Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel
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?
|
I’ve always found the AI too be too slow to promote top prospects, in what you have seen, what is the best setup to have the AI disregard middling talents and actually give playing time to top prospects?