6.0a: Looking at a red/green case to plow forward.

[Ben E Lou]

I've been playing quite slowly. I'm six seasons into my "real" career, and am quite familiar with my team, so I think I'd like to plow forward when I get back home this evening with 6.0a. I'd love to see if y'all think I'm reading what Jim said correctly:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Solecismic http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/office/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1306775#post1306775)
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).
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

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.Let's look at a player, and see if I can apply what Jim said to him:

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

This guy started three games this year as a rookie, and threw 103 passes. Jim's statement that scout error is too is very evident here. Clearly this QB doesn't have that much development yet. It appears from the bar that this guy has, say 25%-35% of the experience he could potentially get at QB. So, looking at Jim's comment again: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.Should I take this to meant that (if the scout happened to be dead-on with the overall rating) this guy translates to what we are used to seeing as a 17/58 QB?

[irish-leaf]

Should I take this to meant that (if the scout happened to be dead-on with the overall rating) this guy translates to what we are used to seeing as a 17/58 QB?


As far as I can gather, thats exactly the way I'm taking it, although because of 'the scouting error' Jim talks about this player could be a 12/42 or 24/70 as well.

If this is the case then the only problem i have is the fact the XP is hidden away behind another click, otherwise ilike the fact the player could be a boom or bust as just like in real life, there are few certainties.

[Narcizo]

That's definitely how I read Jim's statements.

[Northwood_DK]

But why then change the way we have watched it before? It makes no sense to have them as current/future in the scouted rating.

[Ben E Lou]

But why then change the way we have watched it before? It makes no sense to have them as current/future in the scouted rating. Well, what's done is done. He said he's going to take a long look at it. I'm just trying to plow forward for now until the issue is resolved. At this point, questioning why doesn't really do me any good.

[Narcizo]

But why then change the way we have watched it before? It makes no sense to have them as current/future in the scouted rating.

I think you might be misunderstanding what Jim said. (Or then again, I might). The problem is that the scouts are wildly miscalculating the current ability. Current and future are what they've always been. It's just that we're being shown the wrong value for "current" (and, presumably in many cases, for future as well) by scouts that are, clearly, on drugs.

[Ben E Lou]

It's just that we're being shown the wrong value for "current" (and, presumably in many cases, for future as well) by scouts that are, clearly, on drugs.:D

[Dutch]

I'm having a hard time grasping the new current/future bars. I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe this will need to be pounded into my head with a sledge-hammer. But I'm trying to figure it out. Right now, I just don't get it.

As for the experience bars. If they are truly a modifying % (of sorts) to the overall red bars, then I think it would be of some value to put the experience on the player card.

It can be as simple as an overall scout impression. Maybe an identifier.

Player X

Current Position Experience: Rookie; Journeyman; Prime; Veteran

...or whatever to help us get an immediate feel for who we are actually looking at. (The right-click "ooh neat" just transformed itself into extremely valuable information and I don't like that implementation.) This identifier increases with a formula based more on the actual experience (current points?) earned rather than age. I could care less if the guy is in his 7th year. I want to know if he's progressed in a manner that makes his red bars accurate.

I may be wrong (on a lot of things regarding this "change"), but I think I need something a bit more intuitive on the player card.

The idea seems to be an improvement to the system, but the implementation seems...less than ideal.

[Icy]

I underestand it that way too, what we saw before as "current" is (future * experience / 100) so that 58 future guy that looks to have around 30% of experience would have a current of:

58 * 30 / 100 = 17'4

So he is a 17/58 guy as we saw it before.

The problem is that the experience is now a bar that only appears after right clicking, and even when it appears, i need to do that math operation to figure his current. As it's a very simple math operation that doesn't add anything to the game difficulty or fun levels, i would prefer to have back the old current/potential that to have to do it in my brain every time i watch a player card.

It's like if instead of seeing for a given player that he has 5 years of experience, we would have displayed "3+4-2" that of course is 5 too but requires us to do a math operation every time that is not related to the game fun factor at all.

Anyway the main problem right now is not if current is displayed or not but that scouting is way off and it's not usable by the humans or computer AI. We humans can learn to play with it, but i'm afraid that the "AI" doesn't visit this forum and has not been told that scouts are way off :)

[wade moore]

I think a LOT of people are misunderstanding this.

