Ratings Buffs

[GreenBear]

I certainly appreciate all the hard work Marcos seems to have put into this! I really love how passionate GMs are in the CSL.
My thoughts:

1) Personally, I think any buffs should be on-hold until several seasons into the new engine. If we were going to stay in DDS22 for a while longer, I could see the case for a buff. But it seems like we’ll be moving to one of the newer engines sooner than later. The new engine will bring forth a number of new changes already, and buffing things before an engine switch doesn’t seem like the best idea.

2) If there were going to be a buff, I’m not a fan of tapered buffs like that (i.e. more inefficient players getting more of a buff than efficient ones). While I understand the idea behind it, there’s typically a reason certain players are inefficient: like they’re an elite defender/rebounder or they want to shoot A LOT (among many other reasons). Giving players like that more of a buff drastically increases their value relative to their peers, which will in turn drastically help out certain teams versus others. I totally understand that wouldn’t be the goal, but that inevitably would be the result. Some GMs go through a painstaking amount of effort to rid themselves of inefficient shooters, and a buff like this would certainly hurt these GMs relative to others.

3) Kind of piggy-backing onto my second point, it would be like me proposing a tapered SCR buff for the entire league (i.e. guys with lower SCR get bigger buffs than guys with higher SCR). In theory, it would do a lot of the same things as buffing shooting ratings. There are a lot of efficient shooters already in this league. Most of them just don’t shoot enough. So if we buff their usage, guess what? These guys will get more playing time and shoot more, and the league’s efficiency will increase as a result. The problem? Teams like mine (lots of efficient shooters but lacking high volume shooters) would benefit much more than some others.

4) If there were going to be a buff, a small global buff would be the way to go. I.e. +1 or +2 to certain ratings across the board. Global buffs are just the most fair. And I’m a believer that you should start small and expand from there. If it works like you planned and you want to increase it further after a couple season, you can always do it again.

5) FGRA is incredibly powerful as several people have pointed out. I would be VERY careful about buffing this rating. Remember the older engines where a ton of guards were put in the Post to increase their usage? It became a real problem. We got away from that in the current engine largely because if you put a guard in the Post too much, his efficiency tanked unless he has really good inside ratings. The “hack” (for lack of a better word) still exists in this current engine, we just don’t take advantage of it because most of the guards don’t have the inside ratings for it. But that dynamic could change with a buff to FGRA.

[Silogical]

Silo


I wouldn’t focus on players not receiving a +1 from 69 to 70 (they will be dominant no matter what) but instead focus on getting players from 45 to 53 so they are at least useful in this new engine lol. But if the problem is buffing good players too much, it can easily be adjusted, that’s why I’m asking for concrete suggestions.

I see game changing buffs in the FGRA, if its just about buffing the really bad why not make it

FGRA
44 and under = 45
45-49 = +1

FGI
is fine

MID
doesnt buff the bad enough, and buffs the good too much

[Marcos_Beck]

50 FGRA is still really bad.
League average today is 57%

[Silogical]

2) If there were going to be a buff, I’m not a fan of tapered buffs like that (i.e. more inefficient players getting more of a buff than efficient ones). While I understand the idea behind it, there’s typically a reason certain players are inefficient: like they’re an elite defender/rebounder or they want to shoot A LOT (among many other reasons). Giving players like that more of a buff drastically increases their value relative to their peers, which will in turn drastically help out certain teams versus others. I totally understand that wouldn’t be the goal, but that inevitably would be the result. Some GMs go through a painstaking amount of effort to rid themselves of inefficient shooters, and a buff like this would certainly hurt these GMs relative to others.

when a player is really bad in a rating its prob not their main way to score. So buffing it more doesnt give this player an advantage over an efficient player getting an equal buff.

example 2 players
30 FGRA and 40 ATB
55 FGRA and 20 ATB

if the 55 gets a +2 FGRA buff than the 30 would need much more than a +2 FGRA buff for it to be fair for both players.

This is why i think global changes are bad though. The formula would need to be insane for it to be fair accross the board.

[GreenBear]

50 FGRA is still really bad.
League average today is 57%

That's very relative. 50 FGRA for a Center is indeed bad. 50 FGRA for a PG is actually pretty good.

[GreenBear]

when a player is really bad in a rating its prob not their main way to score. So buffing it more doesnt give this player an advantage over an efficient player getting an equal buff.

example 2 players
30 FGRA and 40 ATB
55 FGRA and 20 ATB

if the 55 gets a +2 FGRA buff than the 30 would need much more than a +2 FGRA buff for it to be fair for both players.

This is why i think global changes are bad though. The formula would need to be insane for it to be fair accross the board.

In the instance you lay out, I completely agree with you. You're making the point that everything is relative and very dependent upon other ratings, in this case it's ATB. And I couldn't agree more. But I disagree that if a player is bad at a rating, it's probably not their main way to score.

For example, based on my scouts, Michael Porter has an FGRA of 49 or 50. It's somewhere around there. Check your scouts. He's already incredible. Do we really want to give someone like him a sizeable buff of +7? Good Lord, I want no part of that.

My point being that it's impossible to be fair with any ratings buff, which is why they're typically a bad idea regardless of how it's rolled out.

[GreenBear]

Also, my own offline tests surrounding RIM and DUNK ratings indicate that bumping them up 50% will not work as intended. They do not work as you would logically think. In your testing, did you isolate those ratings and test just those ratings?

[Silogical]

In the instance you lay out, I completely agree with you. You're making the point that everything is relative and very dependent upon other ratings, in this case it's ATB. And I couldn't agree more. But I disagree that if a player is bad at a rating, it's probably not their main way to score.

