 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » CP Loophole Closed
tysonlowery
If you allocate less than 15 CPs in the minor leagues, you should occasionally get less than 2 improvement chances. Can someone please help me test this? I have eliminated the Pause day so that the league will start back up the day after the end of the WS.
CP Loophole Closed
November 23, 2003 at 12:25AM View BBCode
Well my first attempt at closing this was unsuccessful, so we better spend some beta testing on it.If you allocate less than 15 CPs in the minor leagues, you should occasionally get less than 2 improvement chances. Can someone please help me test this? I have eliminated the Pause day so that the league will start back up the day after the end of the WS.
DeVeau31
YET :spin:
November 23, 2003 at 01:19AM View BBCode
I'll help too, oh wait, I didn't get a beta team!YET :spin:
jer2911
November 23, 2003 at 08:59AM View BBCode
I'll test too. (Though we can't really begin testing until the season starts.)
honus
How often should this occur?
November 23, 2003 at 07:47PM View BBCode
What is the desired result? That we occasionally recieve less than 2 improvement chances, or is that the bug?How often should this occur?
celamantia
http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=30103&cityid=5, I only got one improvement chance.
I wonder if we need to add a message to make it clear that an improvement chance was missed due to not using all CP's, 'cause now it looks like a bug.
Personally, I preferred it the way it was...
--Chris
November 25, 2003 at 03:32PM View BBCode
I'm running at 10 CP's right now, and in the game athttp://www.simdynasty.com/beta/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=30103&cityid=5, I only got one improvement chance.
I wonder if we need to add a message to make it clear that an improvement chance was missed due to not using all CP's, 'cause now it looks like a bug.
Personally, I preferred it the way it was...
--Chris
DeVeau31
November 25, 2003 at 03:38PM View BBCode
everyone did Chris, it was part of the game and part of managing. It gave you the option of producing 1 superstar instead of 3 solid players at once. The offseason has to be looked at, not closing a loophole.
hcboomer
November 25, 2003 at 04:07PM View BBCode
In my first game with 5 CPs in place I only got one improvement chance.
Bob
Let's look at this example of a young position player in the minors with only the invisible CP. Assuming only 15 minor leaguers, on average he will only receive 10.8 improvement opportunities per year (324 opportunites -- he gets 1 out of 30). It takes 56 improvements for a player to improve one full step (C+ to B-, for example) -- there are 7 categories and each step is 8 points. If he actually improved half the time, it would take him over 10 years to improve on full letter grade overall.
Essentially what I'm saying is that guys without CPs assigned will never improve in an appreciable manner, which isn't realistic. Personally, I would like to see the current opportunities spread out among more players -- maybe a maximum of 3 CPs each on 5 players.
Just my opinion.
November 25, 2003 at 04:13PM View BBCode
I respectfully disagree. I think we allow too much targeting of improvement opportunities already. Increasing the percentage of improvements allocated to one player would exacerbate this problem. Even targeting training on 3 players seems unrealistic to me. With the current system the bulk of players in the minors improve only a tiny bit.Let's look at this example of a young position player in the minors with only the invisible CP. Assuming only 15 minor leaguers, on average he will only receive 10.8 improvement opportunities per year (324 opportunites -- he gets 1 out of 30). It takes 56 improvements for a player to improve one full step (C+ to B-, for example) -- there are 7 categories and each step is 8 points. If he actually improved half the time, it would take him over 10 years to improve on full letter grade overall.
Essentially what I'm saying is that guys without CPs assigned will never improve in an appreciable manner, which isn't realistic. Personally, I would like to see the current opportunities spread out among more players -- maybe a maximum of 3 CPs each on 5 players.
Just my opinion.
Originally posted by DeVeau31
everyone did Chris, it was part of the game and part of managing. It gave you the option of producing 1 superstar instead of 3 solid players at once. The offseason has to be looked at, not closing a loophole.
DeVeau31
I feel that the rebuilding process takes a long time with the way the amateur draft is first of all. ABE doesn't care about the current talent level in the current league, and that's a problem. Then, everybody needs to use the same exact process of developing players, therefore the rebuilding teams are not at an advantage, which they should be.
Leaving this loophole in place does not guarantee a stud player, it only increases a team's ability to produce one good player instead of 3 average players. There are pros and cons to using this loophole, but to a rebuilding team who is in need of producing the next ARod, I think it's a necessity.
Allow managers to manage, not follow suit to far superior teams due to the lack of reality in the offseasons.
