Post ID | Date & Time | Game Date | Function |
---|---|---|---|
#1781 | 10/30/2012 2:35:40 am | ||
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive | 1) I would like to see a more subtle position experience rating. Now we have a rating of none, small and capital Letter (_,of,OF). I would like to add a forth rating: bold (OF). A positional experience of ... means ... Now (assumed): 0-39% none 40-79% of 80-100% OF New: 0-24% none 25-54% of 55-84% OF 85-100% OF 2) I would also like to see "infield replacement player traits" and/or "utility player traits". I assume a player with no positional experience plays only at 75% of his capability at that position and this inceases to 90% and 105% with the two positional ratings (of/OF). (new percentages with four ratings could be then: 75%/85%/95%/105% for _,of,OF,OF) A player with an positional XP of atleast 40% in atleast two different infield areas corner/middle infielder would get the Inf-position trait. e.g. SS 51% and 3B 41% => Inf-trait The Inf-trait would give a 80%/90/100% rating to all infield positions (1B,2B,3B,SS). Better individual position ratings would still give a better rating at that position but the player could play a position with 0% XP but at 80%/90/100% instead of only 75%. Similar concept for utility player trait: atleast 50% in atleast 2 diff. fielding areas C,INF,OF => U-trait The U-rait would give a 5% lower guaranteed position rating than the Inf-trait as it is harder to learn/play. Here is some math: "positional" experience of ... means ... 50- 90% inf/u 91-130% INF/U 130% < INF/U Infield XP = arithmetic average of the positons qualified * (1 + number of positions qualified / 5 ) a) e.g. 2B 86%, SS 55%, 3B 47% : ((86+55+47)/3)* (1 + 3/5) = 188/3 * 1.6 = 100,27% => INF (atleast 90% on any infield positon) (Position ratings: 1B 90%, 2B 105%, SS 95%, 3B 90%) b) e.g. 1B 40%, 2B 40%, 3B 25%(DNQ): ((40+40)/2)* (0.9 + 2/5) = 80/2 * 1.3 = 52% => inf (atleast 80% on any infield positon) (Position ratings: 1B 85%, 2B 85%, SS 80%, 3B 80%) c1) e.g. C 90%, CF 70%, 3B 49%(DNQ): ((90+70)/2)* (0.9 + 2/5) = 160/2 * 1.3 = 104% => U (atleast 85% on all positions) (Position ratings: C 105%, 1B 85%, 2B 85%, SS 85%, 3B 85%, OF 95%) c2) e.g. C 90%, CF 70%, 3B 50%: ((90+70+50)/3)* (0.9 + 3/5) = 210/3 * 1.5 = 105% => U (atleast 85% on all positions) (Position ratings: C 105%, 1B 85%, 2B 85%, SS 85%, 3B 95%, OF 95%) All numbers/formulas are examples as I dont know how Steve set them originally. This means the lowest u-trait rating (75%) is useless for now. |
||
#1785 | 10/30/2012 10:48:20 am | ||
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4981 Administrator | What would be the purpose of having four levels of position ratings rather than three? I kind of imagine that the ratings meant – OF = starter level position experience, of = backup level (fill-in) position experience and blank = no experience at the position. Basically, this rating combined with the defensive skills give you a pretty good idea of the players defensive capabilities. >I would also like to see "infield replacement player traits" and/or "utility player traits". I guess I’m not following this. I this a new position of Utility Man (who can presumably play multiple positions with a certain amount of positional experience) or is it a management trait to control how and when a player is replaced for defensive purposes? Thanks, Steve |
||
#1788 | 10/30/2012 11:54:43 am | ||
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive | 2) a new "position" 1) this was a bonus "idea" in addition to the new position idea to see earlier the progress in learning a new position. _ no Value (<10 GP) of Platooning/PH may stay after AB (20-50 GP @position) OF better part of the platoon/def. Replacement (60-100 GP @position) OF Everyday Player (150+ GP) |
||
#1795 | 10/30/2012 6:05:29 pm | ||
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4981 Administrator | So what you're essentially saying is that the Infielder-trait (or Utility Man), would sort of be a "backup" positional XP for all the infield positions you might not have experience in? I could kind of see where there could be some spillover between similar positions (SS & 2B for example), but I'm wondering if having additional positional XP categories would just be confusing. Steve |
||
#1803 | 10/31/2012 3:07:22 am | ||
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive | yes players who dont like them or know them wont train a player in 2-3 different positions. |
||
#1804 | 10/31/2012 8:38:52 am | ||
Ajax Joined: 05/24/2012 Posts: 110 Inactive | I normally like using IF or UT ratings, but the rosters are so big here you can really carry dedicated backups for each position. It does raise the question of why we use OF vs. LF, CF, and RF Seems like we should have 8 specific fielding positions and then maybe IF, OF, and UT as potential backup player positions. If you do implement that I think the backup positions should perform slightly below dedicated lowercase levels |
||
#1810 | 11/01/2012 7:54:36 am | ||
AmUnRA Joined: 06/17/2012 Posts: 299 Inactive | that makes sense! | ||
#1813 | 11/01/2012 2:25:30 pm | ||
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4981 Administrator | >It does raise the question of why we use OF vs. LF, CF, and RF In general, there isn’t a huge difference between fielding the outfield positions and you often see players move between the various outfield positions without much effort. Additionally, if you look on a team’s roster or a baseball card…most of the time outfielders are listed as outfielders (as opposed to LF/CF/RF). That’s not really the case for infielders. A first baseman isn’t necessarily an adequate second baseman, short stop or third basemen. Steve |
||
#1814 | 11/01/2012 2:56:40 pm | ||
thevinster Joined: 10/25/2012 Posts: 22 Inactive | i like having 3 OF positions as opposed to CF LF and RF. Provides more flexibility. Also i think it was only recently that MLB moved to having 3 official positions. | ||
#1840 | 11/04/2012 6:03:59 am | ||
clodhopper Joined: 06/15/2012 Posts: 7 Inactive | Hmm... I don't agree with breaking OF into three XP rated positions. It might add slightly more realism, but at the cost of playability. I am not even convinced it would add realism. Sorry |