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

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

There are some minor things with development we're still planning to work on, including creating more outliers on the default settings. So basically creating more players who are very good very young (19-21), more players who stay very good when old (late 30's to early 40's) etc.

This would be great!

Does TCR at ≥ 150 have an impact on creating such outliers as you described?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Paul Reuschel's Mustache

This would be great!

Does TCR at ≥ 150 have an impact on creating such outliers as you described?

Maybe to a small extent, but TCR doesn't necessarily increase the ranges of the peak levels players reach so much as it just does make more 13th round picks turn into stars and more first round picks become busts (to greatly oversimplify things).

[OutS|der]

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, which pretty clearly show that enough players are developing overall.

Adjusting to the tigher ratings range is going to take some getting used to. We're conditioned to want the highest rated player at every position we can and see someone rated lower then another player as being less when in RL it doesn't work like that and more are near the average than an outlier.

[slugga27]

Originally Posted by locuspc

Just because FM is broken doesn't mean it's okay for your game to be broken too. That's not a good argument.

That’s not the point. The point is that if there is an issue, OOTP is on top of it, while FM is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by ThePride87

Guys, I'm tired

I'm tired of having supported this series for the last 8 years. I'm staring at my steam inventory....I've got OOTP 25 thru 18 in it. I'm real sick and tired of the annual major issues that plague this series. Whether it's the long term development issue of this year, or financials of OOTP 24, or the fact we had problems with OSA scouting like some 5 years back. I make fun of people who only have positive things to say, not because I hate positivity, but I hate liars. I have a problem with people who want to ball-wash OOTP and act like its perfect. It's not. I don't expect the world, I just expect that as a middle-aged man with a couple kids trying to pay the bills to make his $50 game work properly. I'm tired of people who act like it should be expected that the $50 game I just bought can't be played for a few months while they work the bugs out.

I feel this. I am someone that always pre-orders the game and always buys the game to support the devs, but I also would say this is at least the third year in a row where I got the game on release day, played a bit, and then realized there were some issues with it that caused it to not be enjoyable and that I'd have to wait for a handful of patches over weeks or even a month or two before I can just simply enjoy the game.

That's just a bummer, plain and simple.

[Rain King]

I mean, the potential alternatives are either they add very little to the game from year-to-year or they leave the bugs to be fixed until the next version instead of releasing numerous patches.

I definitely prefer how the cycle currently works to those options.

[Guthrien]

If this is a bug, it's just not one I'm noticing like some in previous years. The classes definitely seem a bit odd.. my last 2025 draft was all Relief Pitchers for the final 3 rounds. That was noticeable. They seem less populated by established talents than 24.


PS - Does anyone know the answer to this? If I increase the amount of players for the draft (right now default is 30rds of players for 20rds of draft) to, let's say 40 rds of players, will that also increase the top level talent? I'd like it to be the same "ratio" as the seed, adding a few more high potential talents, along with not getting 3rds of college Relief Pitchers.

It seemed that way in 24, but seems doesn't go that far with a statistical game.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

If this is a bug, it's just not one I'm noticing like some in previous years. The classes definitely seem a bit odd.. my last 2025 draft was all Relief Pitchers for the final 3 rounds. That was noticeable. They seem less populated by established talents than 24.

The real classes are still very much a WIP as are the bottom of the prospects lists, so there will definitely be a lot more players added here and ratings adjusted over the next couple patches as we get closer to the draft.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

PS - Does anyone know the answer to this? If I increase the amount of players for the draft (right now default is 30rds of players for 20rds of draft) to, let's say 40 rds of players, will that also increase the top level talent? I'd like it to be the same "ratio" as the seed, adding a few more high potential talents, along with not getting 3rds of college Relief Pitchers.

It seemed that way in 24, but seems doesn't go that far with a statistical game.

Yeah, it increases players throughout the draft, including top level talents proportionally.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

I feel this. I am someone that always pre-orders the game and always buys the game to support the devs, but I also would say this is at least the third year in a row where I got the game on release day, played a bit, and then realized there were some issues with it that caused it to not be enjoyable and that I'd have to wait for a handful of patches over weeks or even a month or two before I can just simply enjoy the game.

