Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jayzone
Remember, "Garbage in, garbage out. (GIGO)".
|
Alright, when a man starts quoting obscure programming axioms, you have to give the guy credit.
By the way, thanks for plugging in for me - we can all use that every now and then. I agree that this could have a rather large AI impact if handled properly. As GMO warned against, too much detail being provided through the scouting report could ruin a bit of the fun, but I don't see that happening here.
As the scouting system is redone for the next evolution of OOTP, I find myself wondering how it's going to be handled. I remember studying the concept of "strategic human resources" in my business classes back in my college days. In an odd sort of way, that's actually what we're discussing here:
Planning the business/team maneuvers based upon the views of analiysts from all levels. AI GM's already get basic "assessment reports" from their scouts and managers and plan for that season and the future based upon what they learn from them. With Jayzone's enhanced scouting system, these reports suddenly take on new life and importance, allowing for the crafting of particular team strategies.
The amount that GM's would weigh the scouting reports should also depend on how much of the season has already passed - there's a breakover point between a team's apparent potential and that same team's reality that occurs someplace between opening day and the end of the World Series. Think about it in the same vein as "the Artist Formerly Known as Henry's" scaled month-by-month player evaluation settings.
Similarly, a team's relative age should also be considered by an AI GM when viewing these reports. A simple equetion weighting total IP and PA by the respective players' ages could give valuable information regarding how to read the team's potential - an AI GM could then potentially have a good idea of when his team has peaked and know when to start moving the older players.
It's interesting, and I like it.
as for players ...
One other point I'd like to raise here is that real-life GM's actually get detailed information from scouts and managers. The proliferation of numbers, projections, and rankings is rife in the Majors.
Because of this, I think having more detail than we currently get on the scouting reports shouldn't kill the realism factor just so long as it isn't too precise or inhumanly accurate. Taking into account a player's potential, achieved ratings, and age could give some interesting results.
For example, let's take young slugger Joe Schmoe;
"Joe looks like he could be a consistent .280/30/100 kind of hitter just so long as that hole in his swing isn't exploited any more than it already is. Right now, I'd also expect well over 100 k's in a year, but Schmoe's still young and there's room for improvement if he gets some good coaching and actually listens to it."
Or we could deal with aging superstar John Donuthole (I'm hungry - so sue me);
"After several years, John most likely doesn't have many surprises left in him but at least there's plenty left in the tank. He can still give you a solid .280 batting average with enough power to knock out 30+ homers in a full year, but his best years are probably behind him. As pitchers everywhere know, he'll fish for some pitches and strikeout well over 100 times a year, but the threat of his bat is more than enough to keep them wary of putting in his hot zone."
To give realistic numbers, there would have to be some interaction with the league's base numbers and the ratings that would go on
behind the scenes, right where it belongs. Scouts could still be wrong, and even if they're right the players could simply over- or under-acheive.
All-in-all, it's a good idea. I'm not sure with what ease it could be built into the game, but I'd be interested in finding out.