Stats Only - Page 9

canadian content · 12-24-2014, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I have experimented with all of the scales, and do look at the written reports as well. I have come to one conclusion....if you are going to use ratings, you may as well use 20-80. I realize the argument about 2-8 being more ambiguous, but in reality, the 20-80 matches up with the text anyway. So using 2-8 and a players contact is "5"...yet the commentary says" His contact is slightly above average"....you can bet your bottom dollar the rating on the 20-80 scale is a 55 anyway. So really, the best you can do without giving anything a way and allowing the text to match the rating scale is 20-80.

I use the 2-8 scale for simplicity sake.

I'm not trying to crap on the 'stats only' style of play, either, I'm still a relative novice at this game; I'm just wondering whether or not people are playing this way because the AI isn't challenging enough with the ratings turned on and, if this is the case, are there settings within the game that would make it enough of a challenge that a person wouldn't have to turn off the ratings (this includes NOT having to make house rules) unless, of course, they just wanted to play that way for the added challenge or any other reason.

Trebro · 12-24-2014, 05:37 PM

I'm not going to keep going back and forth with folks who want to defend their playing style. Go enjoy playing with ratings, no one is stopping you. No is saying you're a bad person.

But you're not going to convince me it's "just as realistic" or that "it's the same as a scouting report" because that's not true, ok? A scout can give a rating of 20-80, sure, and they totally do. But that scout is not a computer with access to the person's absolute value. Sure, you can "fog of war" it by taking the accuracy down, but at the end of the day, even at low, the computer is basing that rating by knowing what's under the hood.

There is no part of reality where that is going to be true, so using ratings, even fogged is not "just as realistic" as when a scout gives a person a rating in real life.

If you have a rating in there, you can say all day "I won't use it" or "I'll only use it some of the time" but at the end of the day, it's a crutch, and we're only human. You'll be in a tight spot and that rating is gonna be there waiting to be the tie-breaker.

The game lets us all do as we wish. It does not, however, change reality or human nature.

Again, if you enjoy it, great! Go for it, but really, getting in this thread and trying to claim ratings play and stats only play is the same thing? Not true, never will be true.

I don't get why ratings folks are all up in stats folks' grills? Are you that unsure in how you play the game? I don't see stats-only folks jumping into threads about ratings saying "Why are you using ratings?" the way we get "Why aren't you using ratings?" or "Why are you suggesting people turn ratings off?"

PSUColonel · 12-24-2014, 05:38 PM

It's very challenging...I have been going back and forth trying both...like I said...if you are going to leave scouting on while playing stats only, you may as well use the ratings...but as I said 20-80 correlates more closely with the written reports....I would not go any higher than 20-80...then you really are getting too much detail.

PSUColonel · 12-24-2014, 05:46 PM

I keep scouting accuracy at normal...but one thing you could do is make the accuracy low, while also (and I do this) only getting scouting updates at the start and end of the season...which also forces you to manage your director of scouting a bit more, and actually send him on assignments.

PSUColonel · 12-24-2014, 05:48 PM

I have settled on trading very hard....neutral preference and AI evaluation at 20/40/30/10

Bluenoser · 12-24-2014, 05:58 PM

Question of curiosity - does anyone play Stats only without scouting on?

Seems to me it wouldn't be difficult since you're using stats only anyway. But then I'm fairly new to the SO world so I might be missing something obvious.

The Wolf · 12-24-2014, 06:14 PM

Hey, if you like to or are going be playing with ratings on, could you please not talk about that in the stats only thread? Thanks, we're trying to talk about stats only here.

The Wolf · 12-24-2014, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Question of curiosity - does anyone play Stats only without scouting on?

Seems to me it wouldn't be difficult since you're using stats only anyway. But then I'm fairly new to the SO world so I might be missing something obvious.

I have never heard anyone say outright that did they do, but I would bet that somebody does. I personally play with low accuracy scouts.

The Wolf · 12-24-2014, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadian content

I do not understand why that would be.

