Anyone done any testing on prospect development in v25.2.52?

[FantasyDrafter]

Somehow the topic just changed from “user influence on player development” to “new way to calculate OVR”. Only speaking for myself, I don’t care if an elite player is a 10, 40, 80, 100+ - I just want to feel I have influence.

I’m going to give one example of a player everyone knows and expects to develop really well from 3 different saves with the raw editor numbers. One is after year 1, the other 2 are after 2029. I unfortunately don’t recall what I did in the lab on the one I controlled - if there is a way for me to look that up, let me know. Jackson Holliday everyone!

End of year 1, AI development focus - extremely balanced, heaviest in DEF
BABIP 465/463
AK 418/418
Contact 457/457
Gap 391/432
Power 343/430
Eye 463/481
Speed 188
Range 146
Error 139
Arm 104
DP 123
OF Range 126
OF Error 125
OF Arm 98

End of 2029 AI focus - identical it appears to above
BABIP 460/463
AK 408/416
Contact 450/456
Gap 432/432
Power 417/431
Eye 477/497
Speed 161
Range 135
Error 174
Arm 120
DP 144
OF Range 102
OF Error 135
OF Arm 109

End of 2029. My control. Max BABIP, Power, Eye, .5 AK. Zero defense, run, gap
BABIP 456/450
AK 413/419
Contact 452/452
Gap 420/417
Power 437/436
Eye 484/486
Speed 168
Range 140
Error 146
Arm 109
DP 124
OF Range 96
OF Error 130
OF Arm 100

The last one he definitely developed more power, but I don’t remember if I used the lab on him or not. These are raw numbers, use them as you like, just putting them out there and maybe others will run some of their own experiments.

Maybe I had some influence? Maybe I didn’t? Who knows. I want to think I did, and the Power in the last one says maybe I did for that rating. Realize this is just small sample I’m showing (and I am intentionally showing faster power development). I assume the devs and official testers have done this many times - all I can tell you is that the possible raw numbers in my experience have a very small bucket they can fall in. Draw whatever conclusions you would like.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

Somehow the topic just changed from “user influence on player development” to “new way to calculate OVR”. Only speaking for myself, I don’t care if an elite player is a 10, 40, 80, 100+ - I just want to feel I have influence.

I’m going to give one example of a player everyone knows and expects to develop really well from 3 different saves with the raw editor numbers. One is after year 1, the other 2 are after 2029. I unfortunately don’t recall what I did in the lab on the one I controlled - if there is a way for me to look that up, let me know. Jackson Holliday everyone!

End of year 1, AI development focus - extremely balanced, heaviest in DEF
BABIP 465/463
AK 418/418
Contact 457/457
Gap 391/432
Power 343/430
Eye 463/481
Speed 188
Range 146
Error 139
Arm 104
DP 123
OF Range 126
OF Error 125
OF Arm 98

End of 2029 AI focus - identical it appears to above
BABIP 460/463
AK 408/416
Contact 450/456
Gap 432/432
Power 417/431
Eye 477/497
Speed 161
Range 135
Error 174
Arm 120
DP 144
OF Range 102
OF Error 135
OF Arm 109

End of 2029. My control. Max BABIP, Power, Eye, .5 AK. Zero defense, run, gap
BABIP 456/450
AK 413/419
Contact 452/452
Gap 420/417
Power 437/436
Eye 484/486
Speed 168
Range 140
Error 146
Arm 109
DP 124
OF Range 96
OF Error 130
OF Arm 100

The last one he definitely developed more power, but I don’t remember if I used the lab on him or not. These are raw numbers, use them as you like, just putting them out there and maybe others will run some of their own experiments.

Maybe I had some influence? Maybe I didn’t? Who knows. I want to think I did, and the Power in the last one says maybe I did for that rating. Realize this is just small sample I’m showing (and I am intentionally showing faster power development). I assume the devs and official testers have done this many times - all I can tell you is that the possible raw numbers in my experience have a very small bucket they can fall in. Draw whatever conclusions you would like.

I would like to believe that one through Development Focus can "try" to change the development path of a player, but I have read several people who have not observed significant changes in this issue, to the point of recommending that the AI be handled for all players.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

I would like to believe that one through Development Focus can "try" to change the development path of a player, but I have read several people who have not observed significant changes in this issue, to the point of recommending that the AI be handled for all players.

