Quote:
Originally Posted by Mets Man
Honestly, in my opinion I think even 38 is too high for me.
I'm looking for a setting where you'll have consistent year-to-year performers from the marquee names, with occasional variability (ie. off-years by some, total drop offs and occasional surprises).
I've lowered mine down to 34 now because I feel like you just can't rely on anybody year-to-year. Off years are happening too often and too predictably for some of the best players. As I've said, I do want off years to happen to some players on occasion, but I just feel the frequency in which it's happening is too prevalent.
I believe the game is random enough even without all the random talent changes. Don't believe me? Try setting this to 1 and see if you see any off years? I'm willing to bet that you'll still see a lot of variability, so the game doesn't get boring and too predictable.
|
38 could work well. I'm not sure as I've never tested anything but 67. I know a lot of people on here claim 50 is the ideal number so I may try that at some point. I will say though that I have noticed many guys still performing consistently over the course of their career with these ageing and development modifiers and the randomness set at 67. I've thought about lowering it to 50 or 60 though. The one thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I think the lower randomness number will affect though is the rate surprise draft picks develop and turn into stud professionals. For example from what I have gathered with the randomness set very very low mostly 1st/2nd rounders will develop into good players while guys picked in the mid to late rounds will all mostly not pan out. IRL most 1st/2nd rounders have a greater chance of turning into good players but there's still quite a few mid level draft picks that make it and even become great.
I've concluded that these modifiers are the way I'm going for now until something better comes along or someone does more research. Things still aren't perfect but I've chalked that up more to how the game works, and the fact being that by fixing it will have a ripple effect and cause other problems. For instance IMO there's still a tad too many guys aged 30-32 that maintain a high level, but tad not enough 34-35 years old still. I can live with this because it's a hell of a lot better than the default mess and having no good older players, but by trying to fix one it will hurt the other. It's still much closer to real life than the defaults as said before. On the opposite end there probably isn't enough batters who get called up at age 20-21 from the minors, but again thats more how the game works. If I tried to crank up the devlopment modifiers it would decrease the number of good older players which will cause bigger problems. Still again a hell of a lot better than the deafults.
I'm about to start a thread that probably has to do with a different issue other than directly relating to modifiers that plays into the career numbers of hitters and pitchers. It should be interesting.