|
Imbalance: player progression
i simmed 41 years of a fictional MLB, here are some of the results thought were unrealistic.
of the top 57 paid players in the league (over 10 million yearly salary) 54 of them were first round picks (thee early-mid second rounders) and 35 of them were top 10 overall picks. The overwhelming majority of the players in the league with multi-million dollar contracts were all first round picks. The highest paid player drafted outside of the first five rounds was being paid $3.9 million and his stats in the first three years of that four year contract are: year record GS IP ERA WHIP 1938 9-19 35 205 6.28 1.68 1939 6-5 15 79.1 6.13 1.40 1940 2-13 21 137.2 6.01 1.72 I consider this a very debilitating balance issue that will keep me from playing the game until it is addressed. There has to be more basis on stats/variance/randomness in player progression, otherwise the future of the franchise relies almost solely on how high you are picking in the first round. extra info: 25 round draft, full minor leagues, default development and statistical parameters. |
any agreement on this issue?? i personally think it's semi-gamebreaking.
|
Yeah, certainly so. There are other topics with similar stories. OOTP6.5 included a lot of talent boosts and drops that made player development fairly unpredictable and realistic.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
All or a sudden your third baseman turns into a solid clutch hitter, or your sound offensive 2B who always hit .310 looses his touch and can no longer bat over .210, both really happened to me in 6.5 really made that game fun. I hope this gets fixed. I really do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry to be cryptic, but see this thread. |
yea patched.
|
Hopefully there will be commentary on this issue soon.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It would be really, really cool if the future version had inborn biases on the part of the scouts: one guy could be really into switch-hitters, another into "toolsy" outfielders (and that guy could be hired the the Detroit Tigers in the 1990s), another into high school 3rd basemen... and ideally these biases would be hidden and be something you could only figure out over time. Granted, there would then be all kinds of people posting stuff like "someone fix the game! My scout is rated 20 in everything and he keeps recommending I trade Barry Bonds for a young Russ Davis!" But that's kind of the fun of the game IMO, the uncertainty. |
i feel the problem is strictly with development being too straight line. there is little variation. the high draft picks get good, the mid rounders might break into mediocrity if they are very lucky, and the late rounders are automatic career minor leaguers. picking some hidden talent in the 16th round doesn't make any sense, because if you think he is a good player, regardless of what the AI values him at, you will take him much earlier than the 16th.
|
What you are asking already exists Syd Thrift with the scouts having tendencies. I'm not sure how that affects the AI's player evaluation overall though.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
This is one of the issues that Markus has been looking at in patch 2. We're hopeful that the logic in this area will be greatly improved.
For now I'm going to move this over to the Claimed Fixed forum. |
dola,
This is TT # 1824, for future reference. |
I think that it's ironic that there is so much consternation amongst the fictional OOTPers about players living up to their potential, when one of the historical simmers biggest complaints is RL players not living up to their potentials. When fixong this for the fictional simmers, I hope that you don't add more variability to the historical games. My suggestion would be to add more variability to the scouting of younger players AI, making it more difficult to pick a winner, rather than lessening the importance of the potential ratings.
|
Fix Verified. Closed.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2024 Out of the Park Developments