Sim Dynasty

View Old Forum Thread

Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Does the BPrem
lancereisen

Does the BPrem

October 10, 2011 at 02:51AM View BBCode

draft seem a bit thin to you'll?
redcped

October 10, 2011 at 03:14AM View BBCode

Considering we were fighting talent inflation in Gamma, it should be.

To answer your question, though: Yes.

Usually we expect the first ammy draft to produce good players down to the last round. This is not the case.
tworoosters

October 10, 2011 at 03:21AM View BBCode

I don't know, I think it's a solid draft .
Goldambre

October 10, 2011 at 05:10AM View BBCode

I am content with this spread. In fact, we could even take the top overall numbers down by another 5 to 10 points. Of course, we would also need to expand the middle.

My general take on the standard NFL draft is that there are two or three A's (with a rare, unique A+), then another, perhaps six A-. After that there are 50-ish (rest of round 1 plus round 2) of B+ players. Rounds three and four are Bs. The last three rounds are low Bs to high Cs. We are getting closer to that balance, but we are not there yet.
RichNYC1

October 10, 2011 at 02:58PM View BBCode

Originally posted by Goldambre
I am content with this spread. In fact, we could even take the top overall numbers down by another 5 to 10 points. Of course, we would also need to expand the middle.

My general take on the standard NFL draft is that there are two or three A's (with a rare, unique A+), then another, perhaps six A-. After that there are 50-ish (rest of round 1 plus round 2) of B+ players. Rounds three and four are Bs. The last three rounds are low Bs to high Cs. We are getting closer to that balance, but we are not there yet.



The problem with that theory is the NFL guys get a subjective number put on them, our guys get a real one. So an NFL guy that goes in round 4-5 can still be a star, and many are. I havent seen that here yet. The draft seems weak but I think we should play and see.

I would also say is that I thought we might have some guys who would start low (65 ish) and really improve fast, like what happens in the NFL, and in a year or two he would be a 75. Has anyone seen that happen?
redcped

October 10, 2011 at 03:24PM View BBCode

I think I'm still adjusting from the SD baseball model, where you might draft a C overall player and see him develop into an A- player eventually.

Here there is almost no reason to draft anyone who is lower than B overall at this point, except perhaps a FB who grades low at RB but has a higher best overall grade. I've been playing a C+ RB at RT for years now in Gamma, for instance.

Aside from kickers, I'm not sure I've seen any player improve a full letter over a career yet, although it's probably close. There are guys who started out at 73-75 who are now pushing 90 overall, I'd imagine.
KLKRTR

October 10, 2011 at 03:30PM View BBCode

Makes you wonder if, in the draft, you could hide the overall grades (or partially, like with L/M/H)?
skycoyote

October 10, 2011 at 03:43PM View BBCode

Here's a kicker from the JBFL with some nice improves: http://football.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=433370&displaytab=imps
Goldambre

October 10, 2011 at 04:10PM View BBCode

Originally posted by RichNYC1
The problem with that theory is the NFL guys get a subjective number put on them, our guys get a real one. So an NFL guy that goes in round 4-5 can still be a star, and many are. I havent seen that here yet. The draft seems weak but I think we should play and see.

I would also say is that I thought we might have some guys who would start low (65 ish) and really improve fast, like what happens in the NFL, and in a year or two he would be a 75. Has anyone seen that happen?


I don't disagree. However, what I take from your comment is that a guy in round 4-5 has the same objective skills as the guy in round 2-3. What that tells me is that football requires a variable development system. Since we don't have VarDev, I think that the scale needs to be compressed.
Goldambre

October 10, 2011 at 04:13PM View BBCode

Originally posted by KLKRTR
Makes you wonder if, in the draft, you could hide the overall grades (or partially, like with L/M/H)?


Or, should the draft hide (L/M/H/?) the skill grades and only show the overall. Taking it a step further, hide the skills and the overall.
Admin

October 10, 2011 at 04:39PM View BBCode

Originally posted by Goldambre
Originally posted by RichNYC1
The problem with that theory is the NFL guys get a subjective number put on them, our guys get a real one. So an NFL guy that goes in round 4-5 can still be a star, and many are. I havent seen that here yet. The draft seems weak but I think we should play and see.

I would also say is that I thought we might have some guys who would start low (65 ish) and really improve fast, like what happens in the NFL, and in a year or two he would be a 75. Has anyone seen that happen?


I don't disagree. However, what I take from your comment is that a guy in round 4-5 has the same objective skills as the guy in round 2-3. What that tells me is that football requires a variable development system. Since we don't have VarDev, I think that the scale needs to be compressed.


