Scouting overview without scout?

[Icy]

In the WOOF we are in the staff hiring period and my scout was signed by another team. Then i took a look at my team scouting overview, and i see a big variation (up to 10 points) on some players current/future probably because the scout is not in my team anymore.

So i wonder, the current/future i see right now are the real ones? (hope not as it would be an exploit) or are the ones seen by an average scout or what?

[Hammer]

Same thing happened to me in the NAFL, don't know if you remember. Most of my players dropped, some by up to 10 points or so.

[Icy]

Same thing happened to me in the NAFL, don't know if you remember. Most of my players dropped, some by up to 10 points or so.

Yup most of mine dropped too.

[Nogram]

Wow, that would be an interesting concept. Also, I think that may allow an exploit in only signing your scouts to one year deals, so you can get a 'real look' once a year.

This is worth testing imho.

Nogram <--- may spend some time on this....

[gstelmack]

This is worth verifying, but I suspect you'll find that it's an "average" scout view, similar to what the commish sees when he's looking at the league. I doubt it's a 100% accurate view.

[Icy]

One of the weird things, my scout saw my kicker as a 43/43 and he was poor at scouting kickers. Now without scout i see my kicker as 43/43 too.

For other players i see up to 10 points less in current/future, specially in the high rated ones like from 91 to 81.

[cuervo72]

This is worth verifying, but I suspect you'll find that it's an "average" scout view, similar to what the commish sees when he's looking at the league. I doubt it's a 100% accurate view.

I wrote a fairly long post on this at FOFL a while back, as I noticed this the first year after the transition from 2k4 to 2k7 (but in IHOF...). I would argue that what you have is actually a P/P/P/P/P scout, and this is the default from how you see players that are not on your team. Rather than go into it all again here, I'll link to the thread over there:

http://www.thefobl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22725&highlight=scout

Well ok that's long so I'll try to summarize:

1. For established players - those full in experience and/or outside the "young talent" (R-3) range, players will look better on your roster, and often how much depends on your scout. The better the scout, the better they will appear - which makes it seem as though most players have a negative mask which is peeled back more by the better scouts. Of course, not all have this, as some players seem to be maskless (they look the same on any team, with any scout). I had a CB that I knew to be good, something like 78/78 in 2k4, and about the same in 2k7. With the no scout, he was down something like 9 points. When I got a scout again - back up he went.

2. Guys who are in the YT range act a little differently. And counter-intuitively. Basically, if a young player looks better on your roster than in FA (the "no scout"), he is worse than advertised and will creep down. If he is *worse* on your team - i.e. if you release him his ratings go *up* - this is a sign that the player is a positive creeper. Again, makes little sense, but it seems to be the case.

[cuervo72]

For other players i see up to 10 points less in current/future, specially in the high rated ones like from 91 to 81.

I found this too, and it seemed to be percentage based. I think at one point I figured each scouting level to be about 3% of a rating.

4:24:03 pm [cuervo72]: my P used to be 100/100, in the old game
4:24:13 pm [cuervo72]: with no scout? 86/86
4:25:04 pm [cuervo72]: hmm
4:25:33 pm [cuervo72]: if EX = 100% and P= 85%, you could have a progression like this:
4:25:50 pm [cuervo72]: EX = 100, VG = 97, G = 94, A = 91, F = 88, P = 85
4:26:01 pm [PineTar]: careful here cuervo... you're opening up the black box here
4:26:42 pm [cuervo72]: say my P is naturally 100
4:27:11 pm [cuervo72]: wanna know how he looked with my old scout, who was average for K/P?
4:28:22 pm [cuervo72]: (yes, 91/91)
4:28:36 pm [PineTar]: oh, I thought that was rhetorical
4:28:38 pm [cuervo72]: I bet the math doesn't work quite that cleanly though
4:28:48 pm [cuervo72]: well, semi
4:29:08 pm [cuervo72]: he's 87/87 even with my crap scout now though, so higher than I'd expect
4:29:53 pm [PineTar]: degrees of poor perhaps?

[Icy]

I wrote a fairly long post on this at FOFL a while back, as I noticed this the first year after the transition from 2k4 to 2k7 (but in IHOF...). I would argue that what you have is actually a P/P/P/P/P scout, and this is the default from how you see players that are not on your team. Rather than go into it all again here, I'll link to the thread over there:

http://www.thefobl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22725&highlight=scout

Well ok that's long so I'll try to summarize:

1. For established players - those full in experience and/or outside the "young talent" (R-3) range, players will look better on your roster, and often how much depends on your scout. The better the scout, the better they will appear - which makes it seem as though most players have a negative mask which is peeled back more by the better scouts. Of course, not all have this, as some players seem to be maskless (they look the same on any team, with any scout). I had a CB that I knew to be good, something like 78/78 in 2k4, and about the same in 2k7. With the no scout, he was down something like 9 points. When I got a scout again - back up he went.

