Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
in cases of zero points earned -- did they field any balls in that game?
|
This is a great question. In one game, both my CF and LF earned zero points. Sure, it's possible they both had no chances, but it's not the way the game worked in OOTP 18, iirc. Players "earned" a flat amount of XP every game in ST. And it wasn't random or close to zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
heh, i've always thought intelligence had a stronger correlation to development than work ethic... a glimmer that i might be right in the differing correlation coefficients for learning a position.
|
Certainly plausible. Sure. But, intelligence alone, even taking into account the position, isn't predicting this. In the stats above, a 110 INT guy who is already a great CF is on pace to need 50 games to learn how to play LF, while a 117 INT guy who is already a good 2B, will learn 3B in just 20 games. This would work better if the CF was a moron or the 2B a genius, but both are almost identical INT wise, while CF to LF is clearly easier than 2B to 3B.
This would seem to be a huge change to me since OOTP 18. If that's how it works now, that's fine, too, but it's difficult to reconcile to the idea that in ST:
1) the AI moves players all around on it's own volition
2) the AI pinch hits and subs as it pleases
3) the AI doesn't give credit if there are no plays
So, in a theoretical manner, it's possible for a player to earn no or virtually no credit at all in ST because the AI removes him in the game before he gets a play. This might be true as to how the game engine works, but imo it's not a good model for how players really learn the position (in those other 6-8 hours we don't see them playing.)