It is clear to me from what Jim posted, that there are no significant changes in game mechanics.

My evidence:

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.

But rather, just what we "know"/see has changed:

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

So...

The way it worked before:

RED/GREEN BARS - We saw a lot of green where the red slowly met up (sometimes moving together, sometimes just the red moving up, sometimes the green would move up slowly with the red).
EXPERIENCE - There was an underlying "experience" factor. This seems to effect playing out of position, etc. All of this was there before, but we didn't know it and didn't see it.

The way it works now:

RED/GREEN BAR - There is still a red/green bar (with the SAME meaning as before). However, there tends to be much less green and sometimes none at all. Here is my understanding of what Jim is saying is happening - The scouting error is happening EITHER to current OR to future. In addition, the error is very larg.e So, what happens is when the error is on current, it is so high that it overlaps the green. When it is on future, it is so low that it goes "under" the red. So, what ends up happening, is many of the players look like their red and green are equal (or close to it).

EXPERIENCE - No change. Except, now we SEE it. This was there in previous versions, Jim says so in plain black and white, it's just that now we get to see it. He's giving us MORE information to make a BETTER decision.



WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED? Scouting Error is bigger. That's IT. Nothing else seems to have changed about the game mechanics themselves. People are reading WAY too much into this. Jim has said the scouting error seems to be too high and he is going to work on it. That being said, I dont' see how this game is possibly unplayable. It's tougher to evaluate talent with the scout error so high, yes... however, the overall game mechanics are not effected by this.

MY SUGGESTION TO JIM - If Jim reads this, here is my suggestion about how to address this...

If I'm understanding the scout error correctly, it seems like in the current system it has to be large or it has to be small. Why can't this be more variable? Some guys we read really well and some we don't? Some young guys would have basically no green with large scouting error, whereas another guy who is REALLY at the same talent level would have a ton of green because he is accurately scouted? It doesn't seem like we need a system where either everyone has a lot of green or everyone has very little green, but that it should be a mix of the way it was before the patch and the way it is after the patch.

[MIJB#19]

It's just that we're being shown the wrong value for "current" (and, presumably in many cases, for future as well) by scouts that are, clearly, on drugs.My scouts already were in the IHOF.

[wade moore]

My scouts already were in the IHOF.

I don't think it's the scouts that say a 30/30 DE is as good as Cris Richardson... :D

[Icy]

That being said, I dont' see how this game is possibly unplayable. It's tougher to evaluate talent with the scout error so high, yes... however, the overall game mechanics are not effected by this.


I agree on that it's tougher to evaluate players, and that is not a big problem for me, i used to play OOTP 6.5 without ratings, only with stats. Of course i must admit that baseball is more suited to play without ratings as you have tons of stats and also a 162 games season to judge your players, while in football you have like 17 games per regular season to judge your players.

Where i strongly disagree is on this "the overall game mechanics are not effected by this" as even when we can adapt ourselves to the big scouting error, it seems that the game AI can't. there are documented proofs of the AI making stupid mistakes when judging who should start, and it turns the game almost unplayable at least for me that always want a competitive AI.

[irish-leaf]

Why can't this be more variable? Some guys we read really well and some we don't? Some young guys would have basically no green with large scouting error, whereas another guy who is REALLY at the same talent level would have a ton of green because he is accurately scouted?

I like this idea, that way players can still be boom or bust and aesthetically everyone remains happy as there is plenty of re and plenty of green.

People seem to be getting carried away by the lack of green when essentially the problem is the scouting error discrepencies, it's big but as mentioned before in this thread it's not really that big an issue. In no way does it make the game unplayable.

In real life, scouting is an inexact science (as also stated somewhere before in this or another thread) and i personally like the fact that you roll the dice with most players not knowing how good they are.

I also think in multi-player games this will make trading easier as GM's will not know exactly how players will pan out so for that reason will be more willing to deal hoping they get the boom player.

[wade moore]

Where i strongly disagree is on this "the overall game mechanics are not effected by this" as even when we can adapt ourselves to the big scouting error, it seems that the game AI can't. there are documented proofs of the AI making stupid mistakes when judging who should start, and it turns the game almost unplayable at least for me that always want a competitive AI.