November 25, 2003 at 04:26PM View BBCode
disagreeing is good.I feel that the rebuilding process takes a long time with the way the amateur draft is first of all. ABE doesn't care about the current talent level in the current league, and that's a problem. Then, everybody needs to use the same exact process of developing players, therefore the rebuilding teams are not at an advantage, which they should be.
Leaving this loophole in place does not guarantee a stud player, it only increases a team's ability to produce one good player instead of 3 average players. There are pros and cons to using this loophole, but to a rebuilding team who is in need of producing the next ARod, I think it's a necessity.
Allow managers to manage, not follow suit to far superior teams due to the lack of reality in the offseasons.
hcboomer
That said, it seems like the ideal scenario would be to have more coaching points available to allow improvement of more minor leaguers, AND, perhaps, some sort of "superstar" option in which you could opt to load up all your development efforts on one guy, but at some cost.
The problem now, as Bob explains, is that most of your minor league roster at the moment is just a waste. The invisible 1 CP on each player means the occasional improvement, but not enough to matter. So those points are pretty much irrelevant.
A potential problem might be that more coaching points would fuel -- or create -- talent inflation, but done right it would ideally allow only for the development of more good players, not an overload of great ones.
The superstar option could allow, for instance, a team to put, say 8 or 10 or some number of points on one player, but no other points on anyone else. And those superstar points would be, say, half of what other teams can use. This would also have to be programmed so that the superstar, while getting more improvement chances than normal, wouldn't be getting TOO many more than normal.
The balance here would be tricky, but the idea would be for a team to have more minor leaguers on some sort of useful development curve so that choosing the superstar option would have a definite downside. And we'd have to make sure that by maximizing the superstar's development we're not creating a collection of megastud Ray Aesop-like (for veteran beta owners) players.
I don't imagine we'd be seeing anything like this anytime soon. And so I think closing that loophole makes sense.
November 25, 2003 at 06:16PM View BBCode
This argument is probably moot considering it is a "loophole" in Tyson's view and wasn't ever supposed to operate that way.That said, it seems like the ideal scenario would be to have more coaching points available to allow improvement of more minor leaguers, AND, perhaps, some sort of "superstar" option in which you could opt to load up all your development efforts on one guy, but at some cost.
The problem now, as Bob explains, is that most of your minor league roster at the moment is just a waste. The invisible 1 CP on each player means the occasional improvement, but not enough to matter. So those points are pretty much irrelevant.
A potential problem might be that more coaching points would fuel -- or create -- talent inflation, but done right it would ideally allow only for the development of more good players, not an overload of great ones.
The superstar option could allow, for instance, a team to put, say 8 or 10 or some number of points on one player, but no other points on anyone else. And those superstar points would be, say, half of what other teams can use. This would also have to be programmed so that the superstar, while getting more improvement chances than normal, wouldn't be getting TOO many more than normal.
The balance here would be tricky, but the idea would be for a team to have more minor leaguers on some sort of useful development curve so that choosing the superstar option would have a definite downside. And we'd have to make sure that by maximizing the superstar's development we're not creating a collection of megastud Ray Aesop-like (for veteran beta owners) players.
I don't imagine we'd be seeing anything like this anytime soon. And so I think closing that loophole makes sense.
hcboomer
I still have only 5 CPs alloted, and have now had two consecutive games with NO improvement chances.
November 25, 2003 at 08:11PM View BBCode
Update on the CPs effect:I still have only 5 CPs alloted, and have now had two consecutive games with NO improvement chances.
Bob
November 25, 2003 at 08:49PM View BBCode
I've had 15 CPs assigned for all 6 games and I've received 2 opportunities every time.
tysonlowery
November 25, 2003 at 09:42PM View BBCode
Okay, I'll probably move this in tommorrow evening. Let me know if you see anything else. Thanks!
jer2911
November 25, 2003 at 10:12PM View BBCode
I had a game with 10 CPs assigned that I missed an opportunity. I'm going to go back to 15 CPs and see how that works.
celamantia
Well, my real concern about this is that missing an improvement chance is too harsh a penalty to impose on someone for missing a coach point somewhere. I'll often accidentally find myself using only 13 or 14 coach points after an injury replacement.
If the penalty is going to be this harsh, there should be a note in red on the Welcome screen that says. "NOTE: You are using only 13 of 15 coach points in the minors. You may miss improvement opportunities until this is fixed.
(Come to think of it, the welcome screen would be a good place for other warnings:
"NOTE: You only have 13 position players on the major league roster."
"NOTE: You have pitchers wth unassigned roles."
