Re: doubling # draft players:
I, too, have concerns, and I think the biggest is that doubling the draft does not fix the draft pool.
A full transparancy of server data of draft +/- and a median *and* mean variable of #+ and the #- difference post T?C is something I think most players - especially long time players would like to see.
It's an important data set for fixing the draft, and not the only one.
Doubling the players available in a draft does not fix anything but increasing players. It does nothing regarding the quality of players ratio of players by position.
It does however, mean that if in the current pool of generated players, the X TE's above a 70 default rating (currently 3-7, maybe 8) would be (hopefully) 6- 10, maybe 12.
The ratios of players generated would remain the same so...
The theory is that the ratio of viable players in the draft should also double.

I really want to know how it works out. I'd like full data release ex post facto.
Very glad increasing the draft player pool is being looked into.

If i want to point fingers - I believe the change in volatility from being a static number prior and post draft to being a number that re-generated after a player was drafted is a big mistake. One that I would repeal immediately.

I suggest it is worth MFN subscribing to an AI to start processing data at mass volumes, and using AI to help interpret such data in order to obtain the direct information required to efficiently find issues and prioritize those concerns.
I'm not suggesting letting AI code/fix/alter anything that JDB does/can/would/or will do.
I'm certainly not going to suggest an AI to use.

also the above post was not posted at 3:13 am. It's currently 9:17PM MDT.
Please fix the time stamp issue.
Thankee, sai.

The increased draft is just in MFN-1 from memory. Think it's very much a see how it goes approach.

TE is a great example. It's so difficult to draft an all rounder - needs to block, needs to be a receiver. I'm leaning these days to horses for courses, getting pureareceivers, pure blockers and fitting them into formations that fit.

In theory, the increased count should generate more draftable players. I think a lot of players just aren't bothered by rounds 5+ anymore - just go high vol and hope somebody booms. There's also been some drafts in some leagues I've struggled from round 4 onwards.

Tbh, MFN-1 draft is coming up and I've not yet prepared - the draft class is generated, so you could always take a look.

My view is rounds 1-2 you're looking to draft a starter,. 3-5 depth, 6-7 ST/prospects that may not make roster as a rule of thumb.

re: volatility change post draft

I kinda almost like it if I'm honest. It's imo modeling the impreciseness of scouting - there's no tape, no college stats, no combine.

thanks for your answer in the previous post - we're thinking in the same playgrounds.
I disagree with having player volatility change after drafting that player.
Volatility impacts boom/bust.
I've always drafted (low V) players with that knowledge - even in later rounds.
I'm in the few players that manage their draft from rd 1 through rd 7.

I'm well prepped. MY manual board is exacting and updated not by round, but by pick.

I ALWAYS know who I'm drafting and why i'm drafting any player, and I know having the time to stay current pick by pick is a privilege.
If Im drafting for low volatility (and I *always* do) - especially in rd 1-4, in an effort to prevent dramatic busts and booms, then having a player i drafted in the 3rd rd with a V under 40 suddenly having a V over 90 after drafting....
IT completely negates V as a consideration.
If volatility is not static, then volatility is not a statistic worth including.

Volatility is an attribute that either is or is not.
Not knowing WHY it changes and having it change after drafting and i'm guessing that volatility change is variable by the team that drafted that player...
WE NEED TO KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.

Because V changes after drafting, then there's absolutely no reason to have volatility as an attribute.

This message brought to you by V, Vought Industries, and Vought International.
It's the V in me that makes us, exceptionally.
Vought Industries!
(queue fanfare music and commercial fade out, focus on Deep's smile, Sunset beach background).

ha!

It's soooo not 1:16 am.
:P

I've not seen one as dramatic as 40-90 personally, if you say you have then I'd agree, that seems extreme.

I tend to view it as being "college player now in big leagues, is it too much for them" kinda thing. Equally, if that player now 90 vol booms, that's a massive benefit.

Low vol in rounds 5-7 makes zero sense. Attributes are going to be lower, so rely on a big boom - if not, can cut with minimal impact. I suspect the approach may change with MFN-1 being tested with a larger pool of players.

Changing the odds after the bet is made is just nasty business.

i've come to ponder and wonder IF a draftee's volatility change is impacted by the team that drafts them.
I've been tracking my players V (post The boys I just think of well - if you're a fan - you know) both before i draft them and after i draft them.
IN my experiences (25+ picks in 3 drafts) Volatility ALWAYS increases after drafting.

