Every Free Agent's ratings tank during training camp

[st0nfacd]

At no point have I said that this is the standard I expect considering also your budgets and the number of people behind it are nowhere near as many.
I do however also think that something better than a 5th string DT that hasnt seen the field in 2 seasons demanding 5-6-7mil when in FA they end up signing for barely 1mil is also not as good as other facets of the game have shown your guys coding to be. Having such players not demanding as much would make it less likely for them to hit FA unless they were utter garbage, in which case their place there is warranted.
Again, I dont expect this level of coding. But if this is step 100 and Championship manager 98 was step 50, at least player demands were in line with what their roster situation and ability was, something that unfortunately, has not been managed as of yet. The only reason this expectation is there, is cause for so many other things, the game is taking on huge leaps forward each year. I had purchased DDSPF17 through steam, and had it refunded within an hour cause it was unplayable.
Its that development that sets a bar of expectation. If anything, you brought it on yourselves. Stop getting better, we stop having expectations <3

[AKH]

[brooks_piggott]

The game has always been built in such a way that if a player has the ratings to perform, they'll perform. There isn't a notion that just because someone doesn't play they start reducing their demands. They know what they're worth and they hold you to it. It's HEAVILY affected by their personalities... that's a major reason why some guys seem unsignable, or they don't want to give your team a hometown discount, etc. They are also HEAVILY influenced by contract amounts and contract length... and adjusted by personality, so just because you think a 1.5 mil 7 year deal is good and they should just take it, that doesn't make it so. Players love to hit free agency... some probably overestimate their own value and after going through it realize there is not a demand for them, but the majority expect to get paid... a lot.

Again, I'm not opposed to making changes, but I still need concrete examples that I can test for, code for, and adjust until we get the right behavior. Your example of a 5th string DT doesn't work in this case because I don't know his ratings, his personality, or what other players of his rating/personality are already making. If other players of comparable ratings are making 5 mil, then that's what his number will be. I don't see a fix there I can make.

Personally I like the regression... I think it's realistic if players skip camp, or if players stay home an extended period of time they're going to be rusty or decline. If you don't want these guys to decline, then I suggest increasing budgets for re-signing, looking into trading for guys going into FA that won't resign, or offering more in FA Days 1-10 to sign guys that you do think have value. If these guys don't get resigned, and don't get good offers in FA, then that to me means the league doesn't value them and they should stay home... you can't really say these guys are valuable and you want them, but then complain that they're asking for too much money.

So, given all that, if we feel like the decline is too harsh, then I'm more than willing to discuss what would be realistic... but if players can gain 3 OVR in camps, then it seems to me losing 3 OVR for missing camp isn't unrealistic. And obviously if you sign these guys from the FA wire they'll get put on a training schedule and will resume improving throughout the year. I can double check that it's more tied to age/experience so younger players have less of a decline than older ones, but other than that I'm happy with where the feature is at.

[Iorwerth]

Do players have any preferences from front-loaded contracts as opposed to balanced? I have been wondering if back-loaded contracts might be a way of signing older players more cheaply and then just cutting them, as there is no guaranteed money in the contracts. I haven't tried it as didn't want to game the system, but would be interested to know if there game has any internal mechanisms to stop such abuse, and whether player personalities play a part in how contracts are shaped rather than just the money demand itself.

It also makes sense to me that players regress if they don't get signed and miss out on camp and so on i.e. they get a bit rusty. I presume as their ratings go down, their value will drop as well i.e. their OVR falls so they don't want as much contract money.

[KW77]

The game has always been built in such a way that if a player has the ratings to perform, they'll perform. There isn't a notion that just because someone doesn't play they start reducing their demands. They know what they're worth and they hold you to it. It's HEAVILY affected by their personalities... that's a major reason why some guys seem unsignable, or they don't want to give your team a hometown discount, etc. They are also HEAVILY influenced by contract amounts and contract length... and adjusted by personality, so just because you think a 1.5 mil 7 year deal is good and they should just take it, that doesn't make it so. Players love to hit free agency... some probably overestimate their own value and after going through it realize there is not a demand for them, but the majority expect to get paid... a lot.

Again, I'm not opposed to making changes, but I still need concrete examples that I can test for, code for, and adjust until we get the right behavior. Your example of a 5th string DT doesn't work in this case because I don't know his ratings, his personality, or what other players of his rating/personality are already making. If other players of comparable ratings are making 5 mil, then that's what his number will be. I don't see a fix there I can make.

Personally I like the regression... I think it's realistic if players skip camp, or if players stay home an extended period of time they're going to be rusty or decline. If you don't want these guys to decline, then I suggest increasing budgets for re-signing, looking into trading for guys going into FA that won't resign, or offering more in FA Days 1-10 to sign guys that you do think have value. If these guys don't get resigned, and don't get good offers in FA, then that to me means the league doesn't value them and they should stay home... you can't really say these guys are valuable and you want them, but then complain that they're asking for too much money.

So, given all that, if we feel like the decline is too harsh, then I'm more than willing to discuss what would be realistic... but if players can gain 3 OVR in camps, then it seems to me losing 3 OVR for missing camp isn't unrealistic. And obviously if you sign these guys from the FA wire they'll get put on a training schedule and will resume improving throughout the year. I can double check that it's more tied to age/experience so younger players have less of a decline than older ones, but other than that I'm happy with where the feature is at.

I can't disagree with your logic, until the last couple paragraphs- which is the problem I initially brought up.

1) The guys that are left after free agency are already fringe rotation guys. We don't see many starting level players left over after free agency. The players that are left are typically situational players that essentially get killed by these rating drops.

2) I agree to a point that there should be a negative effect for skipping training camp. HOWEVER, these negative effects are so severe that they can never recover. In 4 seasons of PF20 and now 1 training camp of PF21, I have never once seen someone gain as many total points as the average free agent is losing (which is roughly 20+ points spread across all ratings).

I personally brought 56 players into my camp this year, and had less than a third of them added a single point in anything. I had some vets decline, but over half my roster did absolutely nothing. Nobody improved more than 5 total points. More than half my roster is 0-3 years of experience, several being high draft picks, and very few have a bad work ethic trait. My coaches are supposedly decent talent developers though not top notch. In theory my team should be above average during training camp. If my training camp experience is typical of the average team, no players don't gain the same amount in training camp as they lose by missing it. They could be in training camp for the rest of their careers and will never recover fully from the damage that was caused by one missed training camp.

As I wrote in my initial post, yes there can be rust, maybe some permanent declines for older players. But if you think these guys should be able to have a chance, these drops need to be position skill for young players, rather than their ratings. That way they can actually play their way into game shape over the course of a season or two and continue their development.

3) I think you missed st0nfacd's point about players asking too much. This issue mainly comes up in extensions rather than free agency. So a lot of the fringe guys at certain positions (DT being one of them) hit free agency, and then some of them refuse to sign for cheap in free agency, then get their ratings decimated (effectively ending their careers) when they're not on a team for training camp. I'm trying to find the logic in that and I can't.

I appreciate detailed responses, so thanks.

[brooks_piggott]

Ok, I'll reduce the effect. Sounds like the problem isn't the hit, but the severity. As far as the "asking too much" I still haven't seen examples of that. I'd need to see an example where a player on your team is asking for a lot more money than what other players of his rating/skill combination are asking for (also adjusting for personality). And to be honest I'd need to see it across multiple teams, and possibly multiple leagues since every league has different settings for min/max rosters, and salary structures. I don't really want to me making changes at this point without a good amount of data showing me what to change and how to know if my change was successful. I'd also need to know which asking prices are off... is it's the fact that they're not signing extensions, or the fact that they're not signing low-ball free agent contracts.

[KW77]

Ok, I'll reduce the effect. Sounds like the problem isn't the hit, but the severity. As far as the "asking too much" I still haven't seen examples of that. I'd need to see an example where a player on your team is asking for a lot more money than what other players of his rating/skill combination are asking for (also adjusting for personality). And to be honest I'd need to see it across multiple teams, and possibly multiple leagues since every league has different settings for min/max rosters, and salary structures. I don't really want to me making changes at this point without a good amount of data showing me what to change and how to know if my change was successful. I'd also need to know which asking prices are off... is it's the fact that they're not signing extensions, or the fact that they're not signing low-ball free agent contracts.

We will see how the extensions work this season and circle back- my current opinion about extensions are based mostly on PF20.

But thanks

[brooks_piggott]

I did check the code and the effects are tied to age and experience already. I did reduce the impact to younger players so most of them should still be signable if you're rounding out a roster.

[brooks_piggott]

Oh and comps are done across active players, which does include free agents, not just players on teams.