Scout error changes in 6.1

[Ben E Lou]

Reduce the scouting error.

I start this post with a caveat: what could be going on here is that when new players are generated the maximum threshold for scout error has been reduced, so this may not have as large an impact on existing players as it will on newly-generated ones. It'll take playing a decade or two with 6.1 to really determine that.

That being said, it appears at first check that the change is minimal with regard to existing 6.0e-generated players. I've got another check I can do before I head to bed, but the first guy I checked was the following:

6.0e: 31/32 first on roster, 34/39 postfirstcamp, 62/62 max
6.1: 31/33 first on roster, 34/39 postfirstcamp, 65/65 max

Not a big change, that. 3 points is within the margin of error of the combination of scout-to-scout variance, and the fact that in the 6.0e run he was on my team, and in the 6.1 run he was on another team.

A better check for larger sample size, though, would be to track three of my 2025 6.0e SP draftees. I'll do that now.


Here were their numbers in 6.0e:

OLB Calvin Russell: 16/37-->21/43--------------->69/69
S Mickey Gleason: 22/45-->26/53--------------->71/71
DT Jeff Tully: 24/29-->27/37-------------------->55/55

I want to check one quick thing that impacts MP, but then I'll come back to this in a few minutes.

[Ben E Lou]

OK...back...I'll draft these guys 1/2/3 to get them on my team and see how they progress in a little QuikSimming.

[Ben E Lou]

OLB Calvin Russell: 16/37-->21/43--------------->69/69
S Mickey Gleason: 22/45-->26/53--------------->71/71
DT Jeff Tully: 24/29-->27/37-------------------->55/55

Draft and first camp in 6.1...

Russell: 16/37-->21/45
Gleason: 22/45-->25/54
Tully: 25/30-->28/38

So, all three experienced a bit more initial unmasking in 6.1 than in 6.0e, but all three were very similarly masked initially. Time to sim forward.

[cuervo72]

Hrm, I'm surprised you don't have more saves floating around...open year 1 in both, then year 2 in both, then year 3 in both...

[Ben E Lou]

Hrm, I'm surprised you don't have more saves floating around...open year 1 in both, then year 2 in both, then year 3 in both...

I do, but the saves are huge and I don't feel like waiting to upload them to a server to download to my other machine.

[cuervo72]

Oh, you don't have FOF on the machine with the saves?

[Ben E Lou]

Oh, you don't have FOF on the machine with the saves?Actually, I guess I can just open it up on that machine at each juncture. Now I see what you're saying.

Laptop: 6.1, SP savegames
Desktop: 6.0e

I can just load all the saves on the now-6.1 machine.

Duh.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah...nothing earth-shattering here, either:

Russel: 69/69
Gleason: 73/73
Tully: 58/58

This makes me wonder as I did earlier if it's a change in the max threshold going forward, as opposed to a general significant unmasking.

[cuervo72]

That, or copy the 6.0e executable (renamed) and open on the same machine.

[Ben E Lou]

As was mentioned in the other thread, early indications (from examining a few 6.1-generated draft classes) seem to point to lessened masking in newly-generated players. My guess at this point is that the combination of accelerated unmasking and less masking overall is going to make a significant difference going forward. :)

[Ben E Lou]

...early indications (from examining a few 6.1-generated draft classes) seem to point to lessened masking in newly-generated players.

Anyone have any further thoughts on this? Agree? Disagree?

[cuervo72]

I was wondering if maybe part of the adjustment could be the hit/miss ratio on interviews. My IHOF scout is Good YT, Good OL, Good DL...and by first indications, completely whiffed on a DT and an OT both interviewed as "very underrated". If that's the kind of feedback I'm going to get from a scout, I'm going to go back to ignoring him.

[QuikSand]

I was wondering if maybe part of the adjustment could be the hit/miss ratio on interviews. My IHOF scout is Good YT, Good OL, Good DL...and by first indications, completely whiffed on a DT and an OT both interviewed as "very underrated". If that's the kind of feedback I'm going to get from a scout, I'm going to go back to ignoring him.

In the IHOF draft, wouldn't all of that information be pre-patch?

[cuervo72]

Yes - I worded that poorly. My thinking was if interviews were deemed off-target too often in 6.0 they could be more accurate now in 6.1 (if I have three draftees identified as VU in a given draft and two turn to ash, that's not very much incentive to heed the scout - though that could just be bad luck). I have no indication that is the case, but it's a thought. I think I recall SD saying that something like 85% of the "VU" interviewees were successful in his SP career, it might be interesting to see if that number has changed any.