Change in position experience formula?

[BadluckinOOTP]

I am wondering if you guys had any thoughts on this. Currently, a player gets 1 experience point per game played at a position until he maxes out at 200, and then he has reached his highest rating at that position. Now, while I agree with the idea that roughly a season and a half is needed to really master a position, however, I don't think that every day along the way to 200 should be weighted the same.

For instance, a player rated at shortstop, but not third base should pick up third base fairly quickly. And, while there should be some growing pains as a player begins to master a position, but there is some natural athleticism and intangibles (pretending these are human beings of course) that should let the player gather a respectable rating pretty quickly.

So, my suggestion is perhaps the first 20 games at a position are worth 5 experience points a game. Then, after that it goes up by one all the way to 200. But, after 20 games (or roughly a month, both playing and practicing all the time at this position), they should he about halfway in their proficiency and at least be passable, and not a complete liability.

My apologies if this has been brought up before.

[tds787]

Is that the definitive formula?

I know I've had players that don't pick up on a new position (even simple ones like RF to LF)

[MikeS21]

I think one point improvement per game is a little quick. While some players that might be true for, other players may play a position for five seasons before they can get to 200 points. And by the time you factor in their range, arm and error factors, those players will be poor even after five seasons.

Sometimes I wonder if an "intelligence" factor could be introduced into the game, where a player has good baseball instincts. Of course, this idea may already be incorporated into the game's current AI. But some players are smarter than other and some players are denser than others.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by BadluckinOOTP

I am wondering if you guys had any thoughts on this. Currently, a player gets 1 experience point per game played at a position until he maxes out at 200, and then he has reached his highest rating at that position. Now, while I agree with the idea that roughly a season and a half is needed to really master a position, however, I don't think that every day along the way to 200 should be weighted the same.

For instance, a player rated at shortstop, but not third base should pick up third base fairly quickly. And, while there should be some growing pains as a player begins to master a position, but there is some natural athleticism and intangibles (pretending these are human beings of course) that should let the player gather a respectable rating pretty quickly.

So, my suggestion is perhaps the first 20 games at a position are worth 5 experience points a game. Then, after that it goes up by one all the way to 200. But, after 20 games (or roughly a month, both playing and practicing all the time at this position), they should he about halfway in their proficiency and at least be passable, and not a complete liability.

My apologies if this has been brought up before.

I don't know that I agree with of any that. Where is it documented that 1 game played = 1 experience point? If that were the case, everyone that played 200 games at a position would be maxed out 200 experience points and I'm not seeing that.

Also, experience does not always mean a rating is earned.

I've had players play one game at a position and earn a rating while others have played 60 and do not. A have a player with 7 range, 7 error, 5 arm, and 1 DP (1-10 scale) that has started 66 games at third base and still does not have a 3B rating. He has "High" intelligence and work ethic. The only thing I can think of is his DP is so low that it is not allowing him to earn any IF ratings despite his otherwise average to above average fielding ratings. He started as a catcher, but only has 2 ability and a 2 arm.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by MikeS21

Sometimes I wonder if an "intelligence" factor could be introduced into the game, where a player has good baseball instincts. Of course, this idea may already be incorporated into the game's current AI. But some players are smarter than other and some players are denser than others.

There is an Intelligence rating already in the game. I know for pitchers, a high intelligence allows them to learn pitches better than players with low intelligence.

I believe it is also used for learning fielding positions for position players if memory serves me correctly.

[Bluenoser]

My question exactly - where did you get the info from that says 1 game = 1 point gained? Plenty of players never learn certain positions no matter how long you play them there. Other players will pick it up quickly, and some will get a rating over an extended period.

There's no set formula in OOTP for learning new position that I'm aware of. It's just like player development - random.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

My question exactly - where did you get the info from that says 1 game = 1 point gained? Plenty of players never learn certain positions no matter how long you play them there. Other players will pick it up quickly, and some will get a rating over an extended period.

There's no set formula in OOTP for learning new position that I'm aware of. It's just like player development - random.

No, it's not random. I believe that either someone has studied this or Markus has flat out said it, but a player gets 1 experience point at a position per game, doubled in ST. The reason you don't see ratings pop up as quick is because the player's defensive ratings aren't good enough to warrant a rating at his experience level. That, or one of his defensive ratings is below the cutoff needed to have a rating at the position at all, meaning they'd never have a rating at the position.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

No, it's not random. I believe that either someone has studied this or Markus has flat out said it, but a player gets 1 experience point at a position per game, doubled in ST.

I'll have to check this, but I don't think this is true at all.

I'm certain I've had players play more than 200 games at a position and their experience is less than 150. I'll try to look and reply again this afternoon.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

No, it's not random. I believe that either someone has studied this or Markus has flat out said it, but a player gets 1 experience point at a position per game, doubled in ST. The reason you don't see ratings pop up as quick is because the player's defensive ratings aren't good enough to warrant a rating at his experience level. That, or one of his defensive ratings is below the cutoff needed to have a rating at the position at all, meaning they'd never have a rating at the position.

Do you have a quote from the "Either someone" or "Markus"?

[tds787]

Going on my warped sense of sense I wouldn't say its random whether or not a player will learn a position but at the same time there's no definitive formula to say "OK, congrats, you graduated SS, here's your diploma and a league average rating."

I've had players learn new positions, once even a fast C to a RF. I've had many players not learn positions, like I've said before even an easy LF to RF transition.

How it works doesn't really concern me either, just like how the simulation engine works. The fact that I get realistic results is fine with me

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Do you have a quote from the "Either someone" or "Markus"?

It might not be exactly 1 per game (I haven't checked myself and the discussion was ages ago), but I just remember that it was a set amount and that the amount is doubled in ST. I'm not going to dig up the discussion, as it was two or three versions ago.

[Killebrew]

Originally Posted by statfreak

... for pitchers, a high intelligence allows them to learn pitches better than players with low intelligence.

I'm doubtful of the impact of intelligence on learning pitches. In OOTP11 at least the event was extremely rare (once or twice per season, league wide) and occured even for pitchers with very low intelligence. That indicates that the feature either did not work at all or had a very fractional impact on an event that was mostly generated randomly. By that I mean maybe 99.9% random, 0.1% pitcher intelligence level. That may have changed in v13, as supposedly there are more pitch gains & losses with the focus on drafting rookie starting pitchers.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by Killebrew

I'm doubtful of the impact of intelligence on learning pitches. In OOTP11 at least the event was extremely rare (once or twice per season, league wide) and occured even for pitchers with very low intelligence. That indicates that the feature either did not work at all or had a very fractional impact on an event that was mostly generated randomly. By that I mean maybe 99.9% random, 0.1% pitcher intelligence level. That may have changed in v13, as supposedly there are more pitch gains & losses with the focus on drafting rookie starting pitchers.

RTFM noob! ( j/k )

Yes, it is still completely chance and I didn't mean for my post to be understood as high intelligence pitchers always learn pitchers while low intelligence pitchers never learn pitches.

Per the manual:

How intelligent the player is. Intelligent players have a positive effect on other players in the clubhouse, and can influence in-game decisions and player development.

So while high intelligence may help a pitcher learn a pitcher, there are too many other factors, including chance, to rely on solely the player's intelligence rating.

[Isryion]

While I wouldn't be surprised if the base number is one point p/game, it's definitely not consistent, and does seem to be based off of intelligence. I've seen players with low intelligence but the raw skills to field never gain a point or take a very, very long time to do so.