[vote requested] Proposed Rule Change: Encouraging Mid-Career Player Development
Moderator: pacers
[vote requested] Proposed Rule Change: Encouraging Mid-Career Player Development
Proposed Rule Change: Encouraging Mid-Career Player Development
As I covered in more depth in this article, so much of our game revolves around the RP economy - how it's generated, how it's managed, and how it's spent. Spending RP needs to lead to clear benefits for each GM, but just as importantly, also make the game more fun for other GMs. In particular:
Due to the above, I’m proposing a “middle tier” of Reward Camps that costs 150 RP per point for players with 4-7 years of experience. Here’s what it would look like:
Current System:
I believe this change is targeted enough to encourage more player development without causing more ratings inflation or disrupting the broader player development framework, as it fully camping an uncamped player after their rookie contract is still much more expensive (3600 RP instead of 4800 RP), but not prohibitively such.
As always, the point of the game is to have fun, and I believe this change would lead to more fun for all of us by:
As I covered in more depth in this article, so much of our game revolves around the RP economy - how it's generated, how it's managed, and how it's spent. Spending RP needs to lead to clear benefits for each GM, but just as importantly, also make the game more fun for other GMs. In particular:
- One player’s currency spend should lead to positive observational externality for other players.
- We therefore want to encourage players to spend currency.
- For our league, the primary use of RP is player development, and the positive externalities are that 1/ well-developed players are cool to see, and 2/ a larger pool of good players makes trading and free agency more interesting.
Due to the above, I’m proposing a “middle tier” of Reward Camps that costs 150 RP per point for players with 4-7 years of experience. Here’s what it would look like:
Current System:
- Players with 0-3 years experience: 100 RP per rating increase
- Players with 4-10 years experience: 200 RP per rating increase. Once a player reaches 30-years-old, or 10+ years of experience, whichever comes first, he may not be eligible for upgrades
- Players with 0-3 years experience: 100 RP per rating increase, +8 in total increases per offseason
- Players with 4-7 years experience: 150 RP per rating increase, +8 in total increases per offseason
- Players with 8-10 years experience: 200 RP per rating increase, +6 in increases per offseason. Once a player reaches 30-years-old, or 10+ years of experience, whichever comes first, he may not be eligible for upgrades
I believe this change is targeted enough to encourage more player development without causing more ratings inflation or disrupting the broader player development framework, as it fully camping an uncamped player after their rookie contract is still much more expensive (3600 RP instead of 4800 RP), but not prohibitively such.
As always, the point of the game is to have fun, and I believe this change would lead to more fun for all of us by:
- Enabling more avenues to find useful players
- Encouraging GMs to develop diamonds in the rough
- Creating more interesting players in the league
I think I’m in favor of this and see it as a positive for the league, my initial concern is similar to the point Jesse made regarding the net RP cap where I worry that this type of change favors those of us who are way more active and have RP to spend in the first place (while I wish every GM would be active and manufacture RP, realistically that’s probably not happening)
Curious other people’s feelings here, inclined to vote yes as long as we think this is fair
My one tweak might be capping 4-7 camps at +6 rather than +8 (keeps the incentives tilted toward camping earlier and cheaper). But I do love the idea in a vacuum of extending the shelf life of players and giving teams more pathways to developing talent/adding value to reclamation project type guys in deals
As I think about it my other concern is that this change could favor competitive teams much more than rebuilding ones (might be more likely to use this tool when you’re already good versus seeing the value in it when you aren’t necessarily trying to win?)
