Worth it?

[SHood422]

The last edition I purchased was OOTP 23. I don't care about Perfect Team and only play franchise mode. Is 25 worth the buy? I read on steam that the AI free agency and trade logic is worse now?

[Bobfather]

in my opinion, yes.

[grmagne]

Yes, I really like the new IAFA system from OOTP 24 and the Development Lab in this year's version. Definitely worth the upgrade.

[Ratbelly]

Originally Posted by grmagne

Yes, I really like the new IAFA system from OOTP 24 and the Development Lab in this year's version. Definitely worth the upgrade.

Yes those two new additions as well as I feel like it was easy to get top tier free agents in prior iterations. It seems to me that the teams do a better job of locking valuable players.

[locuspc]

The IAFA stuff is a huge upgrade from 23 for sure. Fleshed out a system that was basically a stub and made it engaging and strategic. IAFA signing time is something I really look forward to while playing out a year now. The Dev Lab is fun to play with but feels half-baked and poorly-integrated into the game. Feels like something bolted on as a marketing bullet point rather than a natural inclusion.

There were problems with free agency in the original release, particularly reliever demands, but patches have improved it. I don't know what problems the steam users were having with trading, it doesn't seem worse than 23 to me. Maybe they're complaining that the AI is slightly less braindead and easy to scam? There's plenty of concerns with the trading but it's all stuff that was present in 23 and if anything it's been cleaned up a little.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by SHood422

The last edition I purchased was OOTP 23. I don't care about Perfect Team and only play franchise mode. Is 25 worth the buy? I read on steam that the AI free agency and trade logic is worse now?

I just couldn't resist. There is simply no getting anything but a rah-rah answer if you're coming to this forum. It is not right and you deserve better.

There is no difference from OOTP 23. Development lab is as close to nothing as it gets.

At least wait until the game goes 50% off and/or they fix some things and/or make real improvements.

[FantasyDrafter]

IAFAs are better scouted over a longer period in 25 vs 23, but to get a player that the AI considers to be at the top end, you still need to spend your entire IAFA budget to get them. The AI will, and long sims show that the highest scouted players in the game for the next 100 seasons are 95% 1st round picks and max $ IAFAs.

This year the editor ratings have been multiplied by 2 and 80 scouted/rated players are more rare (and in my experience become even more rare as the sim progresses).

New game mode this year is “coming soon”. Perhaps in the next update but I haven’t seen it mentioned much on the forums.

Dev focus and lab is cosmetic as currently implemented (hard lab programs can move the needle a bit). Theoretically I think it could be a great idea.

Development in general seems very programmed/predictable on default settings. I have resisted the urge to try to tweak it myself, waiting for the next patch.

There is obviously a pretty significant roster update from 2023 - 2025

Rule 5 draft is intentionally programmed incorrectly (does not follow mlb rules) and has been for many versions of the game apparently, became much more obvious this year because of questionable minor league AI management. Not sure if the in game impact is significant since on default the development of players is very predictable (most of the players are unlikely to be drafted), but there are many players every season who are rule 5 eligible who should not be.

If you haven’t purchased, I would definitely see what the consensus is after the patch that could be out today.

[coolfish2]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

IAFAs are better scouted over a longer period in 25 vs 23, but to get a player that the AI considers to be at the top end, you still need to spend your entire IAFA budget to get them.

I think it's different by users.
Usually, I trying to contact to players who are over 17 years old and have high work ethic and intelligent.

So most of time I contact with 65-75 guys instead of 80 in IAFA and I've been successfully signed average 2 or 3 guys in every years.

Since even players who have 80 potentials are mostly faild to debut, this can be one of the strategies.

So I want to say IAFA pre-scouting function is fit to user who play like me. Because I've felt like it's a game changer.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by coolfish2

I think it's different by users.
Usually, I trying to contact to players who are over 17 years old and have high work ethic and intelligent.

So most of time I contact with 65-75 guys instead of 80 in IAFA and I've been successfully signed average 2 or 3 guys in every years.

Since even players who have 80 potentials are mostly faild to debut, this can be one of the strategies.

So I want to say IAFA pre-scouting function is fit to user who play like me. Because I've felt like it's a game changer.

You absolutely can sign multiple players and it is a viable strategy to sign 3 65s over 1 80. When you sim the game out and at 100% scouting look at where the 80/75/70 actual (not potential) players came from, it is 1st round and max $ IAFA with almost no exceptions (AI scouting does love a defensive catcher though).

[coolfish2]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

You absolutely can sign multiple players and it is a viable strategy to sign 3 65s over 1 80. When you sim the game out and at 100% scouting look at where the 80/75/70 actual (not potential) players came from, it is 1st round and max $ IAFA with almost no exceptions (AI scouting does love a defensive catcher though).

Yes I agreed with you. That's right that if you want future 80/80 players than you should bet to IAFA.
But rather that, I want to play safety(because that's how I've played OOTP) so my goal is not finding top players, but find 50-60 standard players as many as I can. That's why I said it's up to each users because everybody have their own GM style and own correct answers.

