Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpeakerfortheDead
The downside is the opportunity cost governed by the amount of slots in the lab. Time is money.
Personally I think it's really silly if I try and improve somebody's baserunning they can ruin their legs. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. Hopefully there is some decent amount of rebalancing done around dev lab slots and the penalties/difficulties. Almost all the long labs are wastes of time in terms of value and the downsides for failure are far too high.
|
Having watched the Dev Lab this year with Old School Sports in his A's playthrough as well as my own GM games I am leaning with you here Speak.
Perhaps a more palatable version of negative outcome could be the player in question cannot go through the same program they failed for 'X' period of time, with a smaller chance of a worse outcome for the Poor result. I get if you push a player whose risk is higher, the more likely a detrimental result would be.
(Note: I should mention that the "Poor" result currently has at least some range of severity, it appears to start at "No Improvement" and work towards the far end with loss of current and/or potential ratings, along with possible associated ratings.)
I would think the Devs have it set so a player's health and injury history along with the new OOTP 26 rating "Development Risk" has a lot to do with how likely a true Poor result with a significant setback will happen.
Maybe Matt or Wil can elaborate on this?