That's just a bummer, plain and simple.

Which is a perfectly valid feeling to have if these issues are ruining/lessening your enjoyment of the game.

Insulting people, calling people liars and claiming others are at fault for your lack of enjoyment as Pride did, is disrespectful and unnecessary.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

I feel this. I am someone that always pre-orders the game and always buys the game to support the devs, but I also would say this is at least the third year in a row where I got the game on release day, played a bit, and then realized there were some issues with it that caused it to not be enjoyable and that I'd have to wait for a handful of patches over weeks or even a month or two before I can just simply enjoy the game.

That's just a bummer, plain and simple.

Because they have seasonal releases, OOTP has hard deadlines that they must meet. Unless you never want them to add new features in the off-season, then there are always going to be bugs and tuning issues on the release date. Always.

You have several options:

1. Buy the new version on release date to get the sale price, convert your running saves to it, and then be upset when it's buggy or not properly tuned.

2. Buy the new version on release date to get the sale price, keep playing on the old version, and then convert your running save to the first stable patch (read the forums)

3. Don't buy the new version until the first stable patch is out.

[tonnage]

Originally Posted by uruguru

You have several options:

1. Buy the new version on release date to get the sale price, convert your running saves to it, and then be upset when it's buggy or not properly tuned.

2. Buy the new version on release date to get the sale price, keep playing on the old version, and then convert your running save to the first stable patch (read the forums)

3. Don't buy the new version until the first stable patch is out.

Exactly! Complaining about it helps nobody.

[Sweed]

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.

I import my game into each new version and continue on. This is the first version where several of my players don't look, at first glance, as good as they once did. When viewed within the context of all players in my game they are still "where they should be" and performing as they did in v24. One example is my Rookie of the Year CF in v24 was a 65/75, in v25 he imported as 55/65. His level of production is unchanged.

Please stick with this model. There may be an adjustment period for users to get used to it, but in the long run it is a good thing for the game.

[Guthrien]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Yeah, it increases players throughout the draft, including top level talents proportionally.

Thank you for clarifying, that makes logical sense to me. And I completely hear you on the draft seeds. While slightly frustrating for those final picks it's not a big deal. I still feel like the level of top talent and immediate readiness of top prospects feels a bit closer to reality than last year.

[Ratbelly]

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 clarifying this. I was under the assumption that the old grading was still at play here where a 55 to 60 was really an average big leaguer, but now that you have clarified I feel better about what I am seeing.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

Thank you for clarifying this. I was under the assumption that the old grading was still at play here where a 55 to 60 was really an average big leaguer, but now that you have clarified I feel better about what I am seeing.

Yeah, in this version a genuinely average big leaguer should be more of a 50. Maybe even a 45 in some cases.

55+ should pretty much always be pretty solidly above average.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

Thank you for clarifying this. I was under the assumption that the old grading was still at play here where a 55 to 60 was really an average big leaguer, but now that you have clarified I feel better about what I am seeing.

50 is average, OOTP has always inflated ratings. Most sports games seem to do it. Otherwise you'd see at best 10-20 players rated 80 overall at anytime and even then that's likely inflated and you'd see less.

The concept that an 80 is just one or two big leaguers at each position. Relievers max out at 60.


I use this to judge players overall

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/

[Ratbelly]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

50 is average, OOTP has always inflated ratings. Most sports games seem to do it. Otherwise you'd see at best 10-20 players rated 80 overall at anytime and even then that's likely inflated and you'd see less.

The concept that an 80 is just one or two big leaguers at each position. Relievers max out at 60.


I use this to judge players overall

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/

Right, yeah, i was used to the inflated OOTP ratings and I assumed it was still the same. Lukas set it straight.

[Hollerado]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

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

Out of curiousity, why is this?

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by tonnage

Exactly! Complaining about it helps nobody.

You guys are ridiculous.