Well, it's not TCY2 but i will take it. Hopefully i can get home sometime soon to download.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2k7 Version 6.1 released
Collapse
X
-
VPI97 wrote:
FYI,
I just exchanged words with Jim and you guys should go ahead and upgrade. My take is that anyone running the new version will have a more accurate view of players, so if only some of you do it, those people would have a competitive advantage.
Meanwhile, I'm going to stick with the old version until the end of the playoffs. Seems that switching up in mid stream may lead to some funky stats and I'm not going to risk the integrity of the playoffs by upgrading at this point in the season.
THIS HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL DECREE
My take of VPI's post ... allow all to see the scouting changes by letting anyone who wants to upgrade. However, he will run the games on the old engine until the end of the season to preserve integrity of the season activity including statistics.
Comment
-
one thing i don't understand, if the player ratings don't change by more than a couple points then doesn't that mean the scouts were more accurate than we thought? if so, doesn't it make it moot that Jim changed the scout's probability for error? i forget, he either made it more likely for the scout's to be wrong or he decreased the amount of error. but if they were only off by a couple points then it doesn't seem it was all that broken to begin with. or am i not getting something?
Comment
-
From what I understand, the unmasking of things takes place quicker. So, if the mask was off, nothing will change. If the mask is not off, he may gain or lose a couple of points in a direction of the change. How significant the change is based upon how far off the evaluation was.Originally posted by Hell Atlantic View Postone thing i don't understand, if the player ratings don't change by more than a couple points then doesn't that mean the scouts were more accurate than we thought? if so, doesn't it make it moot that Jim changed the scout's probability for error? i forget, he either made it more likely for the scout's to be wrong or he decreased the amount of error. but if they were only off by a couple points then it doesn't seem it was all that broken to begin with. or am i not getting something?
2003 IFL AC East Runner-Up - Wildcard 10-6
2004 IFL AC East Runner-UP - Wildcard - AC Runner-up 10-5-1
2005 3rd Place AC East 6-10 2007 2nd Place AC East 8-8
2006 3rd Place AC East 7-9 2008 2nd Place AC East 9-7
2009 1st Place AC East, Imperial Bowl Champions 13-3
Comment
-
i had my QB in another league go up 5 points in current and future. My scout is poor in QB, so I still don't know anythingNEWARK BULLDOGS WALL OF HONOR
DE JUSTIN JONES
LB DOMINGO PERSAUD
TE THOMAS MACOMBER
LT IRWIN KAO
WR ANDREW ROBEY
SS GREGORY BOYD
RB ALAN CRESPO
G MALCOLM "BIG KAT" SINGLETON
WR WALTER WALKER
G AMOS BAILEY
QB DWIGHT "KING" BURGER
RB GARY "THE SITUATION" JAMISON
WR JOSE HOOVER
K BUTCH SCHULZ
LB MACK EDWARDS
DE STEPHEN BRIGHAM
WR JESSE LUCAS
C NORMAN ENRIGHT
SS JUNIOR EL NIN0
Comment
-
There are at least two known mechanisms at work here. There's the rate of unmasking, which has been accelerated in 6.1 (and that's probably why we see the slew of +/- 2 point guys). That's not a huge effect. The draft classes are much different now, though--not nearly as many heavily masked players, from what I can tell so far. (If y'all are still on TCY drafts, then I expect you probably won't see this.) It looks like it's most significant for leagues that use FOF-generated draft classes, and for SP.Originally posted by Hell Atlantic View Postone thing i don't understand, if the player ratings don't change by more than a couple points then doesn't that mean the scouts were more accurate than we thought? if so, doesn't it make it moot that Jim changed the scout's probability for error? i forget, he either made it more likely for the scout's to be wrong or he decreased the amount of error. but if they were only off by a couple points then it doesn't seem it was all that broken to begin with. or am i not getting something?
Comment

Comment