|
I have really been fooling around with these again (surprise, surprise) and I so desperately want to like 25/25/25/25...and I do to a certain point. I agree they do a great job of being "unbiased" for lack of a better word, and evaluate a player wholey they way it should be done.
If you are using the MLB setup...I am actually going to go right ahead and advocate these settings.
The only issue I see, is if you have international leagues enabled. The AI will use states from leagues such as ***, KBO & LMB and attempt (I think from what I can tell here) to compare "apples and oranges" without knowing the difference. So I decided to test some more and came to the conclusion, that yes, ratings do need to be the largest part of the evaluation...but not so overwhelmingly as I first thought.
I think a "staggered" system probably is best, and that after all of this discussion and testing...we probably had the best mix 10 years ago, when 40/30/20/10 was the overwhelming favorite AI evaluation.
40 percent ratings and 60 percent stats...yet the ratings get the lion's share of any one evaluation category. A pretty good mix actually...and the AI will better be able to compare those "apples & oranges" that are international and independent leagues. It will also take aging into more realistic consideration, as to realize ratings drops, but not act with such a knee jerk reaction that it ends up being unrealistic. Same with contracts.
SO , anyway that is my final answer, yes. lol. This has likely been one of the most hotly debated subjects on these forums over the years. As always, it's still a "do what you like" type option...but in looking for the most realistic AI behavior possible, I think it's very funny to have ended up, right where I started. Make you think huh?
|