Because you're not playing the game on easy mode, which is like a video game where you can look up a player's current and potential ratings. Instead you're running the game as a simulation of what a real life GM does: evaluating players based on their performance (stats) and to a lesser degree on scouting reports.

canadian content · 12-24-2014, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebro

I'm not going to keep going back and forth with folks who want to defend their playing style. Go enjoy playing with ratings, no one is stopping you. No is saying you're a bad person.

But you're not going to convince me it's "just as realistic" or that "it's the same as a scouting report" because that's not true, ok? A scout can give a rating of 20-80, sure, and they totally do. But that scout is not a computer with access to the person's absolute value. Sure, you can "fog of war" it by taking the accuracy down, but at the end of the day, even at low, the computer is basing that rating by knowing what's under the hood.

There is no part of reality where that is going to be true, so using ratings, even fogged is not "just as realistic" as when a scout gives a person a rating in real life.

If you have a rating in there, you can say all day "I won't use it" or "I'll only use it some of the time" but at the end of the day, it's a crutch, and we're only human. You'll be in a tight spot and that rating is gonna be there waiting to be the tie-breaker.

The game lets us all do as we wish. It does not, however, change reality or human nature.

Again, if you enjoy it, great! Go for it, but really, getting in this thread and trying to claim ratings play and stats only play is the same thing? Not true, never will be true.

I don't get why ratings folks are all up in stats folks' grills? Are you that unsure in how you play the game? I don't see stats-only folks jumping into threads about ratings saying "Why are you using ratings?" the way we get "Why aren't you using ratings?" or "Why are you suggesting people turn ratings off?"

Actually, I was just looking to get some of my questions answered so I hope this defensive rant wasn't directed towards me.

Keep in mind, it's just a game, nothing to get this worked up about.

I'm still just looking for someone to answer my questions.

canadian content · 12-24-2014, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Because you're not playing the game on easy mode, which is like a video game where you can look up a player's current and potential ratings. Instead you're running the game as a simulation of what a real life GM does: evaluating players based on their performance (stats) and to a lesser degree on scouting reports.

I didn't realize the game had an easy mode, where do you turn that on? I don't play video games but that is interesting to find out they have one like this with current and potential ratings; I never realized a game like that existed.

If I'm not mistaken, I thought a real life GM has access to 20-80 or 2-8 ratings scales?

progen · 12-24-2014, 08:40 PM

This has really been a good discussion, and I've learned some new things from just reading the various posts. Really, to each his own on how you want to play the game, but my point is, my interest waivers in and out with OOTP, just like it does with Football Manager, or some of the WW2 games that I play. But with stats only, the game has always peaked my interest over longer periods(seasons) of time, than any other way I've played the game. And I do believe, that it is more time consuming, because the attention to detail is much greater, but I like following the players I draft, and the international signings I make. I have spreadsheets that I use to track this, and am curious how good or bad players do over time.

My current game, I have an expansion team, fictional of course, and am in the second season. Team won't win but 60 games or so, but that's Ok, as I'm in this for the long haul. After the initial expansion draft, and now two drafts in, by next season, I'll start seeing some of my "drafted" players making the show, maybe a couple this season in September. Then it will be interesting to see how well the team does with these youngsters.

And I generally only make one trade per season, and usually not for an immediate "impact" player. But when I do, I feel much more comfortable trading with the AI, than I ever did when I used ratings, stars, etc. I don't feel in any way that I'm taking advantage of the AI, because you don't really ever know for sure about a player, just like in real life. And the other thing that may have been mentioned and I may have missed it, all the coaching ratings and scouting ratings are off. So if my players aren't developing at the minor league level, am I awful at judging talent, or are my coaches not that good, or my scout? And I always have scouting set to very low.

Hope this helps some of you that have posted, and keep sharing your ideas and questions.

jpeters1734 · 12-24-2014, 08:43 PM

the thing that confuses me about stats only is even if you change the ai evals to 50/33/17, you can take a guy, jack up his ratings, have the computer set up the whole system, and boom he's in the major leagues. how is this so if there are no stats? I even tried this for a career minor leaguer with crappy career stats and the same thing happened.