Curious other people’s feelings here, inclined to vote yes as long as we think this is fair
My one tweak might be capping 4-7 camps at +6 rather than +8 (keeps the incentives tilted toward camping earlier and cheaper). But I do love the idea in a vacuum of extending the shelf life of players and giving teams more pathways to developing talent/adding value to reclamation project type guys in deals
As I think about it my other concern is that this change could favor competitive teams much more than rebuilding ones (might be more likely to use this tool when you’re already good versus seeing the value in it when you aren’t necessarily trying to win?)
free healthcare has never been more important
Voted yes. It’s infuriating to watch some of these high potential guys just go down the drain because their GMs don’t camp them but also refuse to trade them til they’re about to be done with their rookie deals
Fauci is a nerd
Voted no (guess i'm just a salty curmudgeon). As a content generator, this would definitely benefit me - agree that it's annoying to have a guy who's decent and then realize that he didn't get camped. But this rule isn't gonna change guys not getting camped on their rookie deals, it's just gonna better enable the RP-richest teams to camp them after the fact. IMO this rule is wayyyy more in favor of the big market teams than the net RP trade cap, so I can't in good conscience vote no to that and yes for this, even though I think I'd benefit.
If we want to accomplish this goal (less uncamped players), I would rather make the rookie deal reward camps cheaper. Basically every big market GM already camps every semi-legitimate prospect, but if there are players that are making it to year 5 without being fully camped, maybe we ought to just make it easier for all of the teams to camp those players.
As an aside, I also wonder how much we'll care about random guys never being camped once we no longer recognize their names
If we want to accomplish this goal (less uncamped players), I would rather make the rookie deal reward camps cheaper. Basically every big market GM already camps every semi-legitimate prospect, but if there are players that are making it to year 5 without being fully camped, maybe we ought to just make it easier for all of the teams to camp those players.
As an aside, I also wonder how much we'll care about random guys never being camped once we no longer recognize their names
I’ve long been a proponent of a cheaper camp however I think it should only be years 4-6 at most and capped at +6, maybe even +4. So I’m not sure how to vote because I’m not on board with these specific changes but like the concept.
And to Matt’s aside, I think he’s likely 100% accurate that we won’t care once it’s not someone like…TLC? So maybe it’s worth waiting through a few random name seasons to decide if we still feel like there’s an urge for this.
And to Matt’s aside, I think he’s likely 100% accurate that we won’t care once it’s not someone like…TLC? So maybe it’s worth waiting through a few random name seasons to decide if we still feel like there’s an urge for this.
Ashes didn’t fire himself
Joe wrote: December 23rd, 2024, 5:10 pm Voted yes. It’s infuriating to watch some of these high potential guys just go down the drain because their GMs don’t camp them but also refuse to trade them til they’re about to be done with their rookie deals
Welcome to Atlanta where the playas play
And we ride on dem thangs like ev-ery day
Big beats, hit streets, see gangstahs roamin'
And parties don't stop 'til eight in the Monin
And we ride on dem thangs like ev-ery day
Big beats, hit streets, see gangstahs roamin'
And parties don't stop 'til eight in the Monin
agree with merv that ideally it should be capped at 6 year vets but i don’t think it matters to the point where i won’t vote yes.
this change on the backs of a flattened lotto should give the middle of this league more opportunity to unearth a scale tipper or find contributing pieces
this change on the backs of a flattened lotto should give the middle of this league more opportunity to unearth a scale tipper or find contributing pieces
Welcome to Atlanta where the playas play
And we ride on dem thangs like ev-ery day
Big beats, hit streets, see gangstahs roamin'
And parties don't stop 'til eight in the Monin
And we ride on dem thangs like ev-ery day
Big beats, hit streets, see gangstahs roamin'
And parties don't stop 'til eight in the Monin
Agree with the above points, I voted yes but I think we need to maybe workshop it a little. Think it needs to be capped at 6 at minimum after the first four seasons
It’s a concept that in theory benefits everyone, but practice will be a lot more accessible for the most active teams, so if we’re gonna do it I think it has to be a minor tweak where instant impact is nerfed a bit (ie the power of a +8)
It’s a concept that in theory benefits everyone, but practice will be a lot more accessible for the most active teams, so if we’re gonna do it I think it has to be a minor tweak where instant impact is nerfed a bit (ie the power of a +8)
free healthcare has never been more important
-
- Newest Posts
- Top Active Users
- Newest Users
