Right aging and random talent modifiers for modern day MLB League

[henry296]

With .9 for aging and development in 2045, 37 of my top 114 (6 pages of my leaderboard) in VORP where in their 30s. That is pretty close to 1/3. Interesting that the 4th best hitter my association that season was 41 years old.

I only had about 5 players who were 23 or younger which is good in my books. Also, I had high fatigue and high injuries.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by RchW

See below. That is a little misleading as I tweak it once every 5-10 years. I think the Dev speed was 0.850 earlier which has led to my lack of 20 somethings.

Hmmm it's interesting you and Questdog took different approaches to the same problem.

He lowered the aging mods and upped the dev. I really enjoyed his settings but players were hanging on untill there late 30's a little to much for my tastes. I'll have to give yours a shot.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I think the problem (if there is a problem) was identified by Cubbyfan: the players don't age too quickly, they just get benched by the AI as soon as their skills start to diminish. As long as everyone is running simulations on this issue, try this: set every AI manager to "favor veterans" in their strategy preferences and see what happens.

Or just change the AI evaluation to favor stats so if a vet lose ratings, it wont matter until he perform badly.

Another thing to consider is pcm. Ive had multiple draftees (college players) come in as 2-3 star players using pure ratings.

That is way too high considering Bryce Harper is the "ultimate" prospect and is only a 1 star...Yet he still makes his MLB debut in the 2012 season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Or just change the AI evaluation to favor stats so if a vet lose ratings, it wont matter until he perform badly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This will inflate salaries depending on how much you favor stats over ratings. I found the 65/20/10/5 mix from the mlb quickstart works pretty well.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

This will inflate salaries depending on how much you favor stats over ratings. I found the 65/20/10/5 mix from the mlb quickstart works pretty well.

I run with them even @ 25% with no salary problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I run with them even @ 25% with no salary problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not what I said. I said it will inflate them. And it will. If your financials compensate for this then all is well but if for example a player remains unsigned for a year a player will ask for a larger contract than what they should receive had they played because there are no current year stats for it to consider so it'll base it on whatever the combination of 2nd and 3rd year stats and ratings tells it to.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

That's not what I said. I said it will inflate them. And it will. If your financials compensate for this then all is well but if for example a player remains unsigned for a year a player will ask for a larger contract than what they should receive had they played because there are no current year stats for it to consider so it'll base it on whatever the combination of 2nd and 3rd year stats and ratings tells it to.

Yes, I know. I've sim 20 years with no inflates. Thats how I settle with 25%.

I tested different settings before I settle with my current numbers.

I don't have guy sitting in the FA list who shouldn't be there in the first place. If they are, its because the ratings dropped and the stats show the results of decline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RchW]

I use 10-40-30-20 and have no issues with salaries or FA signings.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by oman19

Hmmm it's interesting you and Questdog took different approaches to the same problem.

He lowered the aging mods and upped the dev. I really enjoyed his settings but players were hanging on untill there late 30's a little to much for my tastes. I'll have to give yours a shot.

I have upped the dev to 1.1 because I don't have enough 22-27 year old pitchers and batters.

[Cras]

RchW, how about your Talent Change Randomness? What is the story behind that change. It seems quite significant.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by RchW

I have upped the dev to 1.1 because I don't have enough 22-27 year old pitchers and batters.

I almsot wonder if you flipped the two. .900 for aging and 1.100 for dev what your chart would look like.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cras

RchW, how about your Talent Change Randomness? What is the story behind that change. It seems quite significant.

I was never comfortable with this set at 100. Part of the problem, and this may be a false perception on my part, was that it seemed to affect AI evaluation which in turn affected trading and FA acquisition making it too easy for me. The downside of the low setting is a certain predictability that I can live with. It just seems to me that the AI is better overall and while I make the playoffs every year winning is not automatic. That being said 20 is probably too low. I may up that to 50 once I get some time into v13.

I wish I knew the cycle time that the setting corresponds to. I might be inclined to use 100 if it could be quantified.

The Talent Change Randomness option. This is a numeric value from 1 to 200 that controls how random player talent changes are. For example, a 200 here would mean that talent changes are highly random, making it more likely that players would experience significant changes in talent over the course of their career. Tweak this if necessary if you feel that player talent changes are either too drastic or too conservative. 100 is the default.

[oman19]

I'm a big fan of 50

[Cras]

Originally Posted by oman19

I almsot wonder if you flipped the two. .900 for aging and 1.100 for dev what your chart would look like.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. That was a conclusion I came up with, and saw RchW do the exact opposite.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by oman19

I almsot wonder if you flipped the two. .900 for aging and 1.100 for dev what your chart would look like.

I wouldn't. Dev and aging are like two rubber bands that are separately adjusted. I don't know how old you are but if you ever worked on older electronic equipment you would have a "zero" adjust and a "span" adjust.

I need to fill in the peak years with developing players. That will reduce my surplus of 30-35 players who currently play because there are no available players. If we reduce aging that will push the peak of the distribution curve younger leading to the 30+ problem seen in this thread. Once the population fills in some adjustment of both will be made.

This is just my perception of how it works. No idea if it's real.

[Cras]

So you are still of like mind then right? Once you have established your intended correction has taken hold, you would seek to lower the aging modifier and increase the development modifier.

I was looking at my league, and there were a lot of young guys who showed up and rocked the league. Players got dominate before they were 24 years old. I would like to see that occur rather in the late 20s, and the guys have some skill left as they get into their thirties.

[Albion Hero]

I do agree that the aging is kinda odd. I had this one guy who came up at 23 and was a constant .320, 40 homer guy like every year, but by 30 he went went down to 1 and a half stars and then 1 star by 31 and the manager didn't even want to start him even though he was making 15 million a year. And this is only one example, I've seen it plenty of times over the different versions of OotP.

I don't expect guys to stay at the same level their entire career, but it seems like they decline far too early.

[markprior22]

So would the 1.100 and .900 settings be decent for a fictional MLB universe?

[henry296]

I ran another test with 2012 fictional MLB league. This time I had aging at .8 and development at .9 In terms of the top VORP players I had 42 / 114 30 or over after 15 seasons.

I seem just a little bit light on younger players. which probably means i should up development a tad. Only 3 players 23 or younger played enought to qualify. I did have too few qualifiers, so I think I can back to average fatigue since I use High injuries.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cras

So you are still of like mind then right? Once you have established your intended correction has taken hold, you would seek to lower the aging modifier and increase the development modifier.

I was looking at my league, and there were a lot of young guys who showed up and rocked the league. Players got dominate before they were 24 years old. I would like to see that occur rather in the late 20s, and the guys have some skill left as they get into their thirties.

This. It's a little radical but I will check yearly as opposed to every 5-8 years.