FOF: Search Results

[Fritz]

something that may have been talked about already, but I don't see it in a site search.

When I do a search for something like "top future CB" the list that is returned is not in decending numeric order.

This makes me think the list is sorted before scouts/filters are applied. Do we know anything about this?

[QuikSand]

There was some discussion about this way back in the old days (FOF 2001), and it has always been this way. I don't think there has ever been a firm answer to this -- your theory is one, but as I recall there is/was another theory that your scout weights different ratings differently than the generic compound weighting does, thus explaining the difference at least in part.

I think this is in the unsolved file -- might require a trip back to the old grassy knoll.

[MIJB#19]

I got an email response from Solecismic Support on the issue a month or so ago.

It's as designed, the future potentials are not ordered as the decline of talented is weighed in into the order, but the numbers show the max potential expected.

I might still have the email in my box.

[sovereignstar]

I got an email response from Solecismic Support on the issue a month or so ago.

It's as designed, the future potentials are not ordered as the decline of talented is weighed in into the order, but the numbers show the max potential expected.

I might still have the email in my box.
That e-mail would be nice, because I've got no idea of what you are trying to say.
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[MIJB#19]

That e-mail would be nice, because I've got no idea of what you are trying to say.
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif :p

Question
When in the recommend screen and chosing to order by future value, the listed future values are not in order is expected, players with a lower potential (for example 70) can show up above players with a higher potential (for example 71).

Answer
Is a weird artifact of the scouting system. Scouts who think there may be "negative" green may rank someone with a 70 lower than someone with a 68, though they still report it as a 70. It's not the greatest design in the world, but fortunately in that case, the range is rarely more than a couple of points.

[KWhit]

What is "negative" green?

[MIJB#19]

What is "negative" green?Expected loss of ratings?

[QuikSand]

Well, that settles it.

[MIJB#19]

Well, that settles it.Funny choice of word, coming from QS, making the whole comment open for interpretation in the wrong way.

[sovereignstar]

Thanks

[QuikSand]

What is "negative" green?

Lest I be further misundertstood, I'll join you in not knowing what the above Q&A is really saying. I'll take a stab at it, though.

My guess is that a given player might have "actual" (hidden) ratings in one area of 60/60. The scout, as we know, is subject to some degree of error. So, perhaps in the error routine, this particular player ends up with scouted ratings of 60 +/- some number on each side. It's possible, then, then the scout erros goes as a "plus" to his scouted current skills, but as a "minus" to his scouted future skills. Therefore, the rating that we'd likely see from this scout shodl appear as something like 62 current, 58 future.

Since this makes no sense, the game cuts this off, and just shows the future at the same level as the current rating -- we'd see this guys as 62/62. That's how we see it. However, there might be some calculations -- like the scout sort indicated above, where the hidden future rating from the scout (the 58 above) is actually used.

That's my best guess as to what he's saying here.



...and I apologize for my grudging resistence to using euromoticons to convey my sarcasm.

[MIJB#19]

Well, I never followed up with a question about the "negative green", simply because I thought I figured out what was ment with it, as being the scout expecting to see a decline in ratings for the scouted player.


QS, I sensed the sarcasm, but figured that non-IHOF followers might miss the inside-joke.

[KWhit]

Lest I be further misundertstood, I'll join you in not knowing what the above Q&A is really saying. I'll take a stab at it, though.
Ah. That's a good guess and makes sense considering the term that was used - "negative green".