Best aging/development modifiers for current build

PSUColonel · 12-15-2006, 10:04 PM

there are lots of discussions out there about what the suggested numbers are, but each of these suggestions seem to come at a time prior to the latest build of OOTP 2006. What are the best numbers currently? No one has seemed to come to a consensus as in previous versions.

Curtis · 12-16-2006, 12:55 PM

Batter aging at 0.900, development at 0.700. The suggestion has been made that pitchers' careers are too long under the current build, but I don't find it so, so I just stick with 1.000/1.000.

PSUColonel · 12-16-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curtis

Batter aging at 0.900, development at 0.700. The suggestion has been made that pitchers' careers are too long under the current build, but I don't find it so, so I just stick with 1.000/1.000.

on average, how long would you say pitchers last?

Curtis · 12-16-2006, 03:03 PM

According to Seviien, about a year longer than they do in real life. I'll have to take his word for it because none of my leagues have lasted long enough to test that. (Oops!) In the three months since he posted his latest development/aging numbers no one has written in to say that that don't work, which is… encouraging, but hardly definitive. I should note that he recommeneds using something like 1.500 for pitchers (I don't know exactly) in order to age them out of the league faster.

You could try going to the member list, looking up Seviien and searching under 'threads started' for something similar to 'Player Aging/Development Modifiers' begun around June of this year. Good luck.

(Say, isn't it 1998 Yankees responsibility to handle these sorts of queries? Where DID that boy get off to?)

Raidergoo · 12-16-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curtis

According to Seviien, about a year longer than they do in real life.

I can confirm that. There's a good deal of math that got done on this issue, and the short version is that pitchers last a touch too long with the defaults, and a little less so when using his numbers. I had a long series of posts right as 1.0.3 was coming out on this topic chock full of anecdotal evidence.

bp_ · 12-17-2006, 09:09 AM

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=128090

PSUColonel · 12-17-2006, 11:10 AM

Is pitching modifiers at 3.000 & 4.000 to high? I have seen SO many opinions on this.

lynchjm24 · 12-17-2006, 11:37 AM

I appreciate the work those guys have done, but the whole thing is so damn confusing that I gave up. Hopefully this actually becomes part of the beta testing process so that the community doesn't have to fend for itself with all these moving parts.

PineTar · 12-17-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I appreciate the work those guys have done, but the whole thing is so damn confusing that I gave up. Hopefully this actually becomes part of the beta testing process so that the community doesn't have to fend for itself with all these moving parts.

I thought the beta testing process was just a rouse for testers to push inclusion of new pet features. You mean they actually look to see if existing features actually work or could be improved upon?

Raidergoo · 12-17-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PineTar

I thought the beta testing process was just a rouse for testers to push inclusion of new pet features. You mean they actually look to see if existing features actually work or could be improved upon?

That added zero value to the conversation.

Aging got looked at repeatedly, and is major continuing focus. The aging curve for 2006 is better than 6.5, and 2007 will be better than 2006.

lynchjm24 · 12-17-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

That added zero value to the conversation.

Aging got looked at repeatedly, and is major continuing focus. The aging curve for 2006 is better than 6.5, and 2007 will be better than 2006.

Depends on what kind of league you are playing. Maybe for a 30 team league it's better - although it doesn't seem better to me on default.

I tried to play an 8 team fictional league and it was unplayable the aging was so bad. I tried to use the factors in the threads but that just made things worse.

This is another case of all the 'great flexibility' causes problems as clearly the default numbers aren't great and to use the league I wanted to use I would spend more time testing then playing.

PineTar · 12-18-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

That added zero value to the conversation.

Aging got looked at repeatedly, and is major continuing focus. The aging curve for 2006 is better than 6.5, and 2007 will be better than 2006.

Note to self: Next time, open up a new thread when you want to rip the beta testing process.

Thanks goo!

Raidergoo · 12-18-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PineTar

Note to self: Next time, open up a new thread when you want to rip the beta testing process.

Thanks goo!

You are welcome.

Who does the beta testing?

It would be the people who write the 3rd party apps, write the custom schedules, mod the Lehman database, write the news and text stories, run the online leagues, host the mod sites, write the manual and game guide, and troubleshoot the litany of errors.

That's a winning play, ripping them that is.

BigCity · 12-18-2006, 01:42 PM

Testing software is a difficult task, and VERY time consuming. Add to that the reality that every change or modification to fix one thing can effect areas you already tested, and it drives you up a wall some days.

Criticism, on the other hand, of those that spent their time (for the price of a game) can only come from those that have never done it.

Having been involved in testing OOTP for 3 of the 5 versions I've played, I will certainly admit we missed a number of things, and always ran out of time. On the other hand, we not only helped bring the games to market - we stuck it out over the following months to continue testing the patches.

It's one of those "no one wins" situations, I guess.

12-15-2006, 10:04 PM	#1
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,134	Best aging/development modifiers for current build there are lots of discussions out there about what the suggested numbers are, but each of these suggestions seem to come at a time prior to the latest build of OOTP 2006. What are the best numbers currently? No one has seemed to come to a consensus as in previous versions.

12-17-2006, 09:09 AM	#6
bp_ Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 2,804	http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=128090 __________________ Commish: Over The Mound

12-16-2006, 12:55 PM	#2
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	Batter aging at 0.900, development at 0.700. The suggestion has been made that pitchers' careers are too long under the current build, but I don't find it so, so I just stick with 1.000/1.000.

12-16-2006, 03:03 PM	#4
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	According to Seviien, about a year longer than they do in real life. I'll have to take his word for it because none of my leagues have lasted long enough to test that. (Oops!) In the three months since he posted his latest development/aging numbers no one has written in to say that that don't work, which is… encouraging, but hardly definitive. I should note that he recommeneds using something like 1.500 for pitchers (I don't know exactly) in order to age them out of the league faster. You could try going to the member list, looking up Seviien and searching under 'threads started' for something similar to 'Player Aging/Development Modifiers' begun around June of this year. Good luck. (Say, isn't it 1998 Yankees responsibility to handle these sorts of queries? Where DID that boy get off to?)

12-17-2006, 11:10 AM	#7
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,134	Is pitching modifiers at 3.000 & 4.000 to high? I have seen SO many opinions on this.

12-17-2006, 11:37 AM	#8
lynchjm24 All Star Reserve Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hartford Posts: 978 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	I appreciate the work those guys have done, but the whole thing is so damn confusing that I gave up. Hopefully this actually becomes part of the beta testing process so that the community doesn't have to fend for itself with all these moving parts.

12-18-2006, 01:42 PM	#14
BigCity All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Shore, Great Lakes Posts: 1,386	Testing software is a difficult task, and VERY time consuming. Add to that the reality that every change or modification to fix one thing can effect areas you already tested, and it drives you up a wall some days. Criticism, on the other hand, of those that spent their time (for the price of a game) can only come from those that have never done it. Having been involved in testing OOTP for 3 of the 5 versions I've played, I will certainly admit we missed a number of things, and always ran out of time. On the other hand, we not only helped bring the games to market - we stuck it out over the following months to continue testing the patches. It's one of those "no one wins" situations, I guess.