2. Guys who are in the YT range act a little differently. And counter-intuitively. Basically, if a young player looks better on your roster than in FA (the "no scout"), he is worse than advertised and will creep down. If he is *worse* on your team - i.e. if you release him his ratings go *up* - this is a sign that the player is a positive creeper. Again, makes little sense, but it seems to be the case.

Good read cuervo thanks. That the "no scout" sees my kicker exactly like my poor scouting kickers one seems to confirm what you say.

[QuikSand]

I think there's an extension of the same logic that applies when you sign a free agent player. The rating you get for him once he joins your roster (and, for the sake of immersion, let's say your scout "gets a better look") will change, and it looks like the direction of that change is the same sort of thing cuervo notes above with the no-scout/scout view differential.

[sovereignstar]

This is worth verifying, but I suspect you'll find that it's an "average" scout view, similar to what the commish sees when he's looking at the league. I doubt it's a 100% accurate view.

The commish doesn't see an average scout view. The scout whose view they see goes hand in hand with whatever color scheme they're using, which is more than likely their SP team.

[gstelmack]

The commish doesn't see an average scout view. The scout whose view they see goes hand in hand with whatever color scheme they're using, which is more than likely their SP team.

That's interesting, since in my office league in which I play and commish, I have often seen differences in the commish view (notably during the draft) than I do in my GM view. I will have to double-check at some point soon.

[Narcizo]

I think there's an extension of the same logic that applies when you sign a free agent player. The rating you get for him once he joins your roster (and, for the sake of immersion, let's say your scout "gets a better look") will change, and it looks like the direction of that change is the same sort of thing cuervo notes above with the no-scout/scout view differential.

So if you sign a undrafted rookie and his ratings appear to drop when he joins your team, it's a decent indication that he's a upwards creeper.

[Synovia]

So if you sign a undrafted rookie and his ratings appear to drop when he joins your team, it's a decent indication that he's a upwards creeper.


That seems like a really bad design decision. Why don't you see free agents with your own scout? That would make the most sense.

[Ben E Lou]

That seems like a really bad design decision. Why don't you see free agents with your own scout? That would make the most sense.

My assumption here is that you do see them with your own scout as FAs, and that this is meant to simulate you getting a different picture of the player once he's really on your team, and the directional change oddity is a result of how the masking mechanism functions.

[Synovia]

My assumption here is that you do see them with your own scout as FAs, and that this is meant to simulate you getting a different picture of the player once he's really on your team, and the directional change oddity is a result of how the masking mechanism functions.

Right, but it seems like in SP, it could be really exploited. Just start signing FA's the during TC with no bonus, and if their ratings go down, keep them. If they don't, cut them immediately.

[Icy]

Right, but it seems like in SP, it could be really exploited. Just start signing FA's the during TC with no bonus, and if their ratings go down, keep them. If they don't, cut them immediately.

Or do the opposite in MP, release all your players, pay atention to those with ratings going up and those will be future booms. As long as you don't export your file, the players cuts won't be exported.

[QuikSand]

And this would be the first potential single-player exploit in this game?

It's not that I really disagree with you, but I think in general, playing solo requires a basic "don't be a total asshat" house rule... otherwise, why not just save/reload your way to 240 interviews, 150 free agent signings, and a perfect FA offseason?

[Synovia]

Or do the opposite in MP, release all your players, pay atention to those with ratings going up and those will be future booms. As long as you don't export your file, the players cuts won't be exported.


Thats assuming that the local-pre-export dumped player ratings are good, and not like the post-position change numbers. It could be exploited in MP with FAs too, but you'd be limited to 5 or 6 (or whatever you have expendable roster spots for) for each stage.

I think a simple fix would be to make the ratings static until the player had bene on the team for x weeks, or played y plays.

[Subby]

Thats assuming that the local-pre-export dumped player ratings are good, and not like the post-position change numbers. It could be exploited in MP with FAs too, but you'd be limited to 5 or 6 (or whatever you have expendable roster spots for) for each stage.

I think a simple fix would be to make the ratings static until the player had bene on the team for x weeks, or played y plays.
No.

Cut the players, compute the scout differences between on team and off team, reload the game.

It's called The Cut Test and it has been in use in online leagues for a while.

[Mistwood19]

Scouts have opinions and you know what they say about opinions, they're like aholz, everyone has one...

[Subby]

Scouts add nothing to MP - I wish there was a way to turn them off.