Quote:
Originally posted by Henry
Ahhhh..... NOW I see this point. I think your then saying, if stats are to be included in the list, they should also be included in development. If that is so, then I agree - but I would also say that they shouldn't be included at all in either place - based on my other post.
I also agree with your stand that both ratings systems should come from the same variable - but "weighted" differently as I said earlier, so they suggest slightly different results. I'm also glad we agree that the list should not be any more accurate that RL.
On the other issue though, I still have a problem. There seems to be a belief that talent is only driven by randomness - and I truly believe a lot of this comes from the fustration felt when the game seems to consistantly "bump" players in the HTML reports.
As I stated in the previous post - it is less random that thought. The "bell curve" represented by Age is paraount in the development curves. Coaches minor league managers, and randomness are a small "adjustement" to this primary variable (age). And the hidden factor cannot be understated. If a player gets a 110% or a 90%, his entire career will be molded from that label.
|
But what about when COACHES and SCOUTS are OFF? I understand that coaches should play a role in the development of players when they are enabled, but when they are disabled, what is the formula then? Is it just age and randomness? If so, then every minor league player should have a significantly higher chance of a talent increase rather than decrease because, as you say, a player has a greater chance for an increase up to the age of 27. But what I've observed seems to be the opposite - at most, it appears that talent boosts/drops are even (and one could argue that there seems to be more drops than boosts with players under the age of 27). And without coaches/scouts on, the only other factor appears to be randomness.