Manual random number based offseason improvement

[Scooby82882]

I've decided to let the built in improvement system play out its course as normal, then do my modifications from there. All players will be given a random work ethic which follows the previously listed rating. The ranges see anywhere from -10 to +20 attribute points, so guys shouldn't drop more than 1 or 2 overall, meanwhile raise maybe 3 or 4 overall, on top of the base 4-6. I'm just starting my second season now so in a couple of days I'll get to see how this actually works out for me

[woodjer]

I'm definitely intrigued by both of the bigger ideas presented in this thread. I think I'd have to put them into practice at least once to be able to give good feedback and understand what is going on a little better. I think StoneCalf's idea is a little less time-consuming since it doesn't create a new attribute to track outside of the game (though I LOVE the Work Ethic idea) and it doesn't apply the results to every player on the team so it could conceivably be done a little easier on a global scale.

So...here is something I thought of based on your processes:

- Take StoneCalf's category ideas (3 Duds, 1 Diamond, 3 LA, 1 LB) and even them out so there is an equal chance of improving/regressing. I'd go with 2 Duds, 2 Diamonds, 3 LAs, and 3 LBs by eliminating Dud 2 and creating a Diamond 1 that adds 50 pts. I'd also add Late Bloomers that add numbers in the same pattern as the Low Achievers.

- On Signing Day, view all signees by position. At each position, use a random number generator to select 4 guys (maybe do 8 at positions like WR, CB, DE, etc?). Randomly assign each one a category, regardless of what the other 3 are...so you could end up with 4 Duds at QB this way rather than 2 Duds and 2 Diamonds. Just makes things a little more random but you could always consider them Dud 1, Dud 2, Diamond 1, and Diamond 2 if you want it to be balanced for each position. Since it will likely change each offseason, I'm not worried about keeping it balanced in a single year. (Probably want to enter them into a spreadsheet or something to refer back to once you can edit them)

- Continue with the rest of the off-season as normal. Almost everyone will train however the game sees fit and that's fine. I don't think the in-game method is terrible, just boring. It kind of assumes a fairly consistent progression path for players throughout all teams...which is fine for the most part but it doesn't really have enough outliers to end up providing some intrigue. If I am remembering right, you can't view every player in the NCAA by position here...if you can, then do the next step here so you don't have to worry about incoming recruits.

- Once you get to where you can edit players, randomly select 6 players from each position across the NCAA. Similar to above, randomly assign them each a category. (Low Achiever 1-3 or Late Bloomer 1-3) Again, maybe do 12 for multi-starter positions like WR, CB, etc.

- For each of the players selected, randomize helisan's "improvement type table" to determine what skills get adjusted first/most. I'll have to play around with it some to get the particulars right but, to keep it simple for now, I'd apply 40/30/20/10% of the points gained/lost to each type of improvement. If it helps, here is how it might look:

Joe Blow gets selected as a Dud 1 at HB so loses 100 attribute pts (makes the math easier for now). After randomizing the improvement table, here is how his points are lost:
1st type: Physicality...loses 40 pts between strength, agility, acceleration, and speed
2nd type: All around...loses 30 pts between all categories
3rd type: Awareness...loses 20 pts of Awareness (or maybe 10 in awareness and 10 in offense-related attributes to lessen the impact on awareness and reflect a decrease in offensive knowledge)
4th type: Position-specific...loses 10 pts between HB-specific attributes

To keep things completely random, I would randomly select attributes within the categories and apply the changes 1-10 pts at a time (also randomly-generated). Keep in mind that Dud 1 and Diamond 2 are 100-pt swings which makes them, by far, the biggest changes. If Joe were a Low Achiever 1, those values would be more like -8/-6/-4/-2.

Again, I haven't applied this yet to a real scenario but I'm trying to find a way to combine some ideas from each of the two main ones presented. I also feel like there may be some unintended consequences to only changing my team so this would be a way to have it impact other teams, too. This is a rough draft reflecting my initial thoughts. Obviously, some of the numbers can be adjusted depending on personal preference. Feel free to give feedback...

[StoneCalf]

woodjer,

Thanks for the feedback and you gave plenty of ideas to chew on.

