Talent changes are terrible...

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by statfreak

the problem I have is all about the way the game handles talent. I believe talent should only go up and never be decreased. Ratings; however, should rise and fall as they currently do. So for the 4 pitchers on my roster that dropped 3 and 4 points on a 10 point scale without suffering an injury, instead of showing them going from a 7 or 8 talent to 3 or 4, just never let their actual ratings get higher than 4 or 5. Right now, the pitchers are rubbish and I knew they were rubbish the instant I saw the development report. IMO, it would be better and more realistic if I wasn't notified of their massive talent hits and I was forced to hold onto them year after year hoping/waiting for their ratings to catch up to the talent levels... only they never will. Then I would have a much more realistic choice to make... continue holding on to see if they'll ever reach their potential or release them and hope they don't get picked up and develop into the player I thought I drafted, but never materialized. This method would also save me the frustration I feel right now as every pitcher under the age 25 with a 6 or better rating has experienced a 1 to 4 point drop (using the 1-10 rating scale). It unrealistic for me to instantly know a player is now worthless and frankly it did and has caused me to quit playing the game (outside of online leagues).

You could always turn all the ratings off and play solely based on stats. Kind of like RL.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by BruceM

You could always turn all the ratings off and play solely based on stats. Kind of like RL.

no, actually I couldn't. I mean I could, but would get about as much enjoyment as I do now, which is basically zero...

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by mikev

Even following injuries and even with old age.

Talent should be looked at as the ceiling for a player's ability throughout his entire career. Ratings should be what the player is currently capable of doing.

Age and injury history should be things that you should take into consideration as a GM. Does that 34 year old pitcher with a 10 stuff talent but only a 6 rating still have something left, or is he going to continue to decline as he gets up in age? Does your star center fielder stand a chance at returning to his 10 in power even though his rating dropped to a 7 after he broke his arm?

IMO, it's fairly rare that a player's actual talent, that is the maximum performance that they are capable of, drops. Really other than Chuck Knoblauch I can't think of another guy off the top of my head who just stopped being a good player.

at least someone understands (and is better able to articulate).

[endgame]

Originally Posted by statfreak

it would be better and more realistic if I wasn't notified of their massive talent hits and I was forced to hold onto them year after year hoping/waiting for their ratings to catch up to the talent levels... only they never will. Then I would have a much more realistic choice to make... continue holding on to see if they'll ever reach their potential or release them and hope they don't get picked up and develop into the player I thought I drafted, but never materialized.

This is a good point and one I wouldn't have any trouble living with at all.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by mikev

Talent should be looked at as the ceiling for a player's ability throughout his entire career. Ratings should be what the player is currently capable of doing.

Are you implying that talents should never change at all, or just not in the negative direction?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by mikev

Even following injuries and even with old age.

Talent should be looked at as the ceiling for a player's ability throughout his entire career. Ratings should be what the player is currently capable of doing.

Age and injury history should be things that you should take into consideration as a GM. Does that 34 year old pitcher with a 10 stuff talent but only a 6 rating still have something left, or is he going to continue to decline as he gets up in age? Does your star center fielder stand a chance at returning to his 10 in power even though his rating dropped to a 7 after he broke his arm?

IMO, it's fairly rare that a player's actual talent, that is the maximum performance that they are capable of, drops. Really other than Chuck Knoblauch I can't think of another guy off the top of my head who just stopped being a good player.

Just for the heck of it, how do you define talent?

[jerrycapo]

Originally Posted by mikev

Even following injuries and even with old age.

Talent should be looked at as the ceiling for a player's ability throughout his entire career. Ratings should be what the player is currently capable of doing.

Age and injury history should be things that you should take into consideration as a GM. Does that 34 year old pitcher with a 10 stuff talent but only a 6 rating still have something left, or is he going to continue to decline as he gets up in age? Does your star center fielder stand a chance at returning to his 10 in power even though his rating dropped to a 7 after he broke his arm?

IMO, it's fairly rare that a player's actual talent, that is the maximum performance that they are capable of, drops. Really other than Chuck Knoblauch I can't think of another guy off the top of my head who just stopped being a good player.