You THINK the game is making stupid mistakes, but it's not. First of all, you seem to be basing this on a few select cases, which is a mistake in itself.

But, even in those cases, you're basing it on what you see with your preconceived notions of the red/green bars. From what I saw in those examples, I didn't see any serious problems with the decisions made.

[Icy]

You THINK the game is making stupid mistakes, but it's not. First of all, you seem to be basing this on a few select cases, which is a mistake in itself.

But, even in those cases, you're basing it on what you see with your preconceived notions of the red/green bars. From what I saw in those examples, I didn't see any serious problems with the decisions made.

Well or o didn't underestood it properly or even Jim admited it in the other thread. The AI is working nicely as designed, but because the scouting error being too high, it's making poor decissions.

[wade moore]

Well or o didn't underestood it properly or even Jim admited it in the other thread. The AI is working nicely as designed, but because the scouting error being too high, it's making poor decissions.

It's decisions SHOULD be tied to the scouting error, just as ours would.

[Icy]

It's decisions SHOULD be tied to the scouting error, just as ours would.

Yes, we are saying the same, the AI is working properly and i never said it's not, but the huge scouting error is forcing it to make poor decisions, don't you see we are agreeing that the problem is the scouting error?

What i mean is that the scouting error it's not only affecting humans but also the AI, and we humans can use our intelligence and creativity to get over the problem, but the AI can't, so the scouting error is more of a big problem for the AI than for us, making it less competitive, while in your post that i quoted before, you looked to think that the only problem is that we need to learn how to use the scouting error, but what about the AI?

[wade moore]

Yes, we are saying the same, the AI is working properly and i never said it's not, but the huge scouting error is forcing it to make poor decissions, don't you see we are agreeing that the problem is the scouting error?

What i mean is that the scouting error it's not only afecting humans but also the AI, and we humans can use our intelligence and creativity to get over the problem, but the AI can't so the scouting error is more of a big problem for the AI than for us, making it less competitive.

While I see your point, I'm not sure that i agree.

Sounds like a lot of people won't be able to overcome the scouting error ;).

[amdaily]

You THINK the game is making stupid mistakes, but it's not. First of all, you seem to be basing this on a few select cases, which is a mistake in itself.

But, even in those cases, you're basing it on what you see with your preconceived notions of the red/green bars. From what I saw in those examples, I didn't see any serious problems with the decisions made.

I think you're the one who is not comprehending this correctly. That 17/58 QB mentioned earlier is getting the start over a 57/57 star veteran because the AI precieves the 17/58 QB to be a 58/58 QB, as per his current rating. The entire game as changed and it is now unplayable because the AI does not care how developed said player is when considering how to start. This isn't a slight scouting error, it's a huge miscalcualtion.

[wade moore]

I think you're the one who is not comprehending this correctly. That 17/58 QB mentioned earlier is getting the start over a 57/57 star veteran because the AI precieves the 17/58 QB to be a 58/58 QB, as per his current rating. The entire game as changed and it is now unplayable because the AI does not care how developed said player is when considering how to start.

So you know for a fact what that XX/58 players real ratings are? Interesting - I'd like to know how you're able to see his true current ratings.

FWIW, what is his experience?

[amdaily]

So you know for a fact what that XX/58 players real ratings are? Interesting - I'd like to know how you're able to see his true current ratings.

FWIW, what is his experience?

Just using generalities. Even if the veteran is a true 47/47, and the rookie a true 27/54, that is too large a gap to bridge. A 47 is likely to put the vet near the top of league in QB stats, and yet the AI will still start the rookie every time, because it still will see a 54/54 for the rookie.

[Narcizo]

As I pointed out in my other thread the AI was making mistakes before the patch as well, because of faulty scout information. Possibly it's making more errors now but at least those mistakes generally mean that it will play younger players, which is no bad thing as previously the AI adamantly refused to give young players a chance until after their current rating was above a veteran's current rating.

In my opnion this actually means that the game will eventually turn out to be more realistic post-patch, as younger players get a chance to develop, a chance they never got before the patch. Obviously it needs a change to the scouting error but it appears that it might not be the huge deal that many (myself included) thought it might be.

