Exporting Bars for Conscriptor Utility

[albionmoonlight]

An issue has come up over at IHOF, and I thought that it was worth noting here to see if other people in MP leagues have encountered it.

We use the conscriptor utility pretty heavily over there to do our rookie draft. And since most of it occurs during the day when I am at work, I do not have access to FOF7 when I am drafting.

With FOF2k7, I relied on the export of the bars into conscriptor to make choices on later round picks. Now, because of the much greater scout variance in FOF7 (A very good change, IMO), there is no "neutral" scout to export bars into conscriptor, nor would it be fair to ask any one owner to "lend" his scout to do that.

I really miss those bars.

I understand why Jim did what he did. I can see how having a "neutral" scout really messes up the whole point of having limited information coming from your scouts.

If, to take the most obvious example, someone has a below average scout, it would seem that having access to a "neutral" or "average" scout would help reduce that disadvantage.

One solution I proposed over at IHOF is to have an export from a "bad" scout. Someone who would not be giving information any more useful than the scouts that the teams employ. But who could at least let you see thing like which FB has good run blocking v. good receiving, or which WR has some talent at KR/PR. Something to give a very broad outline of the type of player it is, without really tipping the cards vis a vis detailed bars.

In fact, that could even be an immersive addition because it could be like the walterfootball.com of draft predictions. Inferior to anything that the teams themselves produce, but enough to let you see which 6th round TE prospect projects as a situational run blocker and which one projects as a situational receiver.

Thoughts? Am I alone in wanting something like this? Are there solutions (either suggestions to Jim or something I can do from the user end) that I have not considered?

[sjshaw]

You are not alone. This change is BRUTAL.

[Nataris]

New to the game and haven't played multiplayer so take my input with a grain of salt. But what about something like an avg of all the scouts on every team? So it would take into account every teams scout rating, avg them out for a rough outline.


It would create a situation where you can tell RB 1 is a better inside runner then RB2, but it also won't give super accurate stats which allows players to compare and contrast prospects against their own scouts as well as the scout avg.

Again, new player here so not sure if this works or not.

[gstelmack]

Or you have to go back to the old "do your own Extractor run and import it into Conscriptor". Or better yet have Jim let CSV export functionality include the bars your scout sees (it does that for all other roster bits, right?) and then use that old function of Conscriptor to bring in that new data. That way you see your scout's data, and if you don't do it you get no bars.

[garion333]

New to the game and haven't played multiplayer so take my input with a grain of salt. But what about something like an avg of all the scouts on every team? So it would take into account every teams scout rating, avg them out for a rough outline.


It would create a situation where you can tell RB 1 is a better inside runner then RB2, but it also won't give super accurate stats which allows players to compare and contrast prospects against their own scouts as well as the scout avg.

Again, new player here so not sure if this works or not.

I think he suggested a poor scout simply because any average would give an advantage to people with bad scouting and a disadvantage to those with good scouting. By using 0 scouting everyone would be disadvantaged, some clearly more than others.

[Sef0r]

allowing us to import our own extractor run would be sweet.

[Nataris]

I think he suggested a poor scout simply because any average would give an advantage to people with bad scouting and a disadvantage to those with good scouting. By using 0 scouting everyone would be disadvantaged, some clearly more than others.

Gotcha! Makes sense.

[wade moore]

An issue has come up over at IHOF, and I thought that it was worth noting here to see if other people in MP leagues have encountered it.

We use the conscriptor utility pretty heavily over there to do our rookie draft. And since most of it occurs during the day when I am at work, I do not have access to FOF7 when I am drafting.

With FOF2k7, I relied on the export of the bars into conscriptor to make choices on later round picks. Now, because of the much greater scout variance in FOF7 (A very good change, IMO), there is no "neutral" scout to export bars into conscriptor, nor would it be fair to ask any one owner to "lend" his scout to do that.

I really miss those bars.

I understand why Jim did what he did. I can see how having a "neutral" scout really messes up the whole point of having limited information coming from your scouts.

If, to take the most obvious example, someone has a below average scout, it would seem that having access to a "neutral" or "average" scout would help reduce that disadvantage.

One solution I proposed over at IHOF is to have an export from a "bad" scout. Someone who would not be giving information any more useful than the scouts that the teams employ. But who could at least let you see thing like which FB has good run blocking v. good receiving, or which WR has some talent at KR/PR. Something to give a very broad outline of the type of player it is, without really tipping the cards vis a vis detailed bars.

In fact, that could even be an immersive addition because it could be like the walterfootball.com of draft predictions. Inferior to anything that the teams themselves produce, but enough to let you see which 6th round TE prospect projects as a situational run blocker and which one projects as a situational receiver.

