Scouting, Player evaluation, Trade settings, Player Development Setting-

[Cod]

So far, I'm really enjoying the default settings within challenge mode. I haven't seen anything "ridiculous" happen yet...

[Hotwheelz]

So I started a historical league in 2000 with the plan being to sim to the current year. I noticed the player eval AI settings were different than the default settings from a stock MLB league at 30-50-15-5. Why the difference and what are your thought son these settings? Should I keep them?

I've been running with ratings on and I would love to find a setting where rating aren't the end all eval tool.

[Ktulu]

The MLB settings are different so that the AI evaluates them in a way that matches people's expectations of real life players.

[PSUColonel]

One thing I keep going back and forth on...is weather or not to show overall and potential ratings.

I like having them to help me sort players in the draft, free agent lists, etc...

but I hate them in that I often feel they are not truly reflective of any given player's abilities, and that they become too much of a crutch, and prevent me from really truly analyzing players.

I also have a tendency to alter the AI evaluation settings when doing this to 40/30/20/10.

When I use overall ratings (20-80 5 point scale) I tend to have AI evaluation at either 55/25/15/5 or the defaults.

[TanzKommandant]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

One thing I keep going back and forth on...is weather or not to show overall and potential ratings.

I like having them to help me sort players in the draft, free agent lists, etc...

but I hate them in that I often feel they are not truly reflective of any given player's abilities, and that they become too much of a crutch, and prevent me from really truly analyzing players.

I also have a tendency to alter the AI evaluation settings when doing this to 40/30/20/10.

When I use overall ratings (20-80 5 point scale) I tend to have AI evaluation at either 55/25/15/5 or the defaults.

They're useful for sorting features but it would be nice to do without them altogether.

[TanzKommandant]

I try to keep the AI's usage of ratings as low as possible in their evaluation since decisions are made on stats. If you're looking for a really fast guy you would know who to look for in real life but a GM isn't going to say he needs a big bat at the deadline then go to some table and see who has 65/80 power potential. They'll look at the current year's stats to get what they need. It's all a balancing act for sure.

[TanzKommandant]

For trading preferences, I'll go with hard/very hard and favor/heavily favor prospects.

[bly08]

Been playing with challenger mode settings, haven't noticed anything unusual except the trades offered by the AI seem worse than last year's.

[DrSatan]

Has anybody cranked up the Player Development speed? I bumped mine up to 1.15. My issue is the amount of players who fail to progress to MLB ready levels before the age of 25. At first I thought it was just my inability to manage my prospects, but the issue existed across the league. My league is clogged with 25-26yr olds with great potential who couldn't progress in the minors. Its not for lack of opportunity either, they just aren't developing. I expect there to prospects who don't develop, but the scale that I'm seeing it seems wrong.

I'm playing an MLB league with full minors, 100% scout accuracy, change randomness 100.

[Vonschlick]

I'm having a similar problem, but haven't decided how to fix it yet. I also noticed that many of the 4 and 5 star prospects from ootp18 have changed to 3 or 4 stars. I don't know if that is supposed to be that way or not, but it seemed funny that so many prospects lost potential in one year.

I usually use 100% percent accuracy, but switched to High Accuracy until I started noticing this problem.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Vonschlick

I'm having a similar problem, but haven't decided how to fix it yet. I also noticed that many of the 4 and 5 star prospects from ootp18 have changed to 3 or 4 stars. I don't know if that is supposed to be that way or not, but it seemed funny that so many prospects lost potential in one year.

I usually use 100% percent accuracy, but switched to High Accuracy until I started noticing this problem.

Another thing I've noticed is even with 100% scouting accuracy, my player development reports do not match my players actual ratings. For example, my report might say "player X's contact rating has increased to 70", but when I check, it is lower or hasn't changed at all. I've also noticed my LHP vs RHP batter ratings are crazy lob-sided for some players. I'm talking like 90 contact vs LHP and 30 vs RHP. It doesn't ever line up with the rating in the editor, but it corrects if I change the Gap ratings. Not any other rating, just the Gap rating.

