Aging & Development modifiers

ZepTepi · 07-08-2024, 10:38 AM

I know there are Forum posts and some YouTube vids about this giving decent explanations of what they are but I'm curious as to what your experiences have been with them related specifically to OOTP 25. I've now done two saves with it and haven't touched those settings and have noticed that I've had some very good players up and retire in late 20s-early 30s without any major injury history and while still very productive. Now maybe this isn't all that unrealistic IRL MLB and I just don't realize it but I'd like to tweet that a bit. I'd also like to see very rate occasions where players play into thier 40s. I watch a fair amount of YouTube playthroughs and the ones for OOTP 25 have set those modifiers to everything from leaving it at default to as much as .250. For me I would like slightly slower aging to allow for a little bit longer careers. I admittedly don't have a complete grasp of TCR and it's effect on the game. I thought I did but some comments in some recent YouTube play throughs made me second guess that. That said, I'm going to leave that at default for fear unintentionally jacking up my long save I'm currently setting up.

Comment away!

snepp · 07-08-2024, 10:29 PM

I like to use slightly faster progression, and slightly slower aging. This helps offset my use of higher injury settings.

I think my last long-term fictional I used 1.2 for progression and .9 for aging. I leave the target age settings at default.

SirMichaelJordan · 07-09-2024, 08:37 PM

As of now, the default works best if you are looking for a realistic result.

Even with high injury rates.

Syd Thrift · 07-10-2024, 02:06 AM

I have injuries and development very flattened out and then I bumped TCR to I think 150 to make up for it. So far id been fearful that this would make too many pro level players and therefore the elite players wouldn’t be enough better than average starters but if anything I’ve seen bigger outliers than I’d have expected.

I think development is set to about 1.25 and aging is around .75. Also, and I think this is important, I have age limits set below AAA - I believe 26 for AA, 24 for A, and 23 for rookie ball. This keeps the AI from stashing crappy 32 year old middle relievers in A ball and displacing players who might become something someday.

kidd_05_u2 · 07-10-2024, 10:09 AM

We all do different things I guess.

I shoot for realism and the insane turnover rate of the modern MLB, so my key settings are:

Very High Injuries
Development and aging as default
Feeder league system
Aggressive manual retirement of older minor league free agents (If you want realistic minors, this is significantly better than setting age limits. It doesn't take that much time).

The feeder league is key to ensure college players are advanced enough by the time of the draft. Most college players that get drafted are ready to play at the A and A+ levels, which is not the case for the default draft. However, the game's player creation model is flawed, so you need to find just the right size of the feeder league to avoid disrupting the talent level of your MLB (I do 120 high school teams, 60 college teams, and 24 Jucos, which is not perfect).

ZepTepi · 07-10-2024, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snepp

I like to use slightly faster progression, and slightly slower aging. This helps offset my use of higher injury settings.

I think my last long-term fictional I used 1.2 for progression and .9 for aging. I leave the target age settings at default.

I too like settings that closey resemble MLB but injuries are the exception to that because while I know high numbers of injuries are the norm I feel like luck shouldnt trump talent anymore than necessary so I leave injuries at the default. BTW, "necessary" isn't the best word to use there but I couldn't think of a better one right now.

Pelican · 07-10-2024, 03:36 PM

With the wide variety of options, users are going to fine-tune this in different ways with different goals in mind.

I advance development to at least 1.15 and aging also to at least 1.15. In effect, I am moving the productive career up a bit, favoring younger players over older. I do this because I slowly play out seasons, usually game-by-game for my team, so that development and aging seem to be very gradual at such a pace.

Because I like to see the players on the field, I dial back injuries to Low, and toggle off missed seasons. I realize this means that team and organization depth is less critical in my sims.

And of course I am playing with development on, high TCR, and no annual recalc of ratings, plus highly accurate scouting. So I expect changes that diverge from IRL performance. Not trying to duplicate past seasons, but to ask "what if" no players missed time for WWII, Lou Gehrig didn't get ALS, there was no color bar, and financially strapped teams got an infusion of investment from wealthy buyers of the franchise.