Actually, there is a certain amount of variable development in football, but I've never explained it well and there's no way to see how a player is developing other than watching his improves.

Each player has an "improve age" and a "decline age". These are the ages used to calculate improves and declines, and is stored as a number from -2 to +2. Let's say your player is 25 years old and has an improve age of -1; when I calculate improves, he's going to use the tables for a 24 year old, not a 25 year old. A 29 year old player with a decline age of +2 is going to have his declines and retirement calculated as if he was actually 31.

So a player with an "improve age" of -2 and a "decline age" of -2 is going to have the longest career, and a player with an "improve age" of +2 and a "decline age" of +2 is going to have the shortest career.

--Chris
Admin

October 10, 2011 at 04:41PM View BBCode

I also think that maybe I need to increase the effects of Potential so it becomes more of a wildcard, giving that C+ 6th round player with A+ Potential a chance to become, well if not a star at least a solid player.

--Chris
RichNYC1

October 10, 2011 at 04:44PM View BBCode

SDBB has a Variable Development System that could be an interesting idea for football too. Obviously we dont have minor leagues, and not all of this would apply, but the idea behind it could serve us well. Maybe the practice squad could serve as our "minors"

Variable Improvement

Some leagues offer Variable Improvement. In general, player development is fairly predictable because any two players with the same age and attributes have the same chance of improving. In leagues that offer variable improvement, this may not be the case.

When players are created, they will be randomly assigned 1 of 14 possible development curves. On the League Rules page, if the Development Curve System is anything except 0, the league is using Variable Improvement. Each league may decide on a different distribution among these curves, check your league message board for your league's distribution.

Here is a description of each curve. Please keep in mind that these curves only modify the chances of converting an IC in the majors or minors, nothing else.

Regular This is how players typically develop.

Young Major Leaguer Player develops the same as Regular for minor league improvements, but his major league improvements will improve at a higher rate in his early 20s. On the flip side, he won't improve quite as well as compared to Regular when he hits his mid-20s.

Late Bloomer Peak improvement years are skewed a few years older for both major and minor league improvement chances.

Enigma 1, Enigma 2, Enigma 3 Peak improvement years come randomly. Some years will be better than Regular, some are worse. There are 3 varieties of this one to keep people guessing.

Ageless Wonder Will be on the Regular path until he enters his mid-30s, at which point his conversion percentage increases dramatically to the point of offsetting declines or even improving a bit.

Bust Improvement conversion percentages are down across the board.

Gem Improvement conversion percentages are up across the board.

Bust in Minors/Gem in Majors Player follows the Bust curve while in the minors, but the Gem curve when in the majors.

Gem in Minors/Bust in Majors Player follows the Gem curve when in the minors, but the Bust curve when in the majors.

Eureka 1, Eureka 2, Eureka 3 A player improves below average for most years in his career, but in 1-2 seasons in the majors or minors he converts a much higher percentage of chances. There are 3 variations on this with different "eureka" ages.
Admin

October 10, 2011 at 04:45PM View BBCode

Originally posted by redcped
I think I'm still adjusting from the SD baseball model, where you might draft a C overall player and see him develop into an A- player eventually.


The biggest difference between the baseball and football model is that there is no way to "concentrate" your development on a few players with Coach Points the way you can in baseball. Every player gets IC's based on his own attitude and playing time, whether he's 24 or 35 years old, whereas in baseball you'd let that 35 year old flounder and concentrate on the 24 year old.

--Chris
Admin

October 10, 2011 at 04:47PM View BBCode

As far as the draft being thin, I thought there were actually perhaps too many red-letter players in it. What makes it seem thin is that this draft sucks for the offensive skill positions; no decent QB's or RB's and hardly any WR's.

--Chris
tworoosters

October 10, 2011 at 05:43PM View BBCode

Originally posted by Admin
What makes it seem thin is that this draft sucks for the offensive skill positions; no decent QB's or RB's and hardly any WR's.

--Chris


I have two QBs and 2 RBs each in my top 10 .:o, but the WRs do suck out loud so I'm happy my starters are both 24
blakjakshalak

October 10, 2011 at 07:53PM View BBCode

Of coarse, I need a WR more than anything else. So Chris, judging from your comment I guess the talent distribution is not intentional?
Admin

October 11, 2011 at 01:02AM View BBCode

It just depends on how the numbers fall. Like baseball, drafts will vary wildly. Unlike baseball, you can at least see the draft classes coming 4 seasons in advance.

--Chris

Pages: 1