I genuinely hope that is not the case, because I want to have influence on how my players develop and that was touted as a big addition. If that doesn’t amount to much (or you just have to convince yourself it does something), then I guess I’m waiting to see what Drive to the Pennant looks like whenever it gets added to the game?

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

I genuinely hope that is not the case, because I want to have influence on how my players develop and that was touted as a big addition. If that doesn’t amount to much (or you just have to convince yourself it does something), then I guess I’m waiting to see what Drive to the Pennant looks like whenever it gets added to the game?

since launch day i have said it, if this works as in my opinion it should work (that it does affect the player development path) this feature is much bigger than the development lab that only works in the offseason, since at the GM level one could "map the path" of all the players in your organization, during the whole season, regularly changing the requirements of each player and being affected by the relationship of all the coaches.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it works more like some have said (that it doesn't generate big changes in player development) and that the development lab can generate changes and additions to the player.

[Rain King]

You have a chance to influence how a player develops. Nothing you do will or should provide guaranteed results. It is moving a probability needle, not buying a power up.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

I think the main issue here now is that people are expecting development to work in an unrealistic way that it's not designed to do.

Most prospects don't develop to their peak potential. Very few prospects will ever develop to be over 50 ratings no matter what their peak potentials are. Many real-life draft classes don't have more than 15 or so above average MLB players once all is said and done, whatever their potential was viewed at the draft. Just because a player has an 80 potential for example, it does not mean he's expected to turn into an 80 overall rated player at his peak. Some may. Most will not. It's going to be a rare player to develop to a 55 or 60 or above rating. If you have an 80 rated prospect and he turns into a 55 or 60 player at his peak, this is a pretty good result.

This is even more the case this year than in previous years, because we've adjusted the overalls to incorporate standard deviations a bit more and thus they are a little tighter and they end up tracking a little closer to the real-life scale now (they are still not identical, so you will have more 70 and 80 players in OOTP than there would be in real-life f.e.). So more players will end up fairly tightly clustered in the 40-60 range once fully developed and it will be somewhat rarer to see a player to hit 60-80 than in previous version of the game. Thus a player whose ratings would have given him a 65 overall rating a couple versions back might have more of a 55 or a 60 now, even if the underlying ratings are essentially the same.

The original concern with development was more just that players were taking too long to develop and there were very few young players well developed. The patch does greatly improve that. What the patch does not do is to make all young players develop to max potential. That's not how it works in reality, and it's not how the game is supposed to work. The league talent levels will stay roughly equal over time (though they drop a bit from the initial roster set ratings, which is to be expected as these are slightly higher than the long term targets), which pretty clearly show that enough players are developing overall.

Thank you for this adjustment. This is realistic scouting.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Rain King

You have a chance to influence how a player develops.

I continue to search for evidence that is the case.

Can you quantify further how you are evaluating this?

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Can you quantify further how you are evaluating this? What specifically are you no longer seeing that you were seeing previously?

I don't have charts or spreadsheets or anything like that. I've run out multiple sims a few decades, and what I have observed is that development seems arbitrary, as I have indicated in my previous posts. I don't really wanna test the game, I want to play it.

I saw in this thread that some users were seeing the same thing I was, so I wanted to respond and add my voice in the hope that the more people who bring it up, maybe the devs will respond and let us know how it works. Maybe I need to run more sims or I am having incredibly bad luck developing prospects.

I'm not looking for the meta, or a power up, or guaranteed results. Heck, if I wanted that I can just play in commish mode and edit everyone.

In the game, as the GM, or Farm Director, or whatever you want to call it, I can hire and fire people, allocate resources to development, focus development on specific things, and so on. It stands to reason that the more money I throw at development, and the higher ratings my coaches and scout have, the more productive my minor league system should be in developing talent over the long haul. I don't mean every player is going to be 5 star, or an 80, or however you want to quantify it. I And I, and others, aren't seeing it.

If there was a design decision to make player development more of a crapshoot and have the tweaks I make mean less, that's fine, I can either adjust how I play OOTP to account for it, play an earlier version, or just go do something else.