Baby Ruth · 07-10-2024, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I have age limits set below AAA - I believe 26 for AA, 24 for A, and 23 for rookie ball. This keeps the AI from stashing crappy 32 year old middle relievers in A ball and displacing players who might become something someday.

I like that idea. Where do you set those age limits?

NoOne · 07-10-2024, 09:46 PM

You could analyze the effect fairly easily -- 100% scouting and zoom out 5-10 years at at ime and assess talent levels of batters and pitchers -- maybe just the top end, or whatever your concerns are.in the distribution. You can do this for all sorts of things to find their long-term effect and how it ebbs and flows with talent levels etc...

TCR defintely helps with a little better peak playes, but overall talent won't shift to the right on distirubtion curve because as many get worse as those that improve randomly.

I used to lower that long ago, but default or even slightly higher is definitely good in my opinion. Too high might get comical as far as being able to trust ratings and trying to develop prospects in a way that amounts to more than picking numbers out of a hat.

In older iterations of the game, people have done some fairly extensive research on injuries and aging etc. They had graphs and everything. I'd trust the data ootp uses and beyond that it's purely subjective to tweak it one way or another.

with that said i think i do 1.05 to 1.10 for development and .90-.95 for aging. I don't tell myself it's becaues it's more realistic. I just wanted to see a few more 30-somethings playing at a high level. It's probably imperceptible but it makes me feel warm inside.

if you want realistic, trust that ootp used a far larger sample size to compute whatever they use. There may be opinon as to how to weight it or adjust it per era or this or that. There's no wrong answer here. Definitely useful to zoom out like i said above. Test it out. See what happens. if it requires a league turnover (e.g. anything that impacts created player talent distribution) might require you to zome out 20-30 years before you see the full impact of the setting change. Injuries probably don't need that, as you'd only look at rate since the change and that would be up to date immediately, but TCR might be wise to zoom out 5-10 years and let it settle in a bit.. find a equilibrium then assess the impacts becasue that would be more representative of future years than 1 year after the setting changed.

I do mil rules like syd. You definitely need to zoom out to test anything like that. Scan through multiple teams - the team roster screen where oyu can fit nearly all mil teams on one screen is a good spot to check multiple levels for bottlenecks or oddities caused by the rules. you can do some rough math based on typical draft ages and how many picks/rounds per year for each team to make sure enough players of that age/svc time are available at each level, but that doesn't cover all the bases.

uruguru · 07-11-2024, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I think this is important, I have age limits set below AAA - I believe 26 for AA, 24 for A, and 23 for rookie ball. This keeps the AI from stashing crappy 32 year old middle relievers in A ball and displacing players who might become something someday.

I agree. This is important. I think I set mine to 28, 25 and 22. AAA has no age limit.

The world is harsh and retirements need to be forced. "Maybe you're just not cut out for the pros, kid"

07-08-2024, 10:38 AM	#1
ZepTepi Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2016 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 141	Aging & Development modifiers I know there are Forum posts and some YouTube vids about this giving decent explanations of what they are but I'm curious as to what your experiences have been with them related specifically to OOTP 25. I've now done two saves with it and haven't touched those settings and have noticed that I've had some very good players up and retire in late 20s-early 30s without any major injury history and while still very productive. Now maybe this isn't all that unrealistic IRL MLB and I just don't realize it but I'd like to tweet that a bit. I'd also like to see very rate occasions where players play into thier 40s. I watch a fair amount of YouTube playthroughs and the ones for OOTP 25 have set those modifiers to everything from leaving it at default to as much as .250. For me I would like slightly slower aging to allow for a little bit longer careers. I admittedly don't have a complete grasp of TCR and it's effect on the game. I thought I did but some comments in some recent YouTube play throughs made me second guess that. That said, I'm going to leave that at default for fear unintentionally jacking up my long save I'm currently setting up. Comment away! Last edited by ZepTepi; 07-08-2024 at 10:57 AM.