[wade moore]

Just using generalities. Even if the veteran is a true 47/47, and the rookie a true 27/54, that is too large a gap to bridge. A 47 is likely to put the vet near the top of league in QB stats, and yet the AI will still start the rookie every time, because it still will see a 54/54 for the rookie.

Depending on the circumastances I would definitely consider starting a 27/54 over a 47/47 (if we're talking 2k4 for instance). So this is why I say to make a sweeping comment that cause of this one position battle that it's all screwed up is just silly.

[Joker]

I just read all these posts under this heading.
This makes sense.

Then I went and read ALL the other posts on this subject
around the FOFC dial.

...Im confused again.

There's alot of mis-information out there.
I'm back again round 2.
Plowing Thru

[gabeschw]

The way it works now:

RED/GREEN BAR - There is still a red/green bar (with the SAME meaning as before). However, there tends to be much less green and sometimes none at all. Here is my understanding of what Jim is saying is happening - The scouting error is happening EITHER to current OR to future. In addition, the error is very larg.e So, what happens is when the error is on current, it is so high that it overlaps the green. When it is on future, it is so low that it goes "under" the red. So, what ends up happening, is many of the players look like their red and green are equal (or close to it).



This is the part that doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would scout error for current always overestimate the player, while scout error for future always underestimate the player? If what you're saying is true, and the scout error is only happening on one of the two at a time, wouldn't there be just as many cases where the scout is underestimating current ability but predicting future accurately, or overestimating the future, but accurately pointing out the current? In those two cases, the green bars would be *bigger* than normal, but we're not seeing that at all.

[Narcizo]

I think you're the one who is not comprehending this correctly. That 17/58 QB mentioned earlier is getting the start over a 57/57 star veteran because the AI precieves the 17/58 QB to be a 58/58 QB, as per his current rating. The entire game as changed and it is now unplayable because the AI does not care how developed said player is when considering how to start. This isn't a slight scouting error, it's a huge miscalcualtion.

For your quarterback I can show you a young first round pick running back (he should have gone within the top five picks) with 75 potential and, probably, around 55 with experience who hasn't started for two years and won't start this year either pre-patch, because of a running back ranked 54/54.

Which is the bigger problem?

[AlexB]

As far as I can gather, thats exactly the way I'm taking it, although because of 'the scouting error' Jim talks about this player could be a 12/42 or 24/70 as well.

If this is the case then the only problem i have is the fact the XP is hidden away behind another click, otherwise ilike the fact the player could be a boom or bust as just like in real life, there are few certainties.

Or a 12/70 or 24/42, or anywhere in between

[AlexB]

For your quarterback I can show you a young first round pick running back (he should have gone within the top five picks) with 75 potential and, probably, around 55 with experience who hasn't started for two years and won't start this year either pre-patch, because of a running back ranked 54/54.

Which is the bigger problem?

Neither - they're both problems, and as Jim has said, it was too far one way pre-patch, and too far the other now.

[flounder]

This is the part that doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would scout error for current always overestimate the player, while scout error for future always underestimate the player? If what you're saying is true, and the scout error is only happening on one of the two at a time, wouldn't there be just as many cases where the scout is underestimating current ability but predicting future accurately, or overestimating the future, but accurately pointing out the current? In those two cases, the green bars would be *bigger* than normal, but we're not seeing that at all.

This doesn't make sense to me either. Something else must be going on.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

If this experience chart is so important now, why not add one more red bar below all the others called experience (for current primary position). That would help a lot. I think the rainbow thingy is not so good if its so important. Make it look the same and put in the same spot as the other bars. Uniformity would help.

[wade moore]

If this experience chart is so important now, why not add one more red bar below all the others called experience (for current primary position). That would help a lot. I think the rainbow thingy is not so good if its so important. Make it look the same and put in the same spot as the other bars. Uniformity would help.

Well, it couldn't be one bar because there is a different bar for different positions.

[Passacaglia]

I think that's why he said for current primary position.

[Deattribution]

I know you are still guessing a bit, and I may be misunderstanding this, but from what I read in the initial post, you're saying we're getting the exact same information but just in a more complicated and confusing manner.

Instead of seeing a guy as 17/60 we see him as 60/60 then we have to look at his experience bar and figure out in our head that he's really 17/60 when before we could just look at his player card and figure this out by our scouts.

