+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: The File (/showthread.php?tid=128)
RE: The File - dejota - 07-25-2010
I'll release the file tonight, and the one I release will be the correct class
RE: The File - GoIrish - 07-25-2010
(07-25-2010, 03:35 PM)dejota Wrote: Well I think our best bet, since we can't change the coding for mogul, is to try and identify where the most fluctuation is coming from. To play devil's advocate for a second, Clay was attempting to mimmick players up and down years by increasing the volatility of their stats. This system would be more effective and less random if the population wasn't also volatile.
I truly believe we have hit that population plateau, as Sean referred to it. When I simmed ahead it seemed the population trended upwards by about 100-200 year which would be evened out by humans being more apt to release a crappy minor leaguer.
I'm also going to play w/ the draft class settings (increasing peak start/% of college players since they're a source of frustration/etc.) and see if I can get it to generate one w/out a bunch of low peak starts consistently. Once I do that I can generate another class (so I'm not privy to info you guys aren't) and that should at least stop the infusion of players that will peak out at or before our league average of 24.
The best we can do is monitor this class (and compare it to the previous 2 classes) and see if this is an effective approach. I know the IFA's I make will not have that early of a peak start, so if we closely maintain a flow of talent that's not going to peak out terribly early we can attribute the fluctuations more to the random nature of talent development. (I also pointed out that I mistakenly moved the player development slider the wrong way which is only making their career path's more random, not by much but it's still notable).
I think we these three small measures we can maintain the intent of the new features of 2011 (since we can't avoid them) and nudge the talent towards a more, but not completely, stable nature. I'll diligently notate what I change in the file tonight and the results it produces. Aside from this I don't know what else to do or say about this topic.
DJ, that sounds about right and I think you hit the nail on the head. The only thing I would add to tweaking the class, is to tweak the ratio's around a little. That would enable a higher percentage of the draft targets to pan out and equal out to the quality of numbers that we had before.
RE: The File - AndyP - 07-25-2010
(07-25-2010, 03:53 PM)dejota Wrote: I'll release the file tonight, and the one I release will be the correct class
Maybe I missed something, but what are you tweaking specifically beyond peak start? I thought I read something about injuries as well.
The measures sound like they're our best bet, obviously we can't do much since the mogul coding is the fundamental flaw we're dealing with.
I understand and appreciate Clay's intentions, but even without the population issue I think he went about trying to achieve his randomnized affect the wrong way.
RE: The File - dejota - 07-25-2010
I agree Clay fucked up on this edition. I know on single player mode I don't notice or care as much about these changes (probably since I can do a season or two in a day even do single pitch mode on some games). I'm guessing he's basing his POV on similar results.
Injuries is something I'll also be looking into but I don't think the injury sliders will impact the draft class as much. My only really really big issue w/ the draft health ratings are the 50s. The 60s are just injury prone guys and while it's not the most frequent result, they can play full seasons from time to time. I'm willing to go through and edit any prospects w/ a 50s rating and upping them 10 points so they have at least a 60s health but outside of that I don't have a problem with it.
If anybody else has a problem w/ me doing that please post, or if you think I should do more (with suggestions b/c that's the only idea I have).
RE: The File - AndyP - 07-25-2010
That's fine DJ, you aren't doing anything else with the draftees then?
RE: The File - dejota - 07-25-2010
I'll adjust the contact/power speed/power (or whatever they are) sliders a bit but nothing else comes to mind. Do you have any ideas or suggestions?
RE: The File - Jordan - 07-25-2010
I'd just make sure there is a good number of specs with good health rattings.
RE: The File - dejota - 07-25-2010
It does that automatically, most are 75-88ish really, but I'm going to make sure there are no 50s, but once again I don't think the 60s are unreasonable, those are just the guys that slip b/c of health concerns. But short of having two tommy john surgeries before you're drafted I don't know how you have a health rating in the 50s.
RE: The File - AndyP - 07-25-2010
(07-25-2010, 06:45 PM)dejota Wrote: I'll adjust the contact/power speed/power (or whatever they are) sliders a bit but nothing else comes to mind. Do you have any ideas or suggestions?
No, I don't necessarily have a complaint, you've just mentioned you're making changes and I was trying to get an idea as to what exactly you were changing.
I do think the health concerns are valid, there aren't enough good to decent specs with good to decent health ratings - at least I think it's disproportionate to non-fictional players. However, I don't think that disparity is that great and mogul has been pulling that shit for years.
RE: The File - ezpkns34 - 07-25-2010
My question is what exactly is being changed here?
I have to admit that I'm not a fan of having fictional rookies manually edited
If you're worried about health ratings of individuals, then don't draft them. If you're worried about large-scale health ratings, then adjust the injury frequencies & severities
If you think they're peaking too early or too late, there are sliders to adjust that as well. Same goes for overall rookie talent