Quote:
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, it seems to me that a tighter distribution around average, ie 50, is more realistic. I am wondering if I should raise the TCR to have more "career years" by players.
Do players that get a big boost tend regress over time?