If I'm understanding this correctly, that's pretty stupid.

There are alot of issues if this is the case - it forces quick-simmers to slow play, because they can no longer just allow the scouts to control their depth charts.

It also makes scouts almost useless, he gives me an error filled judgement of where he thinks the player's limit is then I have to look at the experience bar to figure out where he is at currently?

[MalcPow]

I know you are still guessing a bit, and I may be misunderstanding this, but from what I read in the initial post, you're saying we're getting the exact same information but just in a more complicated and confusing manner.

Instead of seeing a guy as 17/60 we see him as 60/60 then we have to look at his experience bar and figure out in our head that he's really 17/60 when before we could just look at his player card and figure this out by our scouts.

If I'm understanding this correctly, that's pretty stupid.

There are alot of issues if this is the case - it forces quick-simmers to slow play, because they can no longer just allow the scouts to control their depth charts.

It also makes scouts almost useless, he gives me an error filled judgement of where he thinks the player's limit is then I have to look at the experience bar to figure out where he is at currently?

Welcome to the party. Jim has said he's working on a solution to make this all user-friendly and sensical again. It's pretty universally agreed that something needs to be adjusted, either under the hood, or with the way things are presented, I think SkyDog's just trying to find a way to play with what we know in the interim.

[Ben E Lou]

I think SkyDog's just trying to find a way to play with what we know in the interim.Yup.

[Deattribution]

Welcome to the party. Jim has said he's working on a solution to make this all user-friendly and sensical again. It's pretty universally agreed that something needs to be adjusted, either under the hood, or with the way things are presented, I think SkyDog's just trying to find a way to play with what we know in the interim.

Understandable, wasn't intentionally trying to beat the dead horse. The last thread just lost me somewhere around page 2 or 3 with so many guesses and explanations that I'm just beginning to try to get a grasp on it again.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think that's why he said for current primary position.

Right.

[yabanci]

I think a LOT of people are misunderstanding this.

including yourself.

The way it works now:

it doesn't work any way now. The patch has a problem. Jim's going to fix it. Another patch will come out soon and, however he addresses the problem, it will work differently than in 6a. So trying to figure out the intricacies of patch 6a is a waste of time.

That being said, I dont' see how this game is possibly unplayable. It's tougher to evaluate talent with the scout error so high, yes... however, the overall game mechanics are not effected by this.

Sure, you can play it now, but why waste the time and start an imperfect career when a patch will come out shortly that will make all the players look differently? Some people might want to do that for their own personal reasons, but for many, if not most, the patch 6a game is unplayable because there's an obvious problem that is currently bieng addressed and will be resolved soon.

MY SUGGESTION TO JIM - If Jim reads this, here is my suggestion about how to address this...

If I'm understanding the scout error correctly...

If you don't understand how something works, how can you suggest how to fix it? I'm quite confident that Jim does understand how everything works, knows what he wants the end result to be, and will fix the problem.

[wade moore]

If you don't understand how something works, how can you suggest how to fix it? I'm quite confident that Jim does understand how everything works, knows what he wants the end result to be, and will fix the problem.

I'm quite confidant I know how this works as well. It's not a big mystery, Jim has explained it quite clearly.

[wade moore]

it doesn't work any way now. The patch has a problem. Jim's going to fix it. Another patch will come out soon and, however he addresses the problem, it will work differently than in 6a. So trying to figure out the intricacies of patch 6a is a waste of time.

It does work now. It merely has too high of a scout error. That's ALL, and Jim has said so.

Edit: When Jim makes the changes, it's not going to "work" differently. The red/green bars will just look different because the scouting error will change.

[yabanci]

I'm quite confidant I know how this works as well. It's not a big mystery, Jim has explained it quite clearly.

So clear that there are pages and pages of people trying to figure out what it means, even after the explanation. Face it: the patch is a work in progress. Jim is reevaluating what he did in patch 6a and nobody knows how the next patch is going to look.

[jbmagic]

Wade moore is blind, he never sees anything wrong.

Where you a beta tester?

[yabanci]

It does work now. It merely has too high of a scout error. That's ALL, and Jim has said so.

