Feature request: annual scouting allotment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball



Message

jzicc -> Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/6/2006 10:39:01 PM)

Not trying to make this overly complicated but a simple system where one has to choose the particular category that you want them to focus on --- this would make that category more accurate (and the converse -- the non-picked categories more of an approximation) --- Obviously Stuff for Pitchers and Contact for Hitters are the 2 most important categories so some balancing would have to be made to deal with this ---- THis should obviously be a user selectable option --- Sorry for the lack of details but I'm just throwing out the idea



Paul Vebber -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/6/2006 10:56:43 PM)

To me, rather than a system of scouting by category, I'd rather see scouting more closely emulate "Prospect-based" rather than "stat-based" scouting.

I think this is closer to how teams tend to do it.

The way I would do it is have a pool of "scouting effort" say just call it 100%, and when you assign a player to your "short list" you assign a % of your scouting effort to him. The more "scouting effort" you place into a player the more accurate your assessment of his ratings and potential is. You can have your scouts spend a lot of time followiung a few players around to really put them under a microscope, or throw a wide net and take your chances, or a litttle of both, without really getting into the micromanagement of individual scouting tendencies and "stat areas of expertise".



jzicc -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/6/2006 11:03:41 PM)

I agree to your post --- that was probably going to be a future feature request --- I guess what I'm trying to do is make it harder to get the best players -- I want to add more of a "fog" to their ratings and therefore more variability...



Paul Vebber -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/6/2006 11:22:07 PM)

Agreed. What I'd like to see is the addition of some "personality" stats - is a guy a clubhouse leader and mentor, or is it "all about him". Is he a fan favorite and media darling who will hurt attendance (and hurting "Team chemistry" and possibly the following years financials) if you dump him, or does he cause massive anti-acid consumption in the front office and bad press (potentially affecting team chemisty and next years financials) if you keep him.

That kind of stuff that can make it counterproductive to continually play Steinbrenner and cherry -pick the "top stats" guys. A "veteran mentor" may not have teh greatest stats himself, but could bring youngsters a long quicker, or the "clubhouse cancer" who has the 20/20/20 stats, but sets back the development of your up and comers and convinces them to ignore your extnesion offers and "get shown the money" in free agency.

The "baseball fundamentals" are getting close to PERFECT to me. The next step to me is to add the complications of player personalities getting in the way of your statistical dreams of dynastic domination ;) There appears to be a little of that - the players withthe best stats are not ALWAYS the best performers, Shaun has done an excellent job of getting the "dominant" stats-based guy who just doesn't pan out, though suddenly improves performance wise with a trade, or after a wake-up call in teh minors. I'd like to see it handled a little more explicitly - something that i think can add a new element to the "team management" without making it about "micromanagement" but about having to consider a few other elements when going after guys who might be a better "fit" to your overall team0building philosophy, but may not be the "best available" stats wise.




PadresFan104 -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/6/2006 11:25:05 PM)

This sounds like good stuff, but if implemented, it should probably be optional for the large contingent of folks around here who run historical associations, and may not want the added dimension of "chemistry" skewing the stats.

Al



Paul Vebber -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/6/2006 11:32:46 PM)

Of course - though I wish I had a nickel for every manager who lost his job because "Team chemistry screwed with the stats" (Especially if the worked for Steinbrenner ;)

Done "Right" It would affect players progression trajectory over time much more than "indivual game stats" - the idea being to complicate dynasty building over the long term, not mess with game to game performance or stats to a great degree. The extent that it would affect seasonal stats perhaps being coupled with an incremental development change that tweaked stats a bit over the course of the season.




jzicc -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/19/2006 9:45:55 PM)

Shaun -- just wondering if you could give an approximation in terms of your prioritization of this feature (short/medium/long/ never) like you did for some other threads



JimboJ -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/19/2006 10:26:12 PM)

Scouting used to be in the game, but it was removed.  The accuracy of a player's Potential rating was dependant on how good the scouting was, or how much money was spent on scouting.



waltwa -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/19/2006 10:44:44 PM)

i don't recall scouting being used in this game but i assume it was. one thing i can tell you is that the scouting system in ootp has run away with the game. please let's not get into anything like ootp has implemented in the most recent edition. player personality traits are great but i would hope they would not involve scouts.



SittingDuck -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/20/2006 2:20:49 AM)

I never really understood why Shaun's initial scouting system was scuttled.  I would have thought it could have been continually enhanced or changed to benefit the game and make each team unique.  I liked the decision on investing in scouting, and I especially enjoyed the manager hiring.

I really, really don't know why that stuff left the game.  It was unique and cool.  Now, kind of generic.  Well, extremely generic.



lynchjm24 -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/20/2006 3:03:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

I never really understood why Shaun's initial scouting system was scuttled. 



Severely slowed down the game. I'd like to see some sort of scouting back in the game - something simple though that makes sense - not that horrible OOTP06 type system.



SittingDuck -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/20/2006 3:36:15 AM)

Thanks for that.

Yeah, we need something. To me, it is a real step backwards from its uniqueness. You know, we don't have an all-star game, so that might be a good time to do a league-wide scouting analysis and just keep it at pre-season, mid-season and end-season analysis. Instead of the every-so-often analysis.

The manager thing was awesome, just awesome.



