I have 2 questions

1. Does high volatility indicate how big of a boom or bust or likelihood of a boom or bust? Like will a 99 volatility bust more hard than a 5 volatility that us a bust?

2. If after training camp 1 a player goes down 3 points or so in potential rating, does it automatically mean he'll bust or can they go back up again, and vice versa?

1. It determines how much the player will swing in one direction or the other. So higher volatility = bigger results, positive or negative.

2. Players will occasionally fluctuate to minor extents, but if a player is trending in one direction, that will continue to be their overall trend. Sadly there's not yet any chance of redemption for confirmed busts.

Thanks. Looks like everyone in my first draft is busting besides my 6th round pick lol

Very originally I intended for the average 'good' starter to be in the 60's and 70's, and the 80's and 90's were rare. Your backups were supposed to be 55-65, and the scrubs would be < 50. Since most people are used to Madden-like numbers, this caused a near revolt, so I decided (after much online debate and consideration, I'm sure you could find the threads from several years ago) to slide the scale up.

The net result is that there are no super-outlier players, because there is no longer room on the scale for them.

This sort of makes it better for everyone in the long run, though, because that super-outlier player could be all you need to be unstoppable, which makes it frustrating for everyone.

The volatility is very intentional, though ... because I want you to -care- about rounds 4 and beyond in the draft. And I want those high-volatility high-rated players to drop in the draft, or at least let you know you're taking a risk drafting them high. If you see a high-rated player with high volatility - who doesn't have room to boom - well, you're rolling the dice drafting him, because there's no upside if he booms but a huge downside if he busts. And the odds are 50/50. We don't hear about those high-rated booms because, well, we don't see them. But grab yourself those high-volatility players in the later rounds, and if you get enough of them you'll find your Dak Prescott or Tom Brady (well, I guess Tom Brady would be a > 100 player...)

To answer the question about the Patriots ... if every team was as good as the Patriots at personnel, you'd have a different bar. If I gave you the ability to scout and develop players like the Patriots, then everyone would have to have that ability, which would no longer make it special. Heck, why not just make every player a 100-rated player and be done with it.

And yes, 100-rated players are not perfect. You will see a 100-rated kicker miss a chip shot field goal here and there, or a 100-rated avoid fumble cough it up. If you didn't, the game wouldn't be simulating a human being. The best kickers miss easy field goals every once in a while. The best RB's fumble the ball - sometimes in the most inopportune times. That's part of the game.

Each GM has different weights. Would a 100/100 WR be the same for everyone? I'm guessing "NO", since you gave two drastically different playing styles among the players mentioned.

I'm beginning to think, because of all this convo about players, that perhaps abilities should be nerfed all around in order to balance things a bit. Or perhaps certain abilities are too OP on one end compared to the other and need to be balanced.

HAHA JDB pretty much answered my question with the previous post! :D

Thanks for the response.

I think you confirmed my thinking that a 100 rated player is not "perfect" as some seem to think.

I wasn't complaining about the quality of players in the draft. I actually think it's pretty good (except there are still no projected superstar QBs, or maybe 1 in 10 drafts).

I was saying that there seems to be an overabundance of players at the top of the draft that decline, and that it would be nice if there was something other than luck involved.

One owner can gameplan better than another. One can do a better job of signing the right FAs or Coaches for their system than another. One can be better at trades than another. One can be better at putting their players in the right depth chart positions or position overrides than another.

But, when it comes to the draft it is all completely random. The only way one owner is better than another at drafting is if one of them removes the Ai from the equation (custom weights, and don't let the Ai make the pick), and the other doesn't.

I also agree with most everything you said, except for this part:



The progress (upward primarily) is too slow in the first training camp to even bother keeping most of these players on the roster. For that reason, rarely do I ever care about a 4th round pick, and I usually let the Ai make my 5th-7th round picks (which emphasizes how much I don't care about those picks).

I have never seen, nor even heard about, a player increasing 10+ points in the first TC, but there are plenty of examples of players who have decreased 10+ points in the first TC (I've had some decline much more than 10 in their first TC).

If there were more drastic movement for these "booming" late round picks in TC, they might actually have a chance of making the roster, but I'm not going to keep a 58 rated player around just because I drafted him at 54.

IRL you have undrafted FAs who show their worth in TC and end up starting. Some become stars very quickly (not very often - Kurt Warner / Arian Foster / Priest Holmes / Tony Romo / Antonio Gates). That doesn't happen here.

I agree with this as well.

Curious to know if the idea of the High Volatility guy, let's say......32/97 with 88 Vol, is that he should be drafted in the latter Rounds (4-7) as opposed to the early Rounds (1-3). I believe these guys are still being drafted early because of their reward. (Usually no later than the 2nd Round in most cases). If I had a choice between a 32/97 with 88 Vol or a 52/73 with 10 Vol, I'm pretty positive I'm gonna take the high risk guy. Am I right?

I would.

Now, the same 32/97 guy with 88 vol compared to 32/90 guy with 10 vol, I'm probably going with the 10 vol guy.

It also depends on the position and what attributes he might bust in. There are some skills that I don't care about for certain positions, so if he is already close to his max potential in the ones I do care about, I may take the 88 vol guy.

It really depends on the player/position.

Yup that 97 with 88 vol might drop to the high 70's but the other guy isn't moving at all ..

Question would be then a 97 guy with 88 vol OR 80 with 30 vol. There could be a chance that 2nd guy is the better player in the long run.

Edit: WarEagle beat me to it .. lol