Edit: When Jim makes the changes, it's not going to "work" differently. The red/green bars will just look different because the scouting error will change.

Saying "that's ALL" and "it merely has too high of a scouting error" is misrepresentation of what he said. He cleary said things are different because of scouting error and the way red and green bars are tied together. He further said he's going to go over everything and post when he has come to a conclusion. Just let the process work. Your fanboyishness in trying to reassure everyone that everything is great now doesn't do anyone any good.

[wade moore]

Saying "that's ALL" and "it merely has too high of a scouting error" is misrepresentation of what he said. He cleary said things are different because of scouting error and the way red and green bars are tied together. He further said he's going to go over everything and post when he has come to a conclusion. Just let the process work. Your fanboyishness in trying to reassure everyone that everything is great now doesn't do anyone any good.

He clearly said that the scouting error is too high, but that elsewise things are working correctly.

Oh, and he did say that he needs to improve how experience is displayed, but that has nothing to do with game mechanics.

Call me a fanboy, that's fine, I probably am to an extent (although I have gotten into arguments with Solecismic in the past about game mechanics in 2K4). But trying to make rash accusations about the game being completely screwed when it's not are much more harmful than me being a fanboy.

[wade moore]

Wade moore is blind, he never sees anything wrong.

Where you a beta tester?

I do see things wrong. In fact, you can see my post in the FG thread where I state that I think there should be more delineation in the FG settings. I just don't blow these things out of proportion. I realize that it's an element that could be improvement, but that it's not a major impact overall.

And no, I where not a beta tester.

[yabanci]

He clearly said that the scouting error is too high, but that elsewise things are working correctly.

Oh, and he did say that he needs to improve how experience is displayed, but that has nothing to do with game mechanics.

Call me a fanboy, that's fine, I probably am to an extent (although I have gotten into arguments with Solecismic in the past about game mechanics in 2K4). But trying to make rash accusations about the game being completely screwed when it's not are much more harmful than me being a fanboy.

Who said the game was completely screwed? At most people are saying it's a waste of time to play patch 6a because it's anticipated that there will be another patch very soon that will change the way we see players.

That's your problem. Somebody questions something in the game and you twist it up and interpret it as saying the game is completely screwed, then you rush to the aid with your fanboyism.

[Logan]

And no, I where not a beta tester.

Awesome :) .

[wade moore]

Who said the game was completely screwed? At most people are saying it's a waste of time to play patch 6a because it's anticipated that there will be another patch very soon that will change the way we see players.

That's your problem. Somebody questions something in the game and you twist it up and interpret it as saying the game is completely screwed, then you rush to the aid with your fanboyism.

I won't dig up all of the quotes where people say the game is screwed in this thread like I did already in the other thread.

Again, I'm doing the opposite of what you're doing. When someone makes overreaching statements about what's wrong with the game, i'm setting in reality so that we understand what is really broken and what isn't.

I'm sure that I probably give Solecismic the benefit of the doubt on some flaws (although I do admit to the flaws when they're there) - but some of you are just plain making things up.

You (and others) rush to bash and blow things out of proportion, I (and others) rush to defend, somewhere in the middle is reality.

[Adgnash]

Maybe I go about this the wrong way, but I personally feel the proof is in the pudding and it is all about the stats. I don't care if someone has a rating of 20, 40 or 60, red or green, it is all about the numbers they produce on the field. Sure the ratings kind of relate to this, but those ratings are based on your scouts "opinion", whereas you cannot argue with the stats!

Just my opinion...

[Galaxy]

Maybe I go about this the wrong way, but I personally feel the proof is in the pudding and it is all about the stats. I don't care if someone has a rating of 20, 40 or 60, red or green, it is all about the numbers they produce on the field. Sure the ratings kind of relate to this, but those ratings are based on your scouts "opinion", whereas you cannot argue with the stats!

Just my opinion...

And how are you going to scout draft players and young, limited players?

[adubroff]

So, looking at Jim's comment again:Should I take this to meant that (if the scout happened to be dead-on with the overall rating) this guy translates to what we are used to seeing as a 17/58 QB?

I believe this guy is what we've always thought of as a 17/58 QB, but that what we think of as a 17/58 QB doesn't really jive with what that math is...