[wallewalls]

Idk if this is the right place to ask this, but why do people use stars instead of 20-80 ratings for player overall/potential? It just makes more sense to me to see a number than an artificial star rating that has nothing attached to it. You at least kind of know what a 30 overall type player is, but what is a one and a half star player? Its just something that I've wondered for awhile

[Vonschlick]

I've only been playing ootp since ootp16. It was kind of overwhelming at first coming from baseball mogul and I just got used to using stars. You make me feel a little dumb now, because it never entered my mind to change until now.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I have done this for years...the only potential issue is that player's can get wrecked earlier than the maybe should, so in all honestly, the defaults are going to most likely yield the best results. OOTP 19 truly is good out of the box..The challenge mode has the most realistic defaults....which means the only real change, is putting trading at "hard".

I finally upped trading to "hard", average is much better this year, but I still think it's a tad easy to trade at times, especially if you play with a big market team like the Cardinals and have the money to hoard high rated players with big contracts.

[PSUColonel]

Months later after release....what are people using now that they have had some time with version 19?


Are people using default AI evaluation still?, or have you modified it?

Injury settings? normal or realistic....if using realistic what have you (if anything) done with again and development modifiers?

Trade settings?...I assume most are hard/ neutral

[Orcin]

I use 65/20/10/5 for every league, even historical. I think the heavy emphasis on ratings helps the AI to make better decisions. I use 100% scouting on historical, and normal for everything else.

Normal injuries for most leagues, but I use low for historical leagues with reserve rosters to compensate for the lack of available players.

Trade on hard/neutral. Trading is much better this year, but I still have to use self-control to avoid scamming the AI. Very Hard and/or Favor Prospects makes the ordinary reasonable trade impossible but does nothing to stop the exploits, so I don't use them.

[Dyzalot]

I think I'm using something like 60/25/10/5 and if I'm playing modern, which is most of the time, then I have injuries on "realistic". I leave aging and development at default. I keep trade settings at default also because I exclusively use the "shop" feature or offers emailed to me by teams for 99.9% of my trades.

[jfb8300]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Months later after release....what are people using now that they have had some time with version 19?

Well, unless I'm doing it wrong it looks like fictional leagues with feeders have serious developmental issues. Of course there are previous documented issues with feeder leagues, so this isn't much of a surprise.


I've simmed hundreds of seasons over the past couple days tweaking development rates and this is the closest I can get to 2017 MLB ages:


Bat Age: .900

Bat Dev: 2.500

Pit Age: 2.200

Pit Dev: 1.625

Chart shows real life 2017 in blue, OOTP 30 and 31 years into a fictional sim in orange. Amount of players logging 200 PA, or 40 IP by age.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I use 65/20/10/5 for every league, even historical. I think the heavy emphasis on ratings helps the AI to make better decisions. I use 100% scouting on historical, and normal for everything else.

Normal injuries for most leagues, but I use low for historical leagues with reserve rosters to compensate for the lack of available players.

Trade on hard/neutral. Trading is much better this year, but I still have to use self-control to avoid scamming the AI. Very Hard and/or Favor Prospects makes the ordinary reasonable trade impossible but does nothing to stop the exploits, so I don't use them.

Imo it depends on what the criteria is for when it comes to the AI making better decisions. There are plenty of times where the AI will make a roster move for an underachieving player who’s ratings are high when the setting are emphasizing ratings. Depending on the user, that could be good for the AI to go after the best looking players available or bad for the user who want the AI to go after the best productive players available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Imo it depends on what the criteria is for when it comes to the AI making better decisions. There are plenty of times where the AI will make a roster move for an underachieving player who’s ratings are high when the setting are emphasizing ratings. Depending on the user, that could be good for the AI to go after the best looking players available or bad for the user who want the AI to go after the best productive players available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true. The only 4 I really ever consider still are 65/20/10/5, 55/25/15/5, 50/30/15/5 or 40/30/20/10

It’s tough to choose for me....right now I am usually no the default 65/20/10/5...but I am always tempted to try the others.