For example, based on my scouts, Michael Porter has an FGRA of 49 or 50. It's somewhere around there. Check your scouts. He's already incredible. Do we really want to give someone like him a sizeable buff of +7? Good Lord, I want no part of that.

My point being that it's impossible to be fair with any ratings buff, which is why they're typically a bad idea regardless of how it's rolled out.

I agree. I dont see 49/50 FGRA as bad so i would be very against a +7

These were my suggestions IF a ratings changed is forced.

FGRA
44 and under = 45
45-49 = +1

FGI
marcos buffs are close to fine, buff the bad a little more.

MID
marcos buffs doesnt buff the bad enough, and buffs the good too much

IMO we should not change engines and not do global changes. Just create more unique players that shift the league slowly. When DDS realeases an engine where tactics actually matter than change, or we'll change to 25 and 26 was actually the good one.

[KW]

A couple important things with Porter- despite having a somewhat average FGRA, he gets into the restricted area more than most, and when he doesn't, he's a really good ITP shooter. On of the best in the league iirc. And I'm sure his size, SCR, DRFL helps his efficiency as well to make him the monster he already is.

We do need to be careful with any increases and that they should largely benefit the lower to mid tier of shooters. I personally would love to be able to make changes by position but that gets so complicated, and possibly exploited by teams that move players around.

[hardenwithnod]

Yeah, I am in the camp that if we are going through with this rating buff, then we should stay with this engine for a few more seasons. If we intend to move to a new engine ASAP, then no point in doing this.

[KW]

Yeah, I am in the camp that if we are going through with this rating buff, then we should stay with this engine for a few more seasons. If we intend to move to a new engine ASAP, then no point in doing this.

Agree with that. However if we are moving to a new engine, I think it doesn't hurt to have a general framework of a rating conversion to use at that time and it can be tweaked based on what we observe in PB25 if that's what we're doing. There really isn't a point in moving to a new engine if we're going to keep the same bad percentages

[Andrewu91]

I echo the same thoughts of some of the other gm's. If we are keeping this engine for multiple seasons, change could be beneficial.

But if we are switching engines, changes shouldn't happen until after 1 full season in the new engine.

Just my thoughts on the situation

[KW]

I echo the same thoughts of some of the other gm's. If we are keeping this engine for multiple seasons, change could be beneficial.

But if we are switching engines, changes shouldn't happen until after 1 full season in the new engine.

Just my thoughts on the situation

given that shooting ranges are essentially percentages, the current shooting ratings won't exactly work in any DDS engine. but increases should be modest increases that we can add to later if needed.

[Andrewu91]

I echo the same thoughts of some of the other gm's. If we are keeping this engine for multiple seasons, change could be beneficial.

But if we are switching engines, changes shouldn't happen until after 1 full season in the new engine.

Just my thoughts on the situation

given that shooting ranges are essentially percentages, the current shooting ratings won't exactly work in any DDS engine. but increases should be modest increases that we can add to later if needed.

I agree

[OneNole]

I haven't kept up with most of the comments but to me this is just a game and I play it as a game. I look to see what is successful in a certain engine and try to acquire those players. So I don't think we need to buff anyone up. Because at the end of the day, this isn't the nba, not even close. It's a game

[Silogical]

I also dont understand this need to copy the NBA. Why cant we just be our own league? If the draft team keeps making inefficient players with very strong overall defense than we deal with it and adapt. We are just better defenders in our universe. NBA needs to copy us, the NBA is so soft right now.

[OneNole]

I also dont understand this need to copy the NBA. Why cant we just be our own league? If the draft team keeps making inefficient players with very strong overall defense than we deal with it and adapt. We are just better defenders in our universe. NBA needs to copy us, the NBA is so soft right now.

I agree with that. It's one of the reasons I stopped watching. Call me a boomer, idc. Ball was just better then.

[Marcos_Beck]

Every game has a meta.
I'm just trying to make more players viable, more strategies viable, more stuff viable while not breaking the league.

I really hate that we have one way to win right now and it's pounding the post with OP players with super high FGRA / FGITP.

I'm trying to make Mid Range viable (but not broken), driving from the perimeter viable (while not making inside game even more OP), making it rain from deep viable... That kind of stuff.

[OneNole]

Every game has a meta.
I'm just trying to make more players viable, more strategies viable, more stuff viable while not breaking the league.

I really hate that we have one way to win right now and it's pounding the post with OP players with super high FGRA / FGITP.

I'm trying to make Mid Range viable (but not broken), driving from the perimeter viable (while not making inside game even more OP), making it rain from deep viable... That kind of stuff.

It wont work, every engine has one area that prioritizes a certain area of the game. The top GMs will figure out what that is and they will build their teams around that idea.

[Silogical]

Every game has a meta.
I'm just trying to make more players viable, more strategies viable, more stuff viable while not breaking the league.

I really hate that we have one way to win right now and it's pounding the post with OP players with super high FGRA / FGITP.

I'm trying to make Mid Range viable (but not broken), driving from the perimeter viable (while not making inside game even more OP), making it rain from deep viable... That kind of stuff.

I agree with this. I dont see how buffing FGRA solves our FGRA is OP problem though.

I know i said it 1000 times, but the way to "driving from the perimeter viable" is to create these players at creation. Creating them after they have been drafted is not the answer.

It wont work, every engine has one area that prioritizes a certain area of the game. The top GMs will figure out what that is and they will build their teams around that idea.

thats actually not true, we could do it with carefully created players. I would be willing to help with player creation if the league would like this balance.