Quote:
Originally Posted by locuspc
This is just wrong. Dev focus may be a marginal effect but the dev lab as currently implemented is a game changer. Calling it "cosmetic" because you can't reliably turn a junk player into a superstar is nuts, you can make very real upgrades in players to push along their development or cover their weaknesses. Even without using hard programs, the lab can turn a corner outfielder into a passable center fielder, or a not quite good enough second baseman into a gold glove second baseman. I don't think the secondary pitch improvement program is rated as hard either, and you can use that on your ace to give him a solid chance of bumping his Stuff, depending on what his pitch mix looks like.
If you think the dev lab is "cosmetic", you're using it wrong, or expecting too much. You're not going to add 20 points of OVR with it but you can make palpable improvements to your team if you know what you're doing.
|
In raw numbers in the editor an outstanding result can be worth up to 40-45 points for a “hard” program. Which sounds good and isn’t completely insignificant. I have even seen up to a 20 point increase in potential in the editor and a player go from a 45/55 to a 55/65 in scouting. Which sounds good and is why I said hard programs can move the needle.
But on a 500 point scale in the editor where mlb league average for ratings is typically 400+, that means for most prospects the results don’t really mean anything because that hard program “successful” is worth 20ish points at best (assuming there is that much room for growth), which they would get through normal development eventually. And when you go down to the medium and lower programs and successful is worth about half or less it really doesn’t matter. There is a negligible difference between 290 and 300 in the editor. In many cases I’m being generous with 10 points change. Change the rating in the editor and look at the predicted stat output to see how the game views it. Then consider the “successful” outcomes on a player that has already reached their potential for control for example no matter how low their starting point was, which results in no increase of any kind.
If you have observed different outcomes in the editor (not in your opinion), let me know what to look for - I would be happy to queue up a save with with 20 players doing something and run it 50 times to compare results. I have run full labs using the same program with each player through multiple offseason programs so I could see the editor changes. Based on those results, there is no reason to use any programs that are not “hard” for the long program. Now that we can control the short program following that I’m sure I’ll use it for defense or base running as well, but in my experience you are overstating the results.