New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - Beta Chat

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By raymattison21
7/18/2017 6:21 am
Black Adder wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
If one were to go the way of separated GM scouting I would like to see the coaches have a play in it. Similar to the way they have an impact on growth rate. Except they have a scouting rating. Better the rating results in a more accurate depiction of the player and or more chances to scout. Points used for super focused accurate evaluations or many of a variety of players looked at, but with more vague depictions .

Like a 100 points for 100 players (vaguely ) or only ten (pin point) depictions. Still, that total is solely dependent on how good your coaches are at scouting .


JDB,

Please ,please ,please ,do not go down this road.

The best/most attentive GM`s (especially in a low active GM League) would sign up the best scouts,with their input, would sign the best draftees and keep on winning,thus forcing GM`s to just jack it in ,like has happened in countless FOF MP Leagues,which in turn forces the league to fold.

It would be interesting to hear CLE (JCSwish) views on how his draft went,as he decided to run the "every 4 year CLE re-build project" on Fog Draft 1.

Also someone running the draft on auto (time restraints etc) must have had some crazy picks compaired to someone who could be on the clock for each pick.

Again just my 50p`s worth.



If some coaches were good at development and some good at scouting it would just add another level to the game. As for " on the clock" take a look at Washington . ...they finished in the middle of the pack with out a gm.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By ibblacklavender02
7/18/2017 5:40 pm
I think the Top 10 players in the draft ratings should be available without having to use your scout points thus helping out bad teams...Allowing them to use their scout points on other players...... deeper in the draft....Shared Scouting....I'm against it.....Also should get rid of the Trade value meter during the draft...I think 10 is enough to be used on scouting draft picks and Free Agents...I think Free Agents who haven't started a game need to be scouted too.....Overall I liked the draft
Last edited at 7/18/2017 5:42 pm

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Tecra031
7/18/2017 8:45 pm
After reading all the posts on this, i still strongly feel that we should do away with this feature. When we added volatility to the mix, that was good enough to give some boom or bust to the draft. There are definitely 1st round picks that bust (Jamarcus Russell) and some late round gems (Tom Brady). What you don't see is half of a 1st rd draft class be a mystery and end up the equivalent of 4th-5th rd picks and sticking owners with wasted cap space. I am all for making this game better as we go, but I would much rather see any effort go into fixing glitches like sideways running, improving tackling, better QB play in relation to their ratings, OP blitz defenses, more playbook options on offense, etc. The draft wasn't broken from my viewpoint and didn't need tweaking as a whole. Yes I am aggravated at my wasted 1st rd pick, but others are as well. The draft should be an even slate for teams to compete in. If people like the scouting idea, maybe add a scouting process to the previous draft version (maybe 2-3 per team here and exclusive to that owner) to give a little extra potential ratings visibility. That would add a dynamic without ruining the draft process.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By Ares
7/18/2017 10:38 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
I agree that the way it went down this year pretty much made everything completely random.

Here's a thought for a tweak: what if scouting the player actually removed the obfuscation? And we gave all teams a few more scouts (maybe 10 instead of 7). That would theoretically remove the question of the first few rounds - unless all scouted players ended up being duds - and still leave some chance for later picks to be better than expected.

My biggest concern is the one voiced by Tecra and others, that it is too time-consuming to do the scouting process.


This would just make late round picks even more completely useless. All the good players will still be taken early, and the dregs will be randomized so you can't even accurately pick the "best of the worst" of what remains.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By JCSwishMan33
7/18/2017 11:05 pm
Black Adder wrote:
It would be interesting to hear CLE (JCSwish) views on how his draft went,as he decided to run the "every 4 year CLE re-build project" on Fog Draft 1.

Also someone running the draft on auto (time restraints etc) must have had some crazy picks compared to someone who could be on the clock for each pick.


1-2 I felt I hit well on... While he wasn't the best player available, he's going to be someone I can build around... And he's already shown +4 / +3 improvement. Interestingly, I hit 2 out of 3 solid picks in my 4th / 5th round picks (4.19 and 5.5) that look to be heading for mid-70s to possibly 80 (from right around 70). The rest of the picks... Well... Largely average ratings, but trending upwards on most.