Hellisan,

I hope my post didn't come across as stealing any thunder. I like your ideas and I already pour so much time into this game in the offseason (I log all my players season stats, team stats, recruiting details, etc), so I wouldn't mind expanding my systems and incorporating some new ideas. I share your enthusiasm for modifying the game to make it deeper and more enjoyable. :-)

[Hellisan]

Quote: Originally Posted by StoneCalf

Hellisan, I hope my post didn't come across as stealing any thunder.

Not at all, I was explicitly asking for feedback to improve it and I appreciate you taking the time to outline your process.

[Hellisan]

Quote: Originally Posted by StoneCalf

*attribute points deducted must be from relevant categories

Since I'm currently in a season, I hadn't thought about this for awhile but it donned on me why I can't do total points.... I was missing on it before when I was thinking about it.

An O-lineman or a kicker or even a QB don't take as many points to improve or regress as something like a fullback, safety, linebacker, etc... One would have to study that and then implement those position by position and I think it would be too much of a time suck for me.

[ZN30]

Using random number generator in Excel [ =rand()*10 ], I'm running manual improvement based on their score:

0-.99 (10%) = negative improvement (a 1-3 point decline from a player's pre-training OVR)

1-1.99 (10%) = No improvement (all improvement in training with be negated)

3.00-4.99 (30%) = minor improvement (a 2-4 point decline from a player's post-training OVR. Alternatively, a 2-4 point increase from per-training OVR)

5.00-8.99 (40%) = standard improvement (no change from post-training increases)

9.00 - 10.00 (10%) = Large improvement (2-4 points increase in OVR from post-training increases)

* Players who have started for 1.5+ years will get the beenfit of a "re-roll" if need be.

** I'm working on a formula to incorporate Work Ethic for incoming recruits.

Example:
Just wrapped up the season, going into next season I have 4 QBs with little to no experience:

R.J. Archie (SR- RS) - 77 OVR
Brady Stewart (SO - RS) - 79 OVR
Chase Mitchell (FR - RS) - 78 OVR
Antonio Jones (FR - RS) - 75 OVR

In order, the 4 QBs have the following scores with random number generator:

5.16
6.06
9.77
1.25

So after the get their 4-6 points of improvement in training, Archie and Stewart will not be altered, Chase Mitchell will gain some extra improvement (which will likely push him ahead of the first two in OVR) and Antonio Jones will lose all improvement and maintain a 75 OVR.

[Hellisan]

Figured it's time to post here again to show some results.

Through the recruiting of new / better players, the cutting of old players (and now I have a reason to cut guys... bad work ethic is a big one) I have seen improvement with my team but not crazy improvement. It's tough when a player you like rolls a bad work ethic rating... hah... It's tough sticking with it but I've gone to the letter so far.

It's also lame seeing a guy with a great work ethic roll a really bad offseason improvement, for instance my JUCO transfer WR who has solid athleticism and great route running with horrible hands rolled a 2 improvement with a 97 work ethic. That's the lowest obviously if you were following. GAH.

I just go with it, and say the random improvement generated there = his potential.

Anyway... My first training session netted a team improvement from an average of 64.74 OVR to 67.09 OVR, or about +2.36 OVR per player. If you look only at the players that didn't regress, (a zero improvement to Zach Cable who was a +12) the average was 4.38.

Year two, the team OVR improved from an average of 66.61 to 69.37 or around +2.76 OVR per player. Looking only at the 0 to positive improvement players, it was 4.08, or a little lower than before due to some bad rolls.

I have to say it's a lot of fun sitting there and seeing a diverse set of possible outcomes appear and certain players that you never figured would be a factor jump into the picture, and others you thought would be awesome just kind of lag or even tank. My kicker, Austin Rehkow, was my best player to start and may still have our best OVR but instead of the kicker just becoming automatic (I randomly generate my kick success based on his ACC rating) that damn ACC rating keeps going down.

Anyway, just an update, will touch on it again in a dynasty year.

[return.specialist]

This is a novel idea. Currently I lack the time to read the entire thread but will come back to it. I like the idea of a 'work ethic' variable/attribute. The player rating adjustments you described could be implemented into the Dynasty at the beginning of each season using an external editor and MS Excel--for every player in the Dynasty and for considerably less time than I imagine it takes to complete on the console.