I think the devs mentioned in a previous post they are still working on tweaking values to account for more outliers. Maybe that will address what I am seeing.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

I would like to believe that one through Development Focus can "try" to change the development path of a player, but I have read several people who have not observed significant changes in this issue, to the point of recommending that the AI be handled for all players.

Users can test and decide based on whatever they think their test shows. I'd take their tests with a grain of salt. I'm not saying they aren't seeing exactly what they report, but with regard to this brand new feature what is significant? What should one expect? Hard questions to answer without knowing the underlying code. Also does one even want to know the exact changes the code will deliver? I'm sure some do, while others like me would prefer that to remain hidden by fog of war. That's my humble opinion.

The only testing I have done on development focus (not the lab) is to "ask the AI" before making any changes. From what I have seen in those recommendations I would not allow the AI to make decisions on players I care about. Way to extreme for my taste and often take away from areas I would never take away from. I don't think I have kept one of the AI recommended development programs on any player I look on as a possible MLBer. For players I don't care about I will ask the AI, and sometimes use it's plan, thinking maybe I'll catch lighting in a bottle, but I'm not holding my breath.


As to what the developer has said?

Will Beh's response..

Originally Posted by Will Beh

Granted, this implementation of the AI is brand new, and I am 100% sure that people will be able to better optimize it. It's possible that the crappy development report you got is just unlucky; I still recommend manually changing it for players you are invested it.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

I continue to search for evidence that is the case.

Can you quantify further how you are evaluating this?

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The nature of the game is that there isn't going to be specific evidence. The engine isn't open to the point where it tells you exactly why a player gets better/worse. I don't think most people want that, but maybe I am wrong.

The evidence is the developers various explanations of how things work as well as the descriptions of the various options that are available in the game.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Cluboris

I don't have charts or spreadsheets or anything like that. I've run out multiple sims a few decades, and what I have observed is that development seems arbitrary, as I have indicated in my previous posts. I don't really wanna test the game, I want to play it.

I'm just trying to understand how it feels arbitrary?

What would need to happen to feel like you are having an influence? What made you feel like you had influence in previous versions that is not there in this version?

[Daniel_09]

Also reading this specific thread I have realized that there are many people that maybe don't want real results but results to what they want (which is fine) or what they were used to with the previous versions.

Personally, I prefer the results that this version is giving to the previous ones, although from the first day of simulation is a fictitious world, I want that world to have the trends of the real world in terms of player talent.

And if one analyzes all the current MLB teams one realizes that 70% or more of the rosters are composed of average and below average players (2.0 WAR or less per season of 162 games). Which brings us to players between 35-50 on the 20-80 scale.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Rain King

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The nature of the game is that there isn't going to be specific evidence. The engine isn't open to the point where it tells you exactly why a player gets better/worse. I don't think most people want that, but maybe I am wrong.

The evidence is the developers various explanations of how things work as well as the descriptions of the various options that are available in the game.

There is nothing quantifiable in your response I’m sorry to say. I do truly wish I could just take the developer’s word for it.

The developers touted this a big enhancement to the game. There is a sticky post at the top that was quoted a few posts ago. Here is another quote from that post:

- Being 10 points below the halfway mark is actually more detrimental in terms of the probabilities than it is beneficial to be 10 points above the halfway mark

I had run this before, but I couldn’t find an example with Jackson earlier. So I just opened up the 2024 save I posted earlier, turned all the sliders down to zero and locked them, and then ran the sim through the end of 2029. Here is what zero focus Holliday looks like - remember these are the editor values, his true quantifiable development:

BABIP 468/463
AK 423/415
Contact 461/461
Gap 437/432
Power 431/426
Eye 486/477
Speed 171
Range 141
Error 145
Arm 105
DP 125
OF Range 108
OF Error 127
OF Arm 100

Now maybe turning all the sliders to zero turns it off for the player? Don’t know. Maybe despite me applying a big “detriment” to all the probabilities he just overcame that on every roll of the dice and game of rock, paper, scissors.

Maybe their big enhancement is a waste of time? Maybe they don’t understand how it actually works because no one tested it well? Maybe it just sounded good for marketing purposes?

