Anybody else dislike the scouting combine

[Crickett13]

Maybe I am looking at it in the wrong way because it works so differently than scouting in previous versions.

I always do fictional leagues with low scouting and that seems to work well. Even when you get everyone to very high accuracy you get a fair number of busts and surprises. Now it is impossible to get most players above average other than the ones you scout at the combine.

Should I change to high accuracy and use the combine? It just seems that having most players at average or low make the draft a total crap shoot that I should just auto run after the players I scouted are gone.

Disabling it does not return the game to the old scouting system, so I have been hesitant to even play 26.

What am I missing?

[Bagpipes5]

I agree, it seems pretty superfluous to the big picture. Prospects/draft picks are so volatile that this level of attention seems meaningless anyway.

[Crickett13]

Anybody who likes it I would love to hear your opinion.

[twins_34]

Well, good thing there is the ability to disabled it if you don't like it so, it is kind of a moot point. It does have it's bonuses of allowing you to make player signing bonuses less and getting fast info on a player, but... if you don't like it, turn it off. Also turning it off should in fact make it so that the old scouting system takes over and if it is not, then you need to report that under the technical forums.

[Crickett13]

Originally Posted by twins_34

Well, good thing there is the ability to disabled it if you don't like it so, it is kind of a moot point. It does have it's bonuses of allowing you to make player signing bonuses less and getting fast info on a player, but... if you don't like it, turn it off. Also turning it off should in fact make it so that the old scouting system takes over and if it is not, then you need to report that under the technical forums.

The update to turn it off and return the scouting to the old system does not work. Will is looking into it.

I just wanted to see if there was something I was missing and perhaps I should keep it on.

[oman19]

I enjoy it but wish there was a little more clarity on ballpark how many guys is appropriate to have your scout watching.

[Pdubya64]

I like the Combine because it makes the Amateur Draft more challenging. Used to be you could max out practically the top 100+ prospects and it was no real problem to go straight to picking the best w/o any interference.

What I need to know though is whether the scouting reports outside the 5-day Combine were intentionally "nerfed" to next to nothing by design? I have to assume so, but the effect really blunts your head scout's ability to research guys prior to the Combine.
Unfortunately, I haven't done any testing to see how regular scouting reports work outside of the Combine in other months to see how it is behaving now.

It makes you really reconsider which prospects to place in your Day One group, along with Day Two, etc. That is a good trend, but they may have gone a bit too far with how heavily-weighted the Combine ended up being in the calculation.

[Pdubya64]

Originally Posted by oman19

I enjoy it but wish there was a little more clarity on ballpark how many guys is appropriate to have your scout watching.

I don't know if you follow Old School Sports's YouTube channel oman19, but we talked about this aspect of the new game in his mini playthrough with the Angels. It seems a bit up in the air as to what is a good number.
Of course the basic guidance is the more prospects you put in the list on Day One, the more diluted the depth ((less VH/Hs) on each individual player.

I opined to OSS in the comments section that if this is the new normal, we GMs may need to "pre-sort" the prospects before Day One to weed out any that would more-than-likely get dropped by us when forced to make a second cut.
Hence, you eliminate as many as you can from the top and go from there. It is slightly risky in that you may pass on a guy who ends up being an all-star, but depending on your Head Scout and his talent evaluation rating, I believe you can nullify much of this (think Very High Tools end of the spectrum).
There are only 5 days, so it forces you to make some harder decisions earlier than last year. I like this, but I don't really like the severity of the nerf to scouting outside the Combine w/o some more clarity from the Devs.

[rleibowitz]

It's useless since all the online leagues I am in turn off the negotiating portion with amateur drafts. If you turn it off, does it go back to the old system with your scouts actually scouting them before the draft so you get back very high ratings?

[Guthrien]

I dislike it. Since it's opaque how many to pick or to really estimate the field when you get to your pick (if you're not the top) you have no realistic upper advantage beyond the relatively low scouting it gives you now. I see no realism in having no idea how partitioning your scouting works, it's like going in with barely a plan. And yes, turning it off does nothing to return the old values.