Now editing rating is not the way I want to play, but the point is the computer uses ratings regardless of your settings

Trebro · 12-24-2014, 09:38 PM

For the other stats only folks:

Do you play longer than default spring training (5 weeks) to give more time to look at spring performance for bench spots and what have you?

And similarly, do you break with MLB standard for length of lower-level minors for the same reason?

darkcloud4579 · 12-24-2014, 09:53 PM

Yeah the real problem with stats only is the time thing. Not everyone has lots of time to devote to the game and even if you do, you want to spend that playing and eyeballing players is a lot easier than spending time pouring over stats. One of the flaws of the game is that it can be difficult to be play at a high level without getting super immersed or whatever.

It's taken me years to consider it seriously and I'm just doing it now and again, it's hard to do it without really spending the time to pour over a team and stuff.

darkcloud4579 · 12-24-2014, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebro

For the other stats only folks:

Do you play longer than default spring training (5 weeks) to give more time to look at spring performance for bench spots and what have you?

And similarly, do you break with MLB standard for length of lower-level minors for the same reason?

Good point. I hadn't considered either of these, I don't even play with spring training, but this makes me want to reconsider.

Orcin · 12-24-2014, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebro

Again, if you enjoy it, great! Go for it, but really, getting in this thread and trying to claim ratings play and stats only play is the same thing? Not true, never will be true.

It's not the same thing. But you are claiming that one method is more challenging than the other, and that is simply not true.

Merry Christmas!

kmoser · 12-24-2014, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

It's not the same thing. But you are claiming that one method is more challenging than the other, and that is simply not true.

Merry Christmas!

I think stats only is a little tougher because you have less to work with. Not saying playing with ratings is easy by any means, you just have more things available to look at.
BTW, Merry Christmas to you too!!

Orcin · 12-24-2014, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmoser

I think stats only is a little tougher because you have less to work with. Not saying playing with ratings is easy by any means, you just have more things available to look at.
BTW, Merry Christmas to you too!!

Two data points that differ... what do you do with that? You have to choose. Stats only... no choice - go with the stats. Choices add difficulty and lead to mistakes.

kmoser · 12-24-2014, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Two data points that differ... what do you do with that? You have to choose. Stats only... no choice - go with the stats. Choices add difficulty and lead to mistakes.

Sure they do. So does working with what you have and it just not working out. I think both cases are valid.

12-24-2014, 05:48 PM	#165
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,089 Blog Entries: 37	I have settled on trading very hard....neutral preference and AI evaluation at 20/40/30/10 Last edited by PSUColonel; 12-24-2014 at 05:52 PM.

12-24-2014, 08:43 PM	#173
jpeters1734 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Juust a bit outside... Posts: 5,976	the thing that confuses me about stats only is even if you change the ai evals to 50/33/17, you can take a guy, jack up his ratings, have the computer set up the whole system, and boom he's in the major leagues. how is this so if there are no stats? I even tried this for a career minor leaguer with crappy career stats and the same thing happened. Now editing rating is not the way I want to play, but the point is the computer uses ratings regardless of your settings __________________ "Cannonball Coming!" Go Bucs!! Founder and League Caretaker of the Professional Baseball Circuit, www.probaseballcircuit.com An Un-Official Guide to Minor League Management in OOTP 21 Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

12-24-2014, 09:53 PM	#175
darkcloud4579 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 8,652 Blog Entries: 32	Yeah the real problem with stats only is the time thing. Not everyone has lots of time to devote to the game and even if you do, you want to spend that playing and eyeballing players is a lot easier than spending time pouring over stats. One of the flaws of the game is that it can be difficult to be play at a high level without getting super immersed or whatever. It's taken me years to consider it seriously and I'm just doing it now and again, it's hard to do it without really spending the time to pour over a team and stuff. __________________ ------ My Mods Managerial Strategy Pack Competitive Balance Tax Calculator Major League Women's Baseball (OOTP24) quickstart Indian Premier League \| 300+ years of baseball quickstart \| Expatriate League quickstart \| Off-Field Injuries Update \| Women's Name File for OOTP \| ---- Dynasty classics: Centurion comes to OOTP5 \| DC Moneyball Dynasty (2004)