Lots of questions, but the only quantifiable data I can find is that unless a player gets injured, they seem to have a pretty small set of possible outcomes no matter what you do.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

Also reading this specific thread I have realized that there are many people that maybe don't want real results but results to what they want (which is fine) or what they were used to with the previous versions.

Personally, I prefer the results that this version is giving to the previous ones, although from the first day of simulation is a fictitious world, I want that world to have the trends of the real world in terms of player talent.

And if one analyzes all the current MLB teams one realizes that 70% or more of the rosters are composed of average and below average players (2.0 WAR or less per season of 162 games). Which brings us to players between 35-50 on the 20-80 scale.

It really has nothing to do with in game results to me. You can run the same sim over and over and get different in game stats, which is how it should be.

I want more control in setting an organization philosophy. I believed that is what they were offering this year with how they presented the focus. If I want to concentrate on power at the detriment of speed - go for it! If I want every player in the organization to have the same routine and it ruins every one of them - my bad!

That is not what we got based on 3 weeks of play.

I could not care less about in game graphics - it is a crude visualization of some dice rolls. I hold no grudge against those that do. I want to experiment with organization building in different ways. It looked like 2025 might be a step forward in that regard, but while the lab does seem to work to nudge players in a direction, the focus really doesn’t do anything, and I find that disappointing.

[Rain King]

If you are specifically talking about development focus. Here is information directly from the developer who implemented it.

It is a subtle passive system, on the scale of coaching influence, so it may be hard to see a clearly noticeable impact. I would personally spend about as much time on setting player focus as I would spend on getting good coaches. I would probably set it for my major league roster, for top prospects, and for a few intriguing guys. However, you can set it for your entire organization if you would like.
- Once you set a player's focus manually, don't forget to tick the lock checkbox to prevent the AI from changing it. The AI control options can be found in the manager settings, and you can give the AI control over setting the focus for your minor league players, major league players, or both.

It sounds like some want it to have a lot more of an impact than it actually does.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Rain King

If you are specifically talking about development focus. Here is information directly from the developer who implemented it.



It sounds like some want it to have a lot more of an impact than it actually does.

Absolutely. If the outcomes of every player are predetermined no matter what inputs we put in, what exactly is the point. That’s not playing a game, that is reviewing the results of a programmer’s inputs.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

Absolutely. If the outcomes of every player are predetermined no matter what inputs we put in, what exactly is the point. That’s not playing a game, that is reviewing the results of a programmer’s inputs.

They aren't. It is pretty ridiculous to believe so.

However, Jackson Holiday is not going to become a different player based on his development focus. That isn't the point of this feature either. It is to give a "subtle passive" nudge and "may be hard to see a clearly noticeable impact".

The development is still going to be impacted the most by their potential ratings, age, and luck...and then secondarily by a big soup of personality, coaching, focus, and I'm sure some other stuff I'm not thinking of at the top of my head.

[FantasyDrafter]

I’m not going to bore everyone with every player in a sim - I will simply say it is not just him, he was used because everyone knows him and has an idea of what they think he will become. He was actually on a different team in every one of those sims, with different coaches, owners, budgets, focus, etc. The raw numbers change a bit, but always the same general bucket, even if I, in the developers words, apply a significant detriment to him. This time might have actually been his best development depending on how you look at it.

I honestly, not kidding, think it is great if you are happy. I may try stat only this year or something so I can attempt to fool myself if they don’t give this a nudge. Maybe I have just seen this collection of spreadsheets over the years too many times and I’m bored with what OOTP is. Without question I am disappointed with how this is implemented as a pointless time suck.

[Rain King]

IMO, if this feature was implemented to be as strong as you seem to want it to be...it would be game breaking.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Rain King

It sounds like some want it to have a lot more of an impact than it actually does.

This has always been the danger of implementing a user system to influence and train players. These type of changes aren't easy in real life, nor should they be in OOTP. If throwing money at development were the key to success everyone would do it..... successfully. Yes, spending money should have the possibility of moving the needle, but it shouldn't guarantee improvement whether large or small.

Originally Posted by Rain King

IMO, if this feature was implemented to be as strong as you seem to want it to be...it would be game breaking.

Exactly, and "game breaking" is what I feared most when the feature was announced.