Mark Wohlers is the first that comes to mind. Rick Ankiel is another. Usually when a player just stops being a good player it is more psychological than anything else, but it does happen. In these cases the talent did not diminish but their current skill did take quite a big hit. Both stuck around for a while afterward, with teams hoping they could regain their dominant forms.

Given the current player model though in OOTP, I am not sure how the program could make sure the talent did not exceed a certain value other than talent. Then we would have to answer the question of wanting a hidden talent rating (call it something else if you like) to accomodate the gap between the current rating and potential rating to set the new ceiling.

Or do you have another idea how the ceiling for players should be set so that not all players reach their true potential?

[injury log]

Originally Posted by statfreak

I always play with scouts and coaches turned off. Even so, wouldn't a player's talent still change when looking at their profile?

Yeah, what I'm saying only applies when scouts are turned on. With scouts on, as long as you don't scout very often and fire the head scout, the changes don't seem instantaneous, at least.

[Khrog]

Originally Posted by mikev

I agree with this completely. Talents should never drop, only ratings.

Pardon me, guys, but this kind of thinking is just plain silly. You have a disagreement in semantics or with the player development model and then claim that the whole game is broken or stinks or has development model issues!?!?!?!

With your premise, of course, you are going to see things in that light. What you honestly have is not an issue with the process working or not working, but with your assessment of the system or your hangups on semantics.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Khrog

Pardon me, guys, but this kind of thinking is just plain silly. You have a disagreement in semantics or with the player development model and then claim that the whole game is broken or stinks or has development model issues!?!?!?!

With your premise, of course, you are going to see things in that light. What you honestly have is not an issue with the process working or not working, but with your assessment of the system or your hangups on semantics.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not silly to be concerned or confused with the definitions the game is using. This is a text sim. the definitions of words are important.

[battists]

Might one suggest that "Talent" in OOTP has a more approximate definition of "projected future ratings"...?

[Khrog]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I understand what you are saying, but it's not silly to be concerned or confused with the definitions the game is using. This is a text sim. the definitions of words are important.

My pardon for how the words I "said" sounded. I was commenting on the futility that they should expect if they continue to impose their external definitions and expectations onto the OOTP 2007 terminology. They should comment that they would prefer the ratings and talent to mean otherwise separately from their current complaint.

ie...the game is actually working...

[akw4572]

If talent could NEVER change.........how would a 20th round pick ever get to the hall of fame?

[mikev]

Originally Posted by Zeyes

Are you implying that talents should never change at all, or just not in the negative direction?

Not at all, or at least very, very rarely.

Originally Posted by RonCo

Just for the heck of it, how do you define talent?

In a previous post, I put "the maximum performance a player is capable of", but that's not really accurate. I guess I view talent ratings as a player's ceiling, whatever that may be. If a power talent of 8 (on a 10 scale) equates to 30 HR power, then anybody that's got an 8 in talent is viewed as having 30+ potential, whether they actually do it or not.

Originally Posted by Khrog

Pardon me, guys, but this kind of thinking is just plain silly. You have a disagreement in semantics or with the player development model and then claim that the whole game is broken or stinks or has development model issues!?!?!?!

With your premise, of course, you are going to see things in that light. What you honestly have is not an issue with the process working or not working, but with your assessment of the system or your hangups on semantics.

Relax, man. I've never said the game is broken, stinks, or has development model issues. Hell, I beta tested 2007 and I think it's awesome. All I'm doing is discussing the way the game works and the way others see it. On a forum where the developer of the game has a presence, it's always good to do.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by statfreak

I could see talent dropping when a player gets older (35+), but why should I immediately find out a player is junk after an injury?

Paging Wade Miller, Wade Miller to the front desk...

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by mikev

Even following injuries and even with old age.

Talent should be looked at as the ceiling for a player's ability throughout his entire career. Ratings should be what the player is currently capable of doing.

Age and injury history should be things that you should take into consideration as a GM. Does that 34 year old pitcher with a 10 stuff talent but only a 6 rating still have something left, or is he going to continue to decline as he gets up in age? Does your star center fielder stand a chance at returning to his 10 in power even though his rating dropped to a 7 after he broke his arm?

IMO, it's fairly rare that a player's actual talent, that is the maximum performance that they are capable of, drops. Really other than Chuck