Manual random number based offseason improvement

[JDRAKE349]

Quote: Originally Posted by minotauri

Yea, it wouldnt be too hard to make. I read this thread on my phone and was scratching out an idea of what it could look like on a piece of paper during a meeting at work. I'll have to see what I wrote tomorrow. But basically, I think looking up the following functions would make things pretty automated: randbetween(x,y) x being low number and y being high number - this spits out an integer that could create your base work ethic. Then you can create tables in spreadsheet for each attribute change For example: Awareness Ethic|Awareness 1 | -5 2 | -3 3 | 0 4 |+3 5 | +5 Then using a vlookup function you can see what number it should change I believe if you output the PLAYER database the attribute is PAWR (player awareness) You can do something like: new PAWR = PAWR - vlookup(WorkEthic, 'table'$A$1:$B:6, 2, False) where PAWR would be the column/row of the in-game PAWR and vlookup looks up the amount to add or subtract from it. To be position dependent, you can assign it to look up if he plays a certain position (PPOS) and if he does, do the function... =IF(PPOS=0, do lookup function, 0) translated: if position = QB, do the work ethic function, otherwise 0) Lots of ideas!

Love these ideas. I'm a bit of an excel guy, certainly not a guru though and I was thinking of similar things while reading through this thread to speed up the process. I already spend a significant time in the offseason recording stats and don't want to spend even more time -- however I LOVE the random improvement regression from year to year. I was considering implementing it after the CPU does the automatic progression rather than having to change everyone back to what they were previously and then manually adjusting. Definitely going to mess around with some tables and such on Google Sheets and see what I come up with.

Thanks for a great thread, Hellisan!

[antdroid]

Quote: Originally Posted by JDRAKE349

Love these ideas. I'm a bit of an excel guy, certainly not a guru though and I was thinking of similar things while reading through this thread to speed up the process. I already spend a significant time in the offseason recording stats and don't want to spend even more time -- however I LOVE the random improvement regression from year to year. I was considering implementing it after the CPU does the automatic progression rather than having to change everyone back to what they were previously and then manually adjusting. Definitely going to mess around with some tables and such on Google Sheets and see what I come up with. Thanks for a great thread, Hellisan!

Yea, I definitely would be doing this after the computer generated progressions are done, so working out a formula that doesn't over exceed what the CPU already progressed may take some tinkering.

[woodjer]

Quote: Originally Posted by minotauri

Yea, I definitely would be doing this after the computer generated progressions are done, so working out a formula that doesn't over exceed what the CPU already progressed may take some tinkering.

This is when I do my stuff but I don't use the work ethic concept. I basically go through each position and pick a number 0-10 to determine how many players I edit and then randomly select that number of players. Keep in mind that I'm editing players all over the country, too...not just on my own team. Makes for some interesting storylines to follow all over...the starter that got too cocky and was passed on the depth chart, the young 3-star recruit that was underrated and earns a starting spot over veterans, etc.

[JDRAKE349]

Quote: Originally Posted by minotauri

Yea, I definitely would be doing this after the computer generated progressions are done, so working out a formula that doesn't over exceed what the CPU already progressed may take some tinkering.

Agreed, it would probably involve more knocking down what they were given by the CPU and some players staying in the same area as what they were given and a couple getting a minor boost. Still want to make sure it's "fair" if not a creating a bit more of a challenge (for myself at least).

[Hellisan]

Quote: Originally Posted by JDRAKE349

Love these ideas. I'm a bit of an excel guy, certainly not a guru though and I was thinking of similar things while reading through this thread to speed up the process. I already spend a significant time in the offseason recording stats and don't want to spend even more time -- however I LOVE the random improvement regression from year to year. I was considering implementing it after the CPU does the automatic progression rather than having to change everyone back to what they were previously and then manually adjusting. Definitely going to mess around with some tables and such on Google Sheets and see what I come up with. Thanks for a great thread, Hellisan!

The only thing that's negative about that is that if you just adjust to an overall, then you're not getting the differing TYPE of improvement, which is what I wanted. I'm tired of the uniform bump in every category that every player on the entire roster gets. So i return them to their original OVR then do a type of improvement. HOwever.. If it says all around improvement (basically similar to how the game does it) then I am more likely to just edit to the new rating.

[antdroid]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hellisan

The only thing that's negative about that is that if you just adjust to an overall, then you're not getting the differing TYPE of improvement, which is what I wanted. I'm tired of the uniform bump in every category that every player on the entire roster gets. So i return them to their original OVR then do a type of improvement. HOwever.. If it says all around improvement (basically similar to how the game does it) then I am more likely to just edit to the new rating.

The way I imagine it, you would have a random number calculator for each category that's relevant.

[whughes]

Something I just though of that might make this process easier. What if you setup a random roll for progression, but all of the rolls are negative? So I guess it'd be more of a regression system. That way you don't have to edit everyone back to their original ratings, you can just edit them down a little. So say, the game gives a guy +7 but after his roll he's only a +1 or even a +0.

[Hellisan]

Quote: Originally Posted by whughes

Something I just though of that might make this process easier. What if you setup a random roll for progression, but all of the rolls are negative? So I guess it'd be more of a regression system. That way you don't have to edit everyone back to their original ratings, you can just edit them down a little. So say, the game gives a guy +7 but after his roll he's only a +1 or even a +0.

I didn't want to just screw myself. Yes my team overall improves less than a cpu team does. But as a tradeoff, I have some players that start out really bad, and end up pretty darn good. Like (I feel like I'm repeating myself here) Zach Cable, starting at like 58 OVR is an 87 OVR senior. Conceivably, a player could start that low and end up at a 99, but I think that would be very, very rare. Cable had a 98 Work Ethic rating to get that high but it's just an example. If you want to go all negative just as a handicap, I think that is a very cool idea. And it would conceivably solve the issue of players all improving at the same rate.

To take the idea even further / simplify it even more, you could randomly roll a (-) rating for each player (sort of adding a potential rating without actually adding one) and just apply it to their improvement each and every year.

It's still nowhere near what I wanted (in terms of similarity... not quality), but for some people that may be awesome. The bulk of my players have been 2-star recruits and those 3-star recruits that are really 2-stars (take a look at the size o the 2-stars in the class sometime.. they screwed up bigtime).

I think that the idea - because of its simplicity and somewhat solving the problem of being too easy to recruit... is potentially worth its own thread. For those that want to be able to recruit whoever they want (pretty much) but then have the team end up with realistic ratings, that's a killer idea.