The obfuscation in general... I do like the idea, due to the potential mix of better players into the later parts of the Draft. I think that if we're going to insist on obscuring the fundamentals (Speed, Acceleration, Intelligence, Discipline), the range should be tighter; fundamentals should be a little more obvious and better known.

The scouting... I feel that the amount of scouts we get should correspond with the amount of visits / hostings a team can have. Also, while it'd be nice to add a specific scouting 'coach', poaching and such would be intense and probably kill it. I'm wondering if we could use the stats of our current coaches to determine how far the range of a player's stats is narrowed when scouted, but ONLY for us? i.e.: A QB I want to scout has an Accuracy range of 20-80. My QB Coach has an Accuracy of 75. When I scout, the rest of the league sees the QB's range close to 45-75. However, my coach can 'tell' that the QB trends towards the higher end of that range, so I actually see his Accuracy as a range of 60-75 (or something similar, based on the Coach's stat). This would make our current coaches even more useful without totally breaking the system.

Obviously I've gone into a complete rebuild (again... Thanks, BA. ;P Heh), so it's going to be a few Drafts to really evaluate how things will go. It's a 50/50 proposition in my eyes: A bit more churn in where the good players fall to is great, but there's definitely some refinements needed.

Not sure if this is what people were looking for in opinions, but... Heh.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By WarEagle
7/19/2017 9:00 am
Increase the progress made during training camp, especially a rookie's first camp.
Increase the likelihood of a player drafted after round 4 'booming'.

If the progress for a booming player isn't quicker, he's worthless to the team who drafted him.

The player on my team who has shown the most improvement is a 7th year OL who has gone +24 over the course of his career, but has still never been #1 on the depth chart.

League-wide the player with the most improvement over the course of his career is a 10th year OL for Miami who has gone +37 (-2 this recent camp). The average for the most improved player on each team is somewhere in the high teens.

Even if you get lucky and find one of those diamonds in the rough, when all is said and done the best you can hope for is cubic zirconia many years down the line.

It wouldn't matter if a late round pick ended up improving +50 over the course of his career if it takes 10 years to get there. That player would be cut long before any real benefit was seen.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
7/19/2017 9:13 am
WarEagle wrote:
Increase the likelihood of a player drafted after round 4 'booming'.


Ok, so here's an interesting idea - what if volatility is not set until after the draft? (Maybe even turning it back off of the player cards). Then, volatility is tied to draft position - i.e. higher drafted players have a lower likelihood of a high volatility (but not zero) and later round picks have a higher likelihood of volatility.

I also like the idea of having the first camp for rookies move more than they do in the rest of their career.
Last edited at 7/19/2017 9:13 am

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By WarEagle
7/19/2017 9:31 am
I think the volatility being shown makes for some interesting choices at the top of the draft.

Do you take the 99 player with 90 volatility, or the 90 player with 15 volatility?

I've become of fan of volatility, I just wish the changes were quicker.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By setherick
7/19/2017 9:37 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
Increase the likelihood of a player drafted after round 4 'booming'.


Ok, so here's an interesting idea - what if volatility is not set until after the draft? (Maybe even turning it back off of the player cards). Then, volatility is tied to draft position - i.e. higher drafted players have a lower likelihood of a high volatility (but not zero) and later round picks have a higher likelihood of volatility.

I also like the idea of having the first camp for rookies move more than they do in the rest of their career.


Rookies need to move 5-6x more in their first camp because of the reasons that WarEagle says. I end up playing a lot of rookies I shouldn't because that's the only way I've ever found them to reach potential and gain play experience.

Re: Draft player obfuscation

By raymattison21
7/19/2017 9:39 am
WarEagle wrote:
I think the volatility being shown makes for some interesting choices at the top of the draft.

Do you take the 99 player with 90 volatility, or the 90 player with 15 volatility?

I've become of fan of volatility, I just wish the changes were quicker.


What if volatility were obfuscated . Made clearer by scouting