12-24-2014, 05:37 PM	#162
Trebro All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 753 Blog Entries: 1	I'm not going to keep going back and forth with folks who want to defend their playing style. Go enjoy playing with ratings, no one is stopping you. No is saying you're a bad person. But you're not going to convince me it's "just as realistic" or that "it's the same as a scouting report" because that's not true, ok? A scout can give a rating of 20-80, sure, and they totally do. But that scout is not a computer with access to the person's *absolute value. Sure, you can "fog of war" it by taking the accuracy down, but at the end of the day, even at low, the computer is basing that rating by knowing what's under the hood. There is no part of reality where that is going to be true, so using ratings, even fogged is not "just as realistic" as when a scout gives a person a rating in real life. If you have a rating in there, you can say all day "I won't use it" or "I'll only use it some of the time" but at the end of the day, it's a crutch, and we're only human. You'll be in a tight spot and that rating is gonna be there waiting to be the tie-breaker. The game lets us all do as we wish. It does not, however, change reality or human nature. Again, if you enjoy it, great! Go for it, but really, getting in this thread and trying to claim ratings play and stats only play is the same thing? Not true, never will be true. I don't get why ratings folks are all up in stats folks' grills? Are you that unsure in how you play the game? I don't see stats-only folks jumping into threads about ratings saying "Why are you using ratings?" the way we get "Why aren't* you using ratings?" or "Why are you suggesting people turn ratings off?"

12-24-2014, 05:38 PM	#163
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,089 Blog Entries: 37	It's very challenging...I have been going back and forth trying both...like I said...if you are going to leave scouting on while playing stats only, you may as well use the ratings...but as I said 20-80 correlates more closely with the written reports....I would not go any higher than 20-80...then you really are getting too much detail.

12-24-2014, 05:46 PM	#164
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,089 Blog Entries: 37	I keep scouting accuracy at normal...but one thing you could do is make the accuracy low, while also (and I do this) only getting scouting updates at the start and end of the season...which also forces you to manage your director of scouting a bit more, and actually send him on assignments.

12-24-2014, 05:58 PM	#166
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,076	Question of curiosity - does anyone play Stats only without scouting on? Seems to me it wouldn't be difficult since you're using stats only anyway. But then I'm fairly new to the SO world so I might be missing something obvious.

12-24-2014, 08:40 PM	#172
progen All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,530 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	This has really been a good discussion, and I've learned some new things from just reading the various posts. Really, to each his own on how you want to play the game, but my point is, my interest waivers in and out with OOTP, just like it does with Football Manager, or some of the WW2 games that I play. But with stats only, the game has always peaked my interest over longer periods(seasons) of time, than any other way I've played the game. And I do believe, that it is more time consuming, because the attention to detail is much greater, but I like following the players I draft, and the international signings I make. I have spreadsheets that I use to track this, and am curious how good or bad players do over time. My current game, I have an expansion team, fictional of course, and am in the second season. Team won't win but 60 games or so, but that's Ok, as I'm in this for the long haul. After the initial expansion draft, and now two drafts in, by next season, I'll start seeing some of my "drafted" players making the show, maybe a couple this season in September. Then it will be interesting to see how well the team does with these youngsters. And I generally only make one trade per season, and usually not for an immediate "impact" player. But when I do, I feel much more comfortable trading with the AI, than I ever did when I used ratings, stars, etc. I don't feel in any way that I'm taking advantage of the AI, because you don't really ever know for sure about a player, just like in real life. And the other thing that may have been mentioned and I may have missed it, all the coaching ratings and scouting ratings are off. So if my players aren't developing at the minor league level, am I awful at judging talent, or are my coaches not that good, or my scout? And I always have scouting set to very low. Hope this helps some of you that have posted, and keep sharing your ideas and questions.

12-24-2014, 09:38 PM	#174
Trebro All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 753 Blog Entries: 1	For the other stats only folks: Do you play longer than default spring training (5 weeks) to give more time to look at spring performance for bench spots and what have you? And similarly, do you break with MLB standard for length of lower-level minors for the same reason?