Quote:
Originally Posted by joefromchicago
Pitchers, on the other hand, can't be forced to develop a new pitch the way a position player can be forced to play a new position. There's actually a good reason for that: dictating pitch development would make it too easy to "game" things and would give the human player too big of an advantage over the AI. That's because, in OOTP, a pitcher with only two pitches can never become a starter (unless one of those pitches is a knuckle ball). So the human player can look at the draft class and say "hey, there's a reliever with high stamina and two good pitches. If he can just develop a decent third pitch, he'd make a pretty good starter!" The AI, on the other hand, sees that pitcher and says "oh look, a slightly above-average middle reliever. I'll pass."
So unless the AI can be taught how to develop players the same way the human player would, I don't see much change in this area of the game.
|
I probably wasn't entirely clear with my first post. I wouldn't want a high development budget to just be a license to ask any player to develop a third pitch. Rather, that a high development budget would make it more likely that the GM would be informed about the possibility of a player's ABILITY to develop a third pitch or make another change, and give you the option to act on that information. I definitely would not want to give the human player an(other) unfair advantage over the AI, and hopefully the AI could be taught to target players that have the potential to improve, or act on the information that it's given by the scouting/development team.