Roxbury -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/20/2006 4:45:24 AM)

I would love to see the possibility of the "Manager" getting fired if he does a poor job. However, realize you then lose the ability to control that team. I think that was the case in the past. Maybe Shaun could allow us to hire another manager. Somehow, have to make this costly financially. For example, you hire a manager in your fictional league based on that manager's past record,tendencies, etc. hire him for a min. of 3 years for x amount of dollars. If you then get fired you obviously pay off the contract at 100%, and then you need to hire another manager at a financial cost. Maybe there could be a pool of 50 or so fictional managers to choose from and obviously some could be better than others. I am sure there are those of you out there who could articulate this better or certainly come up with something much more creative. Just to add something more to this outstanding baseball sim.



Amaroq -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/20/2006 7:31:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck
I never really understood why Shaun's initial scouting system was scuttled. I would have thought it could have been continually enhanced or changed to benefit the game and make each team unique. I liked the decision on investing in scouting, and I especially enjoyed the manager hiring.

I really, really don't know why that stuff left the game. It was unique and cool. Now, kind of generic. Well, extremely generic.


In addition to severely slowing down the game and consuming a lot of memory - every player was 'scouted' at every rating by every team - it wasn't actually adding much (and looking across the genre, it wasn't that unique either).

It was *never* worthwhile to invest in anything other than the 'best' you could afford, and often the only question was 'where do you want to accept 1 point shy of perfection?'.

However, the AI teams were purchasing worse scouts and managers than we humans were, and that led to runaway unbeatable human teams with saddening regularity.

----

Regarding scouting, I think there are some designs that could be made to work - say, indicating whether you preferred to concentrate on high school (next amateur draft, ages 17-19), college (next amateur draft, ages 20-24), minor leaguers, or current major leaguers... but I don't think there's much value to deciding 'how much to spend' on it; that didn't feel like a challenging decision.

Perhaps we could wind up with something like 'variable potential rating for every team', plus 'fog of war' implemented something like the FM'06 model: you can 'see' every rating for every player on your team, and every rating for everybody who is getting significant playing time at the major league level... and then anybody who isn't (fringe players, minor leaguers, amateurs, long-time free agents) have some attributes 'masked' - possibly ones close to the mean, so you'd know if a guy had a standout fastball or a ton of power, but you wouldn't know the rest of his ratings until you scouted him.

To the idea of mid-season scouting analysis, I'd actually prefer to see mid-season player rating changes, myself: the player honestly improving or getting worse over time, rather than remaining a constant.

----

Regarding managers, I think we're moving towards the 'manager personalities' concept, as opposed to the 'manager skills' concept - e.g., that there will be managers, with names, who have certain preferences for style-of-play: steal more frequently, patient hook, etc. That plan seems to meet with enthusiasm every time its discussed.



lynchjm24 -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/21/2006 12:52:31 AM)

I agree that players ratings should change during the season -but they have to make sense in relation to the stats - if a player is hitting 300 with 20 home runs in June, I can't stand when OOTP lowers their ratings when you aren't in an injury situation. The scouting needs to reflect the statistics or else it makes little sense - like in OOTP06 every time I get an email about a minor leaguer it says he looks uncomfortable on the mound - but his ERA is 1.29 in 30 innings. Maybe it could take a look at each quarter pole of the season.

As far as scouting goes - I liked the old model where it was less accurate when players were young and got more accurate as time went on - do you really need a scouting report on Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter? I think it would be best if the AI and player both saw the exact same scouted ratings - generic Baseball America ratings if you will - otherwise you end up with another huge advantage for the human player. Keep the game able to toggle this on and off. It could just work off plate appearances/innings pitched: For 1-800 PA's maybe there is up to 2 standard deviations 'fog', from 800-1500 1.5 SD 'fog' from 1500-2500 maybe 1 SD 'fog' from 2500-3500 .5 SD 'fog' then from 3500 plate appearance on there are pretty much true ratings. I'm combining minor and major league plate appearances in those ranges.




SittingDuck -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/21/2006 2:15:53 AM)

Good point, Jim - not necessary to scout known talents when they have leveled off or whatever. Not sure how to set a standard of when to lay off scouting for players, but it is a good thought.

Amarog, you make a very valid point in the inability of the AI to properly use scouting. For my take, I would like the AI teams to stay as they are with generic knowledge, but the human player be tasked with having to develop and maintain a scouting system and manager staff (I say staff because that is part of the system that develops the players, not just YOU the field manager).

Anyhow, a system that challenges the human player would be a great asset to the game. I don't think it is necessary to do the same for AI teams. I just don't see the sense in the coding complexity and time to bring an AI team up to human standards. But if you challenge the human player to really think about scouting and system investments, then the game becomes more realistic for the human player-manager. I think the AI teams are fine in their current function. It is just from the human end that it is bland.



SittingDuck -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/21/2006 2:17:24 AM)

To clarify my suggestion, I don't think you allow the human player to scout well beyond the knowledge of the AI teams; rather, you make him work hard to get to that level itself, and perhaps a little better if he goes all out.



lynchjm24 -> RE: Feature request: annual scouting allotment (6/21/2006 4:21:14 AM)

The only hole in your suggestion - I'm fine with allowing the AI to cheat a little to keep up - is that if the AI knows the true ratings and you have scouted ratings sometimes you can infer things from your dealings with the AI. If you have a highly rated player who is young and the AI won't give you much - you know it is scouting error and if you know the AI is after a young player with poor ratings, again you probably have scouting error.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.65625