+ Just saying my strategy: I try to find and fill my depth with 50-60 players from draft and IAFA. This will save my money because I don't need to pay for normal players who is in FA. Only I need to do is keep call up cheep prospects from my farm if someone is getting expensive. and with saved money, I would sign with top players in FA market.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

Dev focus and lab is cosmetic as currently implemented (hard lab programs can move the needle a bit). Theoretically I think it could be a great idea.

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.

[FantasyDrafter]

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.

[locuspc]

You're treating defense like it's an afterthought when it's probably the biggest impact you can have with the lab. A few years of defense training in the lab can change a player's whole trajectory. And it's not limited to the "hard" trainings either, corner outfield and second base are medium difficulty and are hugely valuable trainings.

I don't need to mess around with the editor to see the impacts. If you need to go into commissioner mode and poke around to see what happens that doesn't count as a "palpable" impact to me. I'm telling you, the defense training and the secondary pitch training produce blatant, obvious results that can be seen in the coarse scouted ratings and in the play on the field. And those are both trainings that can be used on developed regulars. If you're worried about "successful outcomes on a player that has already reached their potential for control" then I'm going to say you are indeed using it wrong, why would you use control training on a guy who has maxxed out control? On developed players you should be using trainings that are impactful for developed players, like defense, strength/conditioning, or most of the pitching trainings. If you've been spending trainings on like Plate Discipline for guys with maxxed out Eye, no wonder you think it's just cosmetic.

[locuspc]

And regarding prospect development, using the lab to jumpstart prospect development by filling out potential has a snowball effect. You can say it's just "points they would get through normal development eventually", but A) players basically never reach their full rated potential, any potential you fill out in the lab is potential that can't be lost along the way, and B) speeding up a player's development lets them move up the ranks faster and more smoothly, which boosts their overall development effectiveness and lets them have a longer MLB career.

I'm less confident in the power of the lab to develop prospects than I am in using it for established players because you don't see the same immediate obvious impact, but anecdotally the guys who have been successful in the lab seem to be doing well for me. It's not just about comparing raw numbers in the editor because the numbers impact the prospect's overall development timeline and it has a multiplicative effect.

[FantasyDrafter]

I’m guessing that means that in the math based, statistical output, spreadsheet game you dont know what it actually does.

Your way is probably more enjoyable tbh.

[FantasyDrafter]

Also, development can absolutely be lost - through the dev lab in fact. There is definitely risk involved (which is great) and it’s not insignificant when you get a poor result on hard.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

I’m guessing that means that in the math based, statistical output, spreadsheet game you dont know what it actually does.

Your way is probably more enjoyable tbh.

Brother it shows up in the statistics, that's what I'm telling you. It shows up in the Zone Runs and the K/9. I don't need to look under the hood to see it, if it only shows up in the intermediate calculations and isn't reflected in the output that's not a very impactful mechanic. This isn't that.

Try this experiment. Give all your fielders defense training and your whole rotation secondary pitch improvement training. You should be able to fit that in the default six slots now that we have the new patch. Do this for a few years and see what happens. You can look at the raw numbers in the editor if you like, you shouldn't have to, but you can. It's having a real impact on the field, as well as the raw numbers. Stop trying to boost maxxed out prospect stats and you'll see that the Dev Lab is by no means "cosmetic" if used sensibly.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by locuspc

Brother it shows up in the statistics, that's what I'm telling you. It shows up in the Zone Runs and the K/9. I don't need to look under the hood to see it, if it only shows up in the intermediate calculations and isn't reflected in the output that's not a very impactful mechanic. This isn't that.

Try this experiment. Give all your fielders defense training and your whole rotation secondary pitch improvement training. You should be able to fit that in the default six slots now that we have the new patch. Do this for a few years and see what happens. You can look at the raw numbers in the editor if you like, you shouldn't have to, but you can. It's having a real impact on the field, as well as the raw numbers. Stop trying to boost maxxed out prospect stats and you'll see that the Dev Lab is by no means "cosmetic" if used sensibly.

I’ve done it. You can have the #1 defense by all statistical ratings going out of your way to neglect defense intentionally over many seasons. You obviously need good scouting of base stats to do that, but it isn’t hard.

If you take the same team and run them through the lab for 10 seasons, then take the same team and don’t use the lab for the same 10 seasons and see where they wind up…you’ll see there is a small bucket they will wind up in.

[locuspc]

I frankly don't believe you. Put a bunch of DH's in the field, you will not lead the league in ZR. I invite anyone else to try the experiment above and see what you find. I urge anyone on the fence about the new version not to believe FantasyDrafter's characterization of it.

[Ratbelly]

My unscientific opinion is that I love the development lab. I have been able to take underwhelming corner outfielders and change them into decent fielders. I have taken guys and made them better second baseman. I have upped guys power potential. Did I make all of these guys superstars with it no, but there were noticeable changes to their performances.