07-10-2024, 03:36 PM	#7
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 3,025	With the wide variety of options, users are going to fine-tune this in different ways with different goals in mind. I advance development to at least 1.15 and aging also to at least 1.15. In effect, I am moving the productive career up a bit, favoring younger players over older. I do this because I slowly play out seasons, usually game-by-game for my team, so that development and aging seem to be very gradual at such a pace. Because I like to see the players on the field, I dial back injuries to Low, and toggle off missed seasons. I realize this means that team and organization depth is less critical in my sims. And of course I am playing with development on, high TCR, and no annual recalc of ratings, plus highly accurate scouting. So I expect changes that diverge from IRL performance. Not trying to duplicate past seasons, but to ask "what if" no players missed time for WWII, Lou Gehrig didn't get ALS, there was no color bar, and financially strapped teams got an infusion of investment from wealthy buyers of the franchise. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.”

07-10-2024, 09:46 PM	#9
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	You could analyze the effect fairly easily -- 100% scouting and zoom out 5-10 years at at ime and assess talent levels of batters and pitchers -- maybe just the top end, or whatever your concerns are.in the distribution. You can do this for all sorts of things to find their long-term effect and how it ebbs and flows with talent levels etc... TCR defintely helps with a little better peak playes, but overall talent won't shift to the right on distirubtion curve because as many get worse as those that improve randomly. I used to lower that long ago, but default or even slightly higher is definitely good in my opinion. Too high might get comical as far as being able to trust ratings and trying to develop prospects in a way that amounts to more than picking numbers out of a hat. In older iterations of the game, people have done some fairly extensive research on injuries and aging etc. They had graphs and everything. I'd trust the data ootp uses and beyond that it's purely subjective to tweak it one way or another. with that said i think i do 1.05 to 1.10 for development and .90-.95 for aging. I don't tell myself it's becaues it's more realistic. I just wanted to see a few more 30-somethings playing at a high level. It's probably imperceptible but it makes me feel warm inside. if you want realistic, trust that ootp used a far larger sample size to compute whatever they use. There may be opinon as to how to weight it or adjust it per era or this or that. There's no wrong answer here. Definitely useful to zoom out like i said above. Test it out. See what happens. if it requires a league turnover (e.g. anything that impacts created player talent distribution) might require you to zome out 20-30 years before you see the full impact of the setting change. Injuries probably don't need that, as you'd only look at rate since the change and that would be up to date immediately, but TCR might be wise to zoom out 5-10 years and let it settle in a bit.. find a equilibrium then assess the impacts becasue that would be more representative of future years than 1 year after the setting changed. I do mil rules like syd. You definitely need to zoom out to test anything like that. Scan through multiple teams - the team roster screen where oyu can fit nearly all mil teams on one screen is a good spot to check multiple levels for bottlenecks or oddities caused by the rules. you can do some rough math based on typical draft ages and how many picks/rounds per year for each team to make sure enough players of that age/svc time are available at each level, but that doesn't cover all the bases. Last edited by NoOne; 07-10-2024 at 09:51 PM.

07-08-2024, 10:29 PM	#2
snepp All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,500	I like to use slightly faster progression, and slightly slower aging. This helps offset my use of higher injury settings. I think my last long-term fictional I used 1.2 for progression and .9 for aging. I leave the target age settings at default.

07-09-2024, 08:37 PM	#3
SirMichaelJordan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 2,716	As of now, the default works best if you are looking for a realistic result. Even with high injury rates.

07-10-2024, 10:09 AM	#5
kidd_05_u2 All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 535	We all do different things I guess. I shoot for realism and the insane turnover rate of the modern MLB, so my key settings are: Very High Injuries Development and aging as default Feeder league system Aggressive manual retirement of older minor league free agents (If you want realistic minors, this is significantly better than setting age limits. It doesn't take that much time). The feeder league is key to ensure college players are advanced enough by the time of the draft. Most college players that get drafted are ready to play at the A and A+ levels, which is not the case for the default draft. However, the game's player creation model is flawed, so you need to find just the right size of the feeder league to avoid disrupting the talent level of your MLB (I do 120 high school teams, 60 college teams, and 24 Jucos, which is not perfect).