I only track the players I draft, so the pool is limited, but every player I drafted INCREASED in volatility post draft for 3 drafts of 3 total drafts tracked.
In my last (2014) recent draft, I had 2 players go from 6-70V pre draft to over 90 V post draft.

My 2015 T/c is in a couple days. V increased anywhere from 16- 35 points on all my draftees post drafting. Second draft in a row with no V decreases (i average 7-9 picks per draft).
3 rd draft class with only positive V increases (i thought it was random post draft???) after drafting any player.
The bigger the V, the bigger the boom or bust.

Right now pre draft V verses post draft V is like betting without knowing the odds.
The bookie said it was +10, but after I placed my bet (the bet being on the V of the player drafted), the odds randomly changed after the game started to -10.
However my bet (my draft pick) remains my obligation.
Loan sharking. ;)

I'm in the setherick school - draft 40 or less V rds 1-3, 30-60 V rds 3-5, anything goes rds 5-7.
Before V changed, this was the way to go. Post variable (and my big concern the + variable is also HIDDEN) V, it's just not.

Volatility is related to how big a player booms or busts at T/C.
Lower V equals a lesser boom or bust. Low V = low risk. High V = High risk.
NOT sure if that still is true, but it used to be.

Volatility should once again become a static attribute - like so many other attributes.
It ALWAYS increases post draft. I believe the fact that volatility changes post draft has only increased draft busts, and magnified how much they bust by.
I'm assuming that fact remains in MFN that the higher the V, the more likely a player is to bust.

Lower V is more dependable, higher V becomes erratic, 100 V is a like puttin 100k on 3 red a the roulette wheel. Doubling down on 2 deuces in black jack territory.
If V always increases, then every draftee only becomes more likely to go negative progress post T/C.

Of all the changes i've seen to mfn over the last 3 years, making volatility a variable instead of a static attribute counts as one of the biggest mistakes ever made in the name of progress.

The only thing that could improve the current situation regarding how volatility changes AFTER a player has been drafted would be to give the community the INFORMATION as to how that mechanism works.

If V is going to continue to change, we the communtiy need instructions as to how that game mechanic works.

It's a legitimate and responsible ask that the dev give us details and instructions about how game mechanics work - in this case Volatility. What is it? How does it work? What does it do? Why does it change after drafting and then never again? How does it impact +/- progression (sub: post T/c)? What is the median and mean change to volatility post draft?

we need to know this shtuff. We should know exactly how something so critical works.

Fix volatility by making it a static attribute again.

Begin again Finnegan:
"i've come to ponder and wonder IF a draftee's volatility change is impacted by the team that drafts them."

Why in the absolute heck am i pondering such RUBBISH in the first place!!???!!!??
Seriously and for heaven's sake why is this topic even a concern and why are there not instructions for such basic everyone should know and needs to know shtuffs??!!

...Because WE DON"T KNOW.

...and we should because it impacts the game DIRECTLY.

Changing the odds after the bet is made is just nasty business.

Absent direction, there is no direction.
If knowing is half the battle, then not knowing is the other half.
Right now what we do not know is 100% of the battle and we don't have directions.

also, it's 752 pm not 0152 am.

Theres no intricate scouting process pre draft. All you have is raw stats.

View the volatility change as bring recognition that it's an imprecise process. The Seth approach had merit, not sure it's still valid as upcoming change to all leagues will be a doubling of players available. Means you can afford higher risks earlier for good base stats as should still find roster worthy talent in later roubdx.

Well, obviously.
No, "The Seth Approach" is no longer valid.

THIS IS WHY WE, THE PLAYERS, NEED A WIKI MOVING FORWARD!!!!

My last three drafts have been atrocious, and I've had just under 30 rooks and ima guess a over 70% progress negative result over all players drafted.
I should never see 2 of three (that's being kind) drafted players go progress negative post TC over 5 years of drafts.
No one should.

Something's very broken if a majority of players are also seeing over 60% of rooks go prog negative.

My draft experiences over the last 5 seasons may be unique to me.
I only know my own experience here, but i'd really like to hear from other players:
What progress negative percentages of drafted rookies are other players seeing across all leagues?