17/58 is a ridiculous number...the implication is that this guy is 1/3rd as effective at quarterbacking as an above average NFL starter. I would bet, that in reality, a green/talented quarterback would be much closer to 90% as capable of being an nfl quarterback than he was to 33%...I might think that I'm 33% as skilled as your average a solid nfl quarterback, and I'm out of shape and old. In reality, I bet that NFL QBs do not get a lot better at physically doing their job over the course of their careers. What they do get, is more experienced...and that experience translates into them doing their job more effectively (whether through confidence or greater athletic intelligence). So my guess is that our 17/58 guy has always been more like a 58...with a small bonus for his limited experience....maybe a 63/63. When this guy gets 100% experienced (assuming he has not begun to lose physical skills), he might be a 68/68 after experience modifiers. I would imagine that it would make sense if this were nonlinear, otherwise players would improve linearly an that would not jive with what we see in real player development (the most improvement comes early)

This would jive with the decisions the AI is making on young players...if the AI is looking at two guys, one is 58 (33% experience, which I'm imagining to be 63) and one is 55/55 (100% experience, which might translate to 65/65), it would be perfectly logical to play the inexperienced one...especially if you consider that by the end of the year, the 33% experienced one might be 45% experienced and that the "average" performance you're going to see is something like 65/65 the vet would do. I am sure the AI must think about long term when setting the depth chart just as the human would, or the game would be too easy.

My other guess is that the game is much slicker than I'm proposing here...I would imagine that the game looks more heavily at experience in places where it would logically mean the most (meaning that when it's checking the "long passes" skill, which is mostly a physical thing, experience might mean very little), but that when the read defenses skill is checked the experience percentage means a huge amount.

[yabanci]

I won't dig up all of the quotes where people say the game is screwed in this thread like I did already in the other thread.

Again, I'm doing the opposite of what you're doing. When someone makes overreaching statements about what's wrong with the game, i'm setting in reality so that we understand what is really broken and what isn't.

I'm sure that I probably give Solecismic the benefit of the doubt on some flaws (although I do admit to the flaws when they're there) - but some of you are just plain making things up.

You (and others) rush to bash and blow things out of proportion, I (and others) rush to defend, somewhere in the middle is reality.

You really are tedious. I think your brown-nosed colored glasses really interfere with your grasp of reality. You seem to have a persecution complex in which you perceive any criticism of the game, constructive or otherwise, as bashing and blowing things out of proportion, and that you, like Underdog, have to come to the rescue with your superpowers of apologetics. Counterproductive and tedious.

I personally am very happy with the game. Currently there's a problem with it that is getting fixed. This much is obvious and it's not a big deal. I have no doubt Jim will fix it. He knows what he's doing. He doesn't need your mental gymnastics in every thread to help him with public relations.

[MIJB#19]

I believe this guy is what we've always thought of as a 17/58 QB, but that what we think of as a 17/58 QB doesn't really jive with what that math is...

17/58 is a ridiculous number...the implication is that this guy is 1/3rd as effective at quarterbacking as an above average NFL starter. I would bet, that in reality, a green/talented quarterback would be much closer to 90% as capable of being an nfl quarterback than he was to 33%...I've always read the ratings as being as should be ratings+100. So a 17/58 would be more like a 117/158 and a 63/63 guy a 163/163. That makes a lot more sense in my perception, as that makes the unexperienced guy 72% as good as the experienced player. The added 100 is there to represent that the player is on a pro football level.

[Dutch]

Maybe I go about this the wrong way, but I personally feel the proof is in the pudding and it is all about the stats. I don't care if someone has a rating of 20, 40 or 60, red or green, it is all about the numbers they produce on the field. Sure the ratings kind of relate to this, but those ratings are based on your scouts "opinion", whereas you cannot argue with the stats!

Just my opinion...

Interesting. So between two rookies, which one do you start? Between two free agents that you picked up that have never played a down, which one do you start?

The RL scout has a set of tools away from the numbers, the RL coach has a set of tools. FOF has tools also--ratings and red and green bars.

[Dutch]

Galaxy beat me to it (by just a bit I see). :)

[Ben E Lou]

Thanks for the, uh, help, but I don't need to plow ahead with 6.0a any longer. ;)