Quote:
Originally Posted by frangipard
But I think showing all the ratings would add to that "hard choice" factor, not take away from it, especially when you think about filling out your minor league staffs. Do I really care about whether my AA Manager practices smallball or not?
|
You might care if your objective is to develop coaches in the minors, so they can eventually be coaches for your big league team. And you might also care if you want to use a coach's minor league track record to evaluate him. Some coaches in the game are good, but have unproven reputations, because reputation is based on results, not on ratings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frangipard
In general, I don't think you're ever going to go wrong by providing meaningful info to the players. Yes, information overload is a real thing, but the way to avoid that is by avoiding meaningless information.
|
I agree with your second point here, but not your first. In general, in games, I think if a decision is obvious with complete information, the game is more interesting if it provides incomplete information. Poker wouldn't be a game at all if you could see your opponents' cards. When a decision is not obvious with complete information, then providing complete information can be interesting - that's the situation in chess. But when manager ratings were displayed to users, I think most of us agreed that we were rarely confronted with interesting choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frangipard
In addition the general descriptions smallball/tactician/sabermetric/conventional hide as much as they reveal. Near as I can tell, "tactician" means he likes to substitute a lot; but what do you call a guy who likes to substitute a lot AND bunt often? And isn't favoring the L/R split a "sabermetric" principle?
|
There's also an 'unorthodox' category of manager. It's very possible the categorizations could be improved, and that's a worthwhile discussion to have.