Game Date: Apr 7th, 2064
Suggestions
Forum >> Suggestions >> New Draft Discussion... 
| 
| 
| Post ID | Date & Time | Game Date | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1344 | 08/25/2012 11:05:59 pm | ||
|
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive 
| instead of skills give us the scouting report. we get a feeling for the player but no exact values. | ||
| #1348 | 08/26/2012 12:54:57 pm | ||
|
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator 
| That's what I was thinking...but should it be exactly like the current scouting report or somewhat obsured skill numbers. Should it be based on potential or current skill values? Steve |
||
| #1352 | 08/26/2012 2:44:39 pm | ||
|
machicuba Joined: 08/23/2012 Posts: 1 Inactive
| The best is scouting report. if you wanna accurate you should pay for it, different levels according to the amount of money the team invest for scout report. like in the major league. | ||
| #1355 | 08/27/2012 12:26:45 am | ||
|
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive
| the only thing that counts is the potential of the prospect. the scouting report which is already used is fine but you could add a tooltip on mouseover which translates the text into scouting numbers (20-80) | ||
| #1365 | 08/27/2012 10:37:49 am | ||
|
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator
| So, you're saying that tool tip should work like this. If the scouting report has a line that says He can be a great hitter. Then the tool tip should say Hitting potential is between X and Y? Steve |
||
| #1366 | 08/27/2012 11:13:56 am | ||
|
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive
| if "great" is the best value you could translate it into 70-80 in the 20-80 range or we use the text-based description of the potential level ("above average","good","very good") for skills, too. | ||
| #1368 | 08/27/2012 6:47:21 pm | ||
|
tc_ferdzz Joined: 11/13/2011 Posts: 135 Inactive
| i don't think you need to translate "great" or "good" or "above average" into a numerical value...i think we can all determine that "great" is better than "good" which is better than "above average" which is better than "average" etc etc...i think the interpretation of what exactly these ratings mean should be up to us... and considering that you have the ratings in a system where when a player is young and inexperienced his ratings will not be an accurate representation of what his actual ratings are...i think you could leave the draft choice profiles pretty much as they are... you'll see the players ratings...they won't be that accurate and you can rely on them as much as you want...if you are looking for a power hitter...you could pick the guy with a good rating for power...but he might end up not being so great...and the other you passed up might be better...but you look at the scouting report and if it says he will be a great power hitter...that'll be a better representation of what this player will mean in the future...but how much you invest in "great" is up to you... |
||
| #1372 | 08/27/2012 10:14:20 pm | ||
|
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator
| Okay...thanks for the input. Steve |
||
| #1374 | 08/27/2012 11:35:44 pm | ||
|
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive
| i don't think you need to translate "great" or "good" or "above average" into a numerical value...i think we can all determine that "great" is better than "good" which is better than "above average" which is better than "average" etc etc...i think the interpretation of what exactly these ratings mean should be up to us... the mentioned values are okay but what about prolific, major league, strikeout, 'to be SP' and all the other descriptions? and that is what i am talking about as they are hard to understand as foreign languager and might be also hard to rate for non baseball GMs or non-Bud Selig. |
||
| #1412 | 09/03/2012 10:31:13 am | ||
|
siches Joined: 07/15/2012 Posts: 13 Inactive
| The daft is a good idea. Also, you could trade draft picks to other teams for players. | ||
| |