|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:06:35 GMT -5
What if RCs werent an automatic 5 points, but instead a number generator of 1-5?
I feel as though the leagues inflated ratings are directly affected by RCs. I think any league 13 seasons in is gonna be inflated a bit, but the RCs definately makes it more so. If RCs were between 1and 5 instead of 5, ratings would probably begin to dip.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 20, 2007 16:09:00 GMT -5
It happens in UOSL it does make the league alot different ratings wise. I say go for it and try it out.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:10:38 GMT -5
It happens in UOSL it does make the league alot different ratings wise. I say go for it and try it out. What happens in UOSL?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 20, 2007 16:12:00 GMT -5
It happens in UOSL it does make the league alot different ratings wise. I say go for it and try it out. What happens in UOSL? rc generator. Instead its -1 to 5 when we do ITS.
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Nov 20, 2007 16:13:03 GMT -5
that's what they do in the NBN also
I think the leagues ratings are already inflated and it doesn't seem to be causing problems....i couldn't care less either way
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Nov 20, 2007 16:16:25 GMT -5
I like - 1 to 5.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Nov 20, 2007 16:16:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:28:48 GMT -5
I love the RCs in general, and dont want to ditch them. I think the 1 to 5 would be a nice compromise.
I dont know if I like the negative rating aspect though.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Nov 20, 2007 16:31:06 GMT -5
I would hate this so much.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:31:23 GMT -5
I would hate this so much. Why?
|
|
|
Post by duce on Nov 20, 2007 16:31:29 GMT -5
What if RCs were just always 3?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:32:34 GMT -5
What if RCs were just always 3? Interesting compromise. I guess it would make each RC the same value wise, which is good. It would also limit the amount of increases.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Nov 20, 2007 16:47:21 GMT -5
It takes away 40%(6/15) of the overall progression you can manually give a player. But it still seems like a decent amount to give a guy 9 points over time.
The way I see it, it became easier to get RCs with the article reward increase from 20 to 50, but the RCs never went down in value to even that out.
I don't know, just throwing it out there.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:53:53 GMT -5
It takes away 40%(6/15) of the overall progression you can manually give a player. But it still seems like a decent amount to give a guy 9 points over time. The way I see it, it became easier to get RCs with the article reward increase from 20 to 50, but the RCs never went down in value to even that out. I don't know, just throwing it out there. Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 20, 2007 16:57:58 GMT -5
that's what they do in the NBN also I think the leagues ratings are already inflated and it doesn't seem to be causing problems....i couldn't care less either way NBN doesn’t do RC’s, they use the number generator for the weight room.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 20, 2007 16:58:51 GMT -5
that's what they do in the NBN also I think the leagues ratings are already inflated and it doesn't seem to be causing problems....i couldn't care less either way NBN doesn’t do RC’s, they use the number generator for the weight room. Ya. No other league know of has RCs. NBN and UOSL use number generators for ITs. I kinda like the idea of 3 for RCs now.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Nov 20, 2007 17:08:08 GMT -5
3 would be great if we did that from the start. Now we are just going to have one generation that is better than the up and coming generation.
|
|
|
Post by Adelaide on Nov 20, 2007 17:10:43 GMT -5
3 would be great if we did that from the start. Now we are just going to have one generation that is better than the up and coming generation.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 20, 2007 17:17:03 GMT -5
I would hate this so much. Completely agree. I don't think it is something that should potentially give one team an advantage over another, even if it is random. If you work to get the RC, you shouldn't be in a position where your RC has less value than someone elses. I'm not big on decreasing them at all (even if it was to 3), because it'd give young guys who were already RC'd an advantage. I honestly don't think the inflation of ratings is that big of a deal. We can change it up if/when we re-start, but for now, I think we're all aware of how the league is run and how the ratings are, and it's not a big deal. Some guys have great ratings and don't sim well. Some have poor (weaker) ratings and sim great. Some b-/a- scorers are amazing, others are LLE players. I say keep it the way it is, and renew the talk if/when we re-start.
|
|
|
Post by nova on Nov 20, 2007 22:50:27 GMT -5
Agree with Mark & Aaron. Yes the ratings are inflated, but it's not really a huge deal at this point, and instituting a new real all of a sudden is unfair to GM's IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Nov 20, 2007 23:40:51 GMT -5
Do it, it's a lot better, it well bring ratings down a little probably too.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Nov 20, 2007 23:54:56 GMT -5
How is it unfair to GMs? Everyone is effected by it. RC's should have as little impact as possible. Each player has potential and the sim's randomness takes the player's ability where it may. Technically, GM's and coaches can only affect player development so much at the highest level... it's mostly up to the player to work/better themselves... and in this case, the player is represented by the sim. BTW, should have never removed the age limit on increases(25 and under was fine and the most realistic approach).
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 21, 2007 0:07:50 GMT -5
I understand the argument that younger players will have less of a chance to become stars, while older players are more talented.
I feel as though allowing players over 25 to be RCd was a mistake as well.
Probably wont institute any major changes though since were already 10+ years in.
Once we restart, if the new FBB ever comes out, Ill probably have an RC system that is either just 3, or 0-3.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Nov 21, 2007 0:18:56 GMT -5
Idea - instead of allowing one player to be upgraded 3 straight years... how about some sort of wait time following one upgrade... ie Banana gets upgraded in handles in 2012...therefore, he can't be upgraded again until 2014...
too complicated to keep track of?
or... another idea...
Banana is upgraded in inside scoring...therefore he cant be upgraded in jumping(which is under the same general category).
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 21, 2007 0:29:53 GMT -5
Idea - instead of allowing one player to be upgraded 3 straight years... how about some sort of wait time following one upgrade... ie Banana gets upgraded in handles in 2012...therefore, he can't be upgraded again until 2014... too complicated to keep track of? or... another idea... Banana is upgraded in inside scoring...therefore he cant be upgraded in jumping(which is under the same general category). Banana already has huge hops. No, but seriously, its a good idea, just too complex for me to keep track of, and probably a little too late for this version of BBS. Something I may consider for future leagues.
|
|