Thoughts? Am I alone in wanting something like this? Are there solutions (either suggestions to Jim or something I can do from the user end) that I have not considered?

Because of my issues at IHOF, I e-mailed support about this today because of my frustrations as well.

I appreciate the extractor/conscriptor thoughts, but that puts a lot of load on a volunteer developer. I feel that the best solution would be something directly from the game.

I think that feature would be great to have if Wheels has time to code it, but I don't think it should override the need for this feature from the game itself.

[BreizhManu]

Or you have to go back to the old "do your own Extractor run and import it into Conscriptor". Or better yet have Jim let CSV export functionality include the bars your scout sees (it does that for all other roster bits, right?) and then use that old function of Conscriptor to bring in that new data. That way you see your scout's data, and if you don't do it you get no bars.

That would be the best

[QuikSand]

Not sure if I like this idea even, but -- maybe the "league champion provides the league scouting reports for the next year" could be a pro-parity thing. Sort of like in the NFL how some mediocre player from the champs gets a fat contract from the Raiders... or how the league tends to spend the summertime stealing the gameplans from the best teams from the prior year.

So..not neutral, but deliberately not neutral.

[scorp]

I have often had my list eaten up and been on phone only to make picks.
Your flying blind almost with no bars. Either have some league scouting service that could even be a bad scout overall or at least some what to upload your in game scouted rating into conscriptor.

I have used this away form the computer far to often to lose the ability to al least make an educated attempt at a pick without game access which often isn't possible.

[Kodos]

I'll throw in my 2 cents. This is a big step back for people who participate in drafts away from their own computer. I already feel pretty clueless about drafting, but not having the bars when I'm picking makes it feel like I'm just shooting in the dark.

To quote what I wrote in the draft thread over at IHOF:

Also, the no bars thing sucks. Honestly, I used to do most of my draft research on the fly using conscriptor. It took less time than scouting everything in advance. Having to look at who is left 5 guys out from your pick is a lot easier than looking at an entire draft's worth of players and figuring out who might fall to you.

[MIJB#19]

Unless there's an in-game live draft option upcoming, the availability of information available in-game for the owners inside an out-of-game utility is nearly required to play along in a MP league draft. Most drafts go on during the (work) days and/or at times when not all owners can easily load up the game.

[WheelsVT]

Or you have to go back to the old "do your own Extractor run and import it into Conscriptor". Or better yet have Jim let CSV export functionality include the bars your scout sees (it does that for all other roster bits, right?) and then use that old function of Conscriptor to bring in that new data. That way you see your scout's data, and if you don't do it you get no bars.

I think this is the best option that is in keeping with the spirit of the game.
I know the bars are a big part of Conscriptor and agree they need to be there to give GMs the full picture. Loading your own bar export would be like doing your scouting work going into a draft.

I've been spending my free time making sure the core functionality of the staff draft and FOF7 conversion work properly. Once it's solidly tested rest assured a way to load bars will be in there.

[WheelsVT]

It'd be cool if in addition to loading GM scout views a commissioner could elect to use a "commissioner's scout" to evaluate bars and load them for the whole league.

Either way it would need to be added to the data exported. For now I'll look into using extractor I guess.

[TRO]

I really think the game needs to add a scouting service feature. The game is certainly already doing part of it since it tracks the data for the ratings tracker.

[cuervo72]

I really think the game needs to add a scouting service feature. The game is certainly already doing part of it since it tracks the data for the ratings tracker.

I agree with this. IRL, there are enough pundits and services and mock drafts that you usually have a pretty good amalgam rating for guys coming out for the draft. That's why we have draft day surprises - it's a case where a war room sees something else few others did. We have the war room in the game with our own staffs, but we're missing a "media" baseline.

[gstelmack]

I agree with this. IRL, there are enough pundits and services and mock drafts that you usually have a pretty good amalgam rating for guys coming out for the draft. That's why we have draft day surprises - it's a case where a war room sees something else few others did. We have the war room in the game with our own staffs, but we're missing a "media" baseline.

Isn't that the Bureau Rating or whatever it's called, the "6.7" number?

[QuikSand]

Isn't that the Bureau Rating or whatever it's called, the "6.7" number?

Well, good point -- that's what that should be, but by nearly universal reckoning, that doesn't hold up too well as a useful guide.

[w24olfpack]

Is anyone having issues USING extractor?

Extractor runs. 7.0 (first release) it ran fine and I saw players, data and bars.
7.0A - I get no name, positions, but the rest of the stuff like agent, free agent, height and weight but... then no bars.

Others in my league CAN run an extractor.

Any ideas ?