Yeah, the above numbers will just show what kind of full careers you can expect from early versus later round draft picks based on one game setting.

That said, I would expect that most of the impact of the talent change randomness setting would be for 17-25 year olds, while the player aging setting would influence the talent drops for the much older players even in historic replay leagues with a talent change randomness setting of zero. I don't have data to prove that opinion but it makes some game design sense, plus I think most users that use statslab/OOTPOU would agree a majority of dev changes in OOTP take place for players aged 17-25 and players aged 32+.

So in other words, you aren't really advocating all of these suggested adjustments?

I have to admit that those charts showing how talent change randomness (tcr) effects the draft has be re-thinking this whole issue. I really really hate the idea of the draft being so orderly like. I dont want every good player in the league to be a former 1st round pick.

I know using 67 most of the players I saw that were "great" players that made it were first rounders or second rounders. There were a couple guys maybe a tad more who were outliers, mid/late round picks but not probably as many as IRL. I can live with this though to a certain extent I guess. As 67 is far better than 100 in terms of player development.

That's a subjective opinion though right? If you want more 1st round successes then 67 is a better Talent Change Randomness (TCR) setting. If you want more late round surprises then 100 is a better TCR setting. Besides these examples of user preferences is there something I'm not accounting for here with regards to the TCR setting? FWIW, I am on-board with the idea of a "0" TCR being preferable for historic replay users, I don't think that would be the solution for other types of OOTP users though.

This has been a great thread. Thank you to everyone who posted input and research on here.
While i play 12, the same issues apply- pitchers develop too quickly- everyone ages too quickly, and injuries cause declines of too many top players

The challenge has been to find values of modifiers that work well, and give the basic play we want
I chose a talent random 20
a batting development 1.000 (that seems fine)
I had pitching at .960...but given the thread I may have to drop it even more, maybe .930 or .940

The aging is a challenge. I was playing at .900, but again thisthread has shown this may be far too high to get the results that are realistic- I may play my next sim at .800...not as low as you guys, but lower, and see what happens

I also now choose to play injuries on low- still get injuries, but not overloaded- which helps block a few decines along the way

Thanks again everyone for your input. appreciated greatly.

back on point with the talent randomizer here,

if I crank it back up, or at least raise it a bit to instill more parody in the draft, does this cause player's "career" arcs to go out of whack? or are these settings people are using just because they want to see a good play develop in to a good player, and add more predictablility?

I guess the question is, is it to make the game easier, or it is actually neccesary to keep the universe in line with the real world?

I don't think I've seen this mentioned, but does changing these modifiers put the AI at even a bigger disadvantage? If the AI is programmed to value players a certain way (expect players to decline at a certain age) wouldn't making the players age slower throw the AI off? For some reason I don't think the AI adjusts its evaluations based on the aging and development modifiers.

From what I've noticed, no to answer your question. From what I've been seeing, the AI evaluates players based on their ratings and possible future development, not absolute age. So, when I change my aging and development modifiers to make 34+ year olds better, the AI is more willing to invest in them in terms of giving them big contracts. When I really juice up the aging and development modifiers to favor old players, the AI will even give multi-year big money contracts to 38-40+ year old players. As long as their ratings are good. It's like the AI can feel that they'll be good for another 2 years because of the development change.

So, in my opinion, the AI adjusts according to what you have your modifiers set on. I don't think it's an internal adjustment, I just think that the ratings reflect what the player is and what he is potentially going to be - and that's what the AI goes by. When you change the modifiers, what the player is and is potentially going to be changes for better or worse, depending on what you have the modifiers set to.

I'd be interested in knowing this as well. I like a lot of talent randomness with my 18-25 year olds in particular. (Indeed, I'd set it to more than 100 but for the fact that I don't want such wild fluctuations in my established players.)

I am going to be starting a new MLB game. Would you guys recommend the aging and random talent modifiers that are on page 1 of this thread? Does it really make a big difference?

Well, at least the aging and development modifiers should be worth to consider. My experience is that you can easily build a winning team for several years with guys for minimum salary not older than 27. That's to be considered quite unrealistic I guess.

FWIW, I'm not sure about the talent change randomness yet.

Yeah. I'm pretty good anyways at limiting my payroll when it comes to building teams. Mainly build through the draft and sign players within their first year or two of arbitration.

Is there any kind of consensus on this?

I'm still thinking about this one and one question is still bugging me. Since the aging modifiers are tuned down a lot with phightin's suggestions while the development modifiers stay pretty much untouched, wouldn't that lead to a situation that the older players will prevent the younger prospects to take their spots in the lineups? Players are aging at a slower pace while prospects still keep developing pretty much the same way as with the default settings. That would lead to an endless cycle of trying to trade away this good veteran who is blocking the prospect.

Any thoughts on this one?

Should I use these if I'm creating my own fictional solo game? Or will the default 1.000 be fine for all 4 things?

I think if you're playing solo you would not want to lower the aging modifers to much for precisely this reason. At 1.000 you will still see several star players aged 40+ performing as well as ever so it makes sense that with more older players not degrading & retiring you would run into issues where the AI has more blocked prospects, especially guys blocked in A/AA since most of the non-retired older players will be stuck in AAA.

But what about salary? isn't it more likely that the older aging players will have higher salary demands than prospects coming up still under team control and not yet eligible for arbitration/free agency? so if you had somewhat equal talent, I can see the AI choosing not to re-sign a vet for $5 million a year and go with the prospect.

hey klew
good question, as much of the topic is for those playing a major league QS

what i play now for fictional is

Batt develp 1.000
Pitch develp .930
Batt aging .900
Pitch aging .900

This is far less than what is said in the thread, but i am getting players playing into their early 40's, but mostly bench players, the odd guy still starting and hitting 8th at 42

one key must is to slow down the pitcher develpment or all the top drafts will be star starters at age 21

The problem is with the default settings (both aging modifiers at 1.000) it is way too easy to set up a contending team for years with only paying league minimum salary. I had the Astros dominating one of my solo leagues with no players older than 28. That is just not what I want because it is absolutely no fun if you have a contending team without having to manage the payroll.