"NOTE: You have over 25 players on your minor league roster. You will not be able to make any roster moves until this is corrected."
"NOTE: You have 3 injured players on your major league roster."
"NOTE: Your starting lineup against RHP is incomplete."
"NOTE: You have 2 trade proposals from other owners pending."
"NOTE: You have not looked at the message forums in 18 days. Click here to go to the forum for your league.")
--Chris
November 26, 2003 at 04:34AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bob
I respectfully disagree. I think we allow too much targeting of improvement opportunities already. Increasing the percentage of improvements allocated to one player would exacerbate this problem.
Well, my real concern about this is that missing an improvement chance is too harsh a penalty to impose on someone for missing a coach point somewhere. I'll often accidentally find myself using only 13 or 14 coach points after an injury replacement.
If the penalty is going to be this harsh, there should be a note in red on the Welcome screen that says. "NOTE: You are using only 13 of 15 coach points in the minors. You may miss improvement opportunities until this is fixed.
(Come to think of it, the welcome screen would be a good place for other warnings:
"NOTE: You only have 13 position players on the major league roster."
"NOTE: You have pitchers wth unassigned roles."
"NOTE: You have over 25 players on your minor league roster. You will not be able to make any roster moves until this is corrected."
"NOTE: You have 3 injured players on your major league roster."
"NOTE: Your starting lineup against RHP is incomplete."
"NOTE: You have 2 trade proposals from other owners pending."
"NOTE: You have not looked at the message forums in 18 days. Click here to go to the forum for your league.")
--Chris
JulioF_Jr.
The way it was, placing only 5 CPs on one player (of 15 total) in the minors increased that one player's chances of being chosen to 30%. Doing this, it also meant that there was a 70% chance that your one "hot minor leaguer" would not be chosen.
By eliminating this "advantage", most owners will likely place 5 CPs on each of 3 hot prospects. Each has a 20% chance of being chosen, and cumulatively the chance that one of your 3 "hot minor leaguers" will be chosen is 60%, with a 40% chance that one of them will not be chosen.
With the sliding scale of possible success on the improvement chances based on current ratings in each category, this seems like it will improve the teams at a greater pace than the previous situation.
Just my 2 yen's worth... ;)
November 26, 2003 at 05:52AM View BBCode
I think that closing this loophole will result in forcing better talent into the leagues, not reduce it.The way it was, placing only 5 CPs on one player (of 15 total) in the minors increased that one player's chances of being chosen to 30%. Doing this, it also meant that there was a 70% chance that your one "hot minor leaguer" would not be chosen.
By eliminating this "advantage", most owners will likely place 5 CPs on each of 3 hot prospects. Each has a 20% chance of being chosen, and cumulatively the chance that one of your 3 "hot minor leaguers" will be chosen is 60%, with a 40% chance that one of them will not be chosen.
With the sliding scale of possible success on the improvement chances based on current ratings in each category, this seems like it will improve the teams at a greater pace than the previous situation.
Just my 2 yen's worth... ;)
hcboomer
November 26, 2003 at 04:30PM View BBCode
One other point here related to an earlier comment. It SHOULD take a long time to rebuild. I can see where the length of time can seem daunting in the regular dynasty leagues at 3 games a day (is that still the schedule?), which is a primary reason why I think that pace is way too slow. But a team that strips down and rebuilds can make it back to contending status within 5-6 seasons, which seems pretty reasonable.
honus
I do agree that the current player development system could be improved. Right now, most of the minor leagues are just filler (3 developing prospects, plus perhaps a few injury-contingent back-ups). The current system is unrealistic and creates many, many A-level players, to the point that only teams full of A-level players can compete for the title. I'd like to see player development be made a little less formulaic.
November 26, 2003 at 05:00PM View BBCode
I've been using 10 points and missing plenty of improvement chances.I do agree that the current player development system could be improved. Right now, most of the minor leagues are just filler (3 developing prospects, plus perhaps a few injury-contingent back-ups). The current system is unrealistic and creates many, many A-level players, to the point that only teams full of A-level players can compete for the title. I'd like to see player development be made a little less formulaic.
CaseyStengel
Does ABE view the total CPs as 15 or 5?
Will this become another loophole?
November 27, 2003 at 08:14AM View BBCode
Has anyone tried putting 15 CPs on one player and see if they loose improvement opportunties?Does ABE view the total CPs as 15 or 5?
Will this become another loophole?
geoffrey13
15 on one player?
November 27, 2003 at 04:22PM View BBCode
you can only put 5 on one player,ABE won't allow any more. :puzzled:Pages: 1 2