to see current and future ratings until picking a player now, but after selection I was seeing plenty of players with big variance between my scout's current/future assessment and the % developed rating (I am talking about the ratings on the roster screen immediately after selecting a player, not post camp or anything). As others have noted, and it's backed up by taking a look in the game, the %developed rating we see for potential draftees looks to be almost perfectly mirrored by the vertical positional experience bar for a player (which as Jim has stated, seems to be the real determinant of current ability, I read his comments as meaning this is entirely straightforward and that current is potential x experience%, and that it isn't more elaborate than that).

What I think has happened is that Jim increased scouting error for 2k7 by a lot, and he also eliminated or decreased the lockstep nature of scouts rating players in a current to future ratio consistent with their %developed/experience (assuming these are the same). After release Jim saw that this was really throwing things off, and it was difficult to figure out if you had a good or bad player, and a ton of undrafted rookies were being made to look like potential future starters and all-pro's, so he decided to decrease the error and tie the bars back together again.

I think something got messed here in possibly a couple of ways. You can take a guess from previous versions that scout error was really only assessed on one rating, potential, which in turn was used to create current through an experience multiplier. This would explain the consistency between %developed in 2k4 and curr/fut rating ratios. It would also explain the common phenomenon we've all seen of creepers, or redliners, players with seemingly full red bars whose red bars continue to grow as it becomes more and more apparent your scout had them wrongly assessed. In this version there appears to now be additional scout error assessed on current ratings, but as Jim has stated, it's set up in a way so that you'll never see a player's potential grow and his current diminish. I think what we're seeing now with the almost entirely maxed potential player pools is a function of Jim toning down the error on future potential (to eliminate the crazily overrated UDR's and such), but not toning down the error assessed to current enough, and it also appears as though all current error is being added to %developed instead of being distributed both positively and negatively. On top of that, Jim wanted to "tie the bars" together more AND accelerate development so the general spread between current and potential was decreased, and the problem with current error being too high and being additive is large enough that it is erasing that newly decreased spread.

So my best guess is that these things need to be tweaked (maybe there's even just a typo causing the current error to only be added to percent developed, or some other simple mathematical gaffe), or this new "current error" needs to be eliminated, especially if we're all going to know that experience is the true driver of current ability anyway. And now I've made this really long post that I'm not sure is really coherent... It makes sense in my mind, I swear. :)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, I followed this and it made sense. I just want my green bars back.

[yabanci]

Since this section of the help file did not change from 5.0 to 6.0, does that mean 6.0 now models the above help file entry more closely? Or, is this help file entry now further from what is modeled by 6.0?

yes to the first question, no to the second.

[kingfc22]

I just don't want to have to do algebra when playing a text sim. I like being able to see green/red and make determinations based on that.

[Axxon]

I just don't want to have to do algebra when playing a text sim. I like being able to see green/red and make determinations based on that.

Well, it's pretty hard to avoid algebra in FOF2k7. How do you manage the salary cap if you don't? How do you know know how many points you need to score to win if you're losing 20-13?

I'm afraid algebra is used in almost every facet of human life...

maybe you can play madden? ;)

[Dutch]

Well, it's pretty hard to avoid algebra in FOF2k7. How do you manage the salary cap if you don't? How do you know know how many points you need to score to win if you're losing 20-13?

I'm afraid algebra is used in almost every facet of human life...

maybe you can play madden? ;)

Well, to be fair, there are two kinds of algebra. The first kind can be done in your head in less than a nano-second. The second kind requires ripping your hair out after seven pages of work resulted in the wrong fucking answer.

I'm sure his comment lies somewhere in between--vs. on the extremities. :)

[Axxon]

Well, to be fair, there are two kinds of algebra. The first kind can be done in your head in less than a nano-second. The second kind requires ripping your hair out after seven pages of work resulted in the wrong fucking answer.

I'm sure his comment lies somewhere in between--vs. on the extremities. :)

I'm sure.

It's just one of my pet peeves when people say they don't use/need algebra when we couldn't live in our society without it. Usually, a few examples like the above and they show a little more respect for the power of math and for that matter for themselves when they realize "hey, I do algebra every day." :)

[Coder]

Has someone tried the patch yet? I'm at work and can't access the game to see if there's been any changes to the scouted ratings.

[Narcizo]

It's difficult to tell but I'd say that it does seem to fall somewhere between vanilla and post patch, but nearer the vanilla, which seems about right.

Also, now you need to know the sequence of colours in the spectrum instead of knowing algebra. :)

[Icy]

Looks nice for me, rookies doesn't look fully developed now.

[Ben E Lou]

Time to (thankfully) close this puppy. Let the 6.0b discussion begin!!!