Quote:
Originally Posted by David Watts
Which recalc do you prefer, 1 year, 3 year or 5 year? Do you use a combo of recalc and the development engine? Or, do you prefer to turn recalc off altogether and go strictly with the OOTP development engine?
I've always preferred 1 year recalc over 3 and 5. I like the rollercoaster ride. I want Roger Maris to have the chance to hit 61 home runs, not 44.34 or 34.40  I know it's all in my head, but too often when I use 3 or 5 year it seems like players have the same season back to back and sometimes even back to back to back etc. Now 1 year does have it's faults. A player can win a Cy Young award in your league one year and end up pitching at the bottom of his teams bullpen the next, due to real life injuries or set backs.
I often wonder if injuries are even needed when using recalc especially 1 year recalc. The make bad settings often cripple guys enough as is. But, I do enjoy the storyline injuries provide a league
I do leave the OOTP development engine on as well. I think the combo of recalc and the development engine is the way to go when you aren't having players miss seasons and retire according to history.
. |
Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but wouldn't 1-year re-calc be "more predictable" rather than as much of a roller coaster/randomnes as you mention? Since you know how the player did that particular year, he will likely do near the same in your current year as well, no?
Whereas if it's 3 or 5 years (especially without double weighted), they may or may not have higher ratings based on more variables (years) than just 1.