[tejdog1]

It's also highly unrealistic. Teams have armies of scouts scouting the draft class for literally months beforehand IRL

[Mota]

I turned off the combine for this season, and my EXCELLENT amateur scout just got everybody to Average level of scouting. Individual player scouting made no difference, so it seems to match exactly how the scouting would go WITH the combine.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by Crickett13

Anybody who likes it I would love to hear your opinion.

I don't have a problem with it. It is a tough balance for the devs from a gaming perspective to dial in the right amount of fun factor vs. realism. The draft started in 1965 as of right now there have only been 19 guys enshrined that were drafted in the 1st round. Yet, I would bet most MLB saves would not follow the same pattern as it was way to easy to get prospects to a very high accuracy making the rounds after the first two pretty trivial. I have always had the opinion that the game did not feature enough of a boom/bust factor but I can also understand that gamers may not like that.

Also, a little off topic but what makes a guy a bust? Was the scout wrong or was it a combination of poor development and injuries?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

Also, a little off topic but what makes a guy a bust? Was the scout wrong or was it a combination of poor development and injuries?

Here's what I think, just an opinion. In real life, not OOTP

In the end, there are 4 main things that determine if a young prospect will develop:

1) his current ability/ratings (i.e. the starting point)

2) his age (i.e. where he is at on the typical physical development curve)

3) his attitude/work ethic (i.e. his willingness to work harder than his peers to improve = OOTP personality = over or underperform the aging curve)

4) his coaches (irl, I believe coaches trigger what OOTP models as random talent changes)

#2 is a freebie, so what a franchise wants is scouts that can understand #1 and #3. And finally, it wants coaches in its minor leagues (#4) who are designed to guide players to improvement.

The concept of potential ratings is a big red herring and it was one of the key things criticized in "Moneyball".

In addition, I believe random talent changes in OOTP are just that.. basically random (OOTP devs will probably correct me on that). They should be completely replaced by coaching effect which will gave players a bit more agency on player development, especially if the development lab allows coaches to be assigned to particular players.

For example, if you have a batting coach who was a slugging first baseman in his playing career, then you don't want him teaching players how to hit for contact or how to player better outfield defense.

[jberg57]

Why are all my prospects AVERAGE despite having a Legendary Scouting Director, $20m in resources allocated, and constantly asking for scouting reports which never move the needle?

[jberg57]

Originally Posted by jberg57

Why are all my prospects AVERAGE despite having a Legendary Scouting Director, $20m in resources allocated, and constantly asking for scouting reports which never move the needle?

Has anyone else figured out how to scout amateur at Very High levels?

[rleibowitz]

Working on a theory where you announce the amateur draft pool/ability to add players to the combine much earlier than the standard 90 days and give your scout more time, but think you'll probably still never have the entire draft pool entirely scouted as in the past and will have to be more selective in who you add to the combine.

[jberg57]

Originally Posted by rleibowitz

Working on a theory where you announce the amateur draft pool/ability to add players to the combine much earlier than the standard 90 days and give your scout more time, but think you'll probably still never have the entire draft pool entirely scouted as in the past and will have to be more selective in who you add to the combine.

Tried this and literally scouted every day. Still 95% Average despite high budget too...
I noticed that scouting players does not work until they are signed. There was a top draftee that i passed over and really wanted to know what his real rating was. Every time i tried scouting after draft he was a 31/80 Average. Once he signed I scouted him and he went to 31/61 Very High.

[Pelican]

Well, it's more work, for one thing. I like that it forced me to investigate prospects and be more selective. But, even with scouting at high accuracy, these are just impressions. Even if the scout is good at it, there is so much variability, I don't know if the combine is worth it. I suspect I would end up in the same place five years out, if I simply went directly into the amateur draft with no combine and no prep.

One aspect of the combine I'm curious about is whether that level of attention makes a difference in signing players. You know, a guy signs with your team because you scouted him and invited him to the combine, and he feels welcome. Maybe signs for less money. I mean, instead of doing the J.D. Drew thing and refusing to sign.