Player Dev model implementation Poll

[Vulpecula]

https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...lopment-model/

TL/DR: They are implementing a fix of the current player Dev system originally implemented with the USB back last June. We have an option of having a "super-flip" which will retroactively apply the corrected model to players under age 30, giving us a huge spike in development. Or, we can do nothing and let the under-developed players cycle through the league.

Option A (do nothing) is the most fair because it affects everyone equally.

Option B (Superflip) would benefit younger teams with many players under 30 more, and benefit older teams less.

[Keith West]

Initially I liked B but if that’s chosen then nobody over 30 will probably be in a trade unless they r really good ...so I switch to option A

[Lewbalz]

I am bias, and would like to abstain from voting. I am for what the majority feel.

[wrigley_ivy]

Voted A to keep parity

[CyMaddux31]

https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...t-model/?amp=1

Leagues can choose their transition plan.

Option A – Leave current players alone – wait for the changes to player aging/development to cycle through the league over time.

PRO – Everyone will be impacted the same way,
CON – it will take awhile for new ‘normal’ development to cycle through the league

Option B – Develop current players extra (superflip) at the next season flip, to jumpstart the transition and make younger players most closely resemble players in the new aging/development model. This is a ONE-TIME option as we move towards more gradual/optional changes to game mechanics. How it works:
*Players 20-21 year olds will receive one additional year of development
*Players 22-23 year olds will receive two additional years of development
*Players 24+ will receive three additional years of development
*The “superflips” won’t age players extra or add decline

PRO – Current players under 30 will most closely resemble new players coming into the league.
CON – All players/teams won’t be impacted the same way – older players will change very little.
__________________
There is no perfect way to make big changes without shaking up existing leagues, but we wanted to give leagues the additional option. We’ll leave it to you folks to figure out what’s best for your league.

By default, your league will remain as is – if your league is interested in Option B (extra development), please PM citizenclone before the end of Friday, January 27 and he’ll coordinate the details with you before your next season flip.

[CyMaddux31]

https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...lopment-model/

TL/DR: They are implementing a fix of the current player Dev system originally implemented with the USB back last June. We have an option of having a "super-flip" which will retroactively apply the corrected model to players under age 30, giving us a huge spike in development. Or, we can do nothing and let the under-developed players cycle through the league.

Option A (do nothing) is the most fair because it affects everyone equally.

Option B (Superflip) would benefit younger teams with many players under 30 more, and benefit older teams less.

This is not exactly accurate. I have posted Clone's write-up for a more subjective view.

https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...t-model/?amp=1

[wfn71]

https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...lopment-model/

TL/DR: They are implementing a fix of the current player Dev system originally implemented with the USB back last June. We have an option of having a "super-flip" which will retroactively apply the corrected model to players under age 30, giving us a huge spike in development. Or, we can do nothing and let the under-developed players cycle through the league.

Option A (do nothing) is the most fair because it affects everyone equally.

Option B (Superflip) would benefit younger teams with many players under 30 more, and benefit older teams less.

I don’t think option A is “most fair”. A lot of the teams that have a lot of young players (such as mine) are that way because they have had down years and have been trying to build up talent in the minors again. But since development is broken, that has been a disaster, and all those young players (and the draft picks used to acquire them) are worthless. Which has been very unfair to the teams that have been down.

Option B could put things CLOSER to where they SHOULD be.

-Wayne

[bigdukesix]

I could live with either way because I am committed to this league. I voted B for two reason. Fear we might lose owners because of the slow pace. And let’s just get the shot in the arm over with to see where we stand.

[Vulpecula]

I don’t think option A is “most fair”

It's most fair as in it benefits nobody, whereas the superflip benefits younger teams, like yours, more than veteran teams, like mine. A treats every team the same, B helps 'down' teams more. That is, it is most fair in a vacuum, taking the league as it is now and not considering the past.

That being said, I'm still in favor of the superflip.

Where it may be more fair, and this is what you meant, is that 'down' teams have suffered more than veteran teams since USB, and this will somewhat correct that.

[CyMaddux31]

Just a reminder that if we are selecting option "B", which seems to be the case by the poll (so far anyway) that Citizenclone needs an PM or DM on Discord by Friday, asking him to put the league down for choice B. Otherwise, the default will be choice A

As a point of note, the "superflip" (option B) will be a 1 time thing only, it will not happen each season. Further details about both options can be found on the link I posted above

Ciao