May 26th Update - Feedback Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Posted by ramonshaw on 6/2/2015 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by frymaster99 on 6/2/2015 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Plague I get that. That's why I suggested perhaps 90% number. No it isn't close to real life but it's more realistic than the current way but people would **** and moan when their first overall pick ends up sacking and I get that side of things too.
Because it's a game where we pay 25$ to play to not get a random turd with the first pick in the draft. We don't get a chance to talk to draft picks, watch them play, etc. 
Maybe I've been signing up and paying in the wrong place.  Can you show me where in the signup/payment process you've been guaranteed anything, such as quality and success of first round picks?
6/2/2015 1:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The bottom line is that we want realism.   But not too much because sucking and watching our high draft picks suck is not fun.   We haven't invested millions into our organization and, if unhappy, can't sell it in order to make those millions back.   We simply just don't renew and say "Well, that's 20 bucks I ****** away over the last three months."

I think everyone understands the balance between realism and fun.   I'm just not sure everyone understands that a delicate balance is required to keep the game going. 
6/2/2015 1:49 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2015 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ramonshaw on 6/2/2015 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by frymaster99 on 6/2/2015 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Plague I get that. That's why I suggested perhaps 90% number. No it isn't close to real life but it's more realistic than the current way but people would **** and moan when their first overall pick ends up sacking and I get that side of things too.
Because it's a game where we pay 25$ to play to not get a random turd with the first pick in the draft. We don't get a chance to talk to draft picks, watch them play, etc. 
Maybe I've been signing up and paying in the wrong place.  Can you show me where in the signup/payment process you've been guaranteed anything, such as quality and success of first round picks?
You obviously did not get the memo:

Overall Record: 8498-7864 (.519)   Total Seasons: 101
Post Season Record: 109-165 (.398)   Division Titles: 27
Best Season Record: 111-51 (.685)   Playoffs: 43
Worst Season Record: 56-106 (.346)   World Series Titles: 0
6/2/2015 1:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

How do you shut up a tec?

Point out his ability to win a WS less often than the Cubs.

6/2/2015 6:41 PM
a_ersberg
Posts: 1363 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 75
Prospect
Even I've won a WS...
6/2/2015 10:18 PM
plague
Posts: 2325 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 178 602 203
Prospect
Posted by ramonshaw on 6/2/2015 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by frymaster99 on 6/2/2015 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Plague I get that. That's why I suggested perhaps 90% number. No it isn't close to real life but it's more realistic than the current way but people would **** and moan when their first overall pick ends up sacking and I get that side of things too.
Because it's a game where we pay 25$ to play to not get a random turd with the first pick in the draft. We don't get a chance to talk to draft picks, watch them play, etc. 
We pay $25 to own a franchise in a sports simulation game. I personally have no problem with WIS making the draft more realistic, the draft should never be about certainties. Hopefully with the current changes having a 20 in college and high school scouting will be valuable while not at that same time making it a must .

I like that they are eliminating current ratings for prospects because currently people are able to game the system by looking at current ratings of prospects. Same goes with the money demands of IFA. This is a good change for gameplay, it eliminates people who were using currents and comparing it to other aspects of the player for example age to get a estimate of where that prospect will be when he is major league ready. Now the only thing that will matters is scouting, and that is the way it should be, you want to increase your chances of realizing a players future potential then increase your scouting, that was the intended purpose of scouting.

I don't ever blame the player base for gaming the system. It's the job of the company to adjust once the player base games something and to adjust in a reasonable amount of time. In this case WIS has addressed multiple issues where the players  had been gaming the system for years.

I am sure there will be unintended consequences from the current changes and hopefully WIS will adjust to this unintended consequences.







6/3/2015 12:34 AM (edited)
jonas1102
Posts: 1016 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 24 43 11
Rookie
http://www.fangraphs.com/scoutboard.aspx?type=0&pos=all&sort=5,d

That is Fangraphs Sortable Draft Board.
6/3/2015 3:26 PM
headpirate
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 86 12
Rookie
Put ratings to this scouting report

Alex Bregman

Bregman isn't sexy but he makes tons of contact, has some pop, great instincts and the industry is slowly coming around to my opinion that he can stick at shortstop.

6/3/2015 4:48 PM
damag
Posts: 5374 (0)
Hall of Famer
1726 70 11
Veteran
Well, his Sexy definitely tops out in the high 30s at best.

6/3/2015 5:56 PM
bjschumacher
Posts: 4573 (0)
Hall of Famer
49 2 80 449 171
All Star
He's bold. I'll give him that.
6/3/2015 11:39 PM
dgtrache
Posts: 109 (0)
Hall of Famer
62 11 2 2 62 144
Prospect
Is it an intentional part of the update that amateur draft prospects show a temper of 0?
6/4/2015 12:19 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Posted by dgtrache on 6/4/2015 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Is it an intentional part of the update that amateur draft prospects show a temper of 0?
Funny that you should mention that, because as I was preparing for our draft in MG tomorrow, my first "post-update" draft, I was looking at some marginal prospects, and all 4 or so that I looked at had a temper of 0, which I thought was odd.

So then I looked at all 500 prospects on my draft list.  19 of them have a temper of 0.  So it's not all of them.

No idea how many pre-update classes from my teams had for 9 temper guys.  I can probably look through old spreadsheets to check.
6/4/2015 12:41 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
6/2/2015 2:39 PM MikeT23
I've noticed slight differences in ratings on prospect player cards and the draft board. Usually just a couple of points but I did run across a C with a 6 range difference. Additionally, every player I checked had a 0 temper on his card.

No idea if this is intentional, if it can be exploited or if it's a flaw but thought I'd bring it up. My scouting is 0 HS/10 College.

Thanks
Mike
6/4/2015 10:53 AM Customer Support
We are investigating and will deploy fix. thank you
6/4/2015 12:43 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
FWIW . . . I'm pretty sure that all prospects, whether draft or IFA, are "created" at the time of world rollover and are unveiled to the world as the season progresses.  So our draftees would have been created pre-update, and no post-update.
6/4/2015 12:46 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I assume you're responding to something but not the issue on my ticket.    Regardless of time of creation, we shouldn't see different ratings on draft board/player card.
6/4/2015 12:51 PM
◂ Prev 1...20|21|22|23|24...26 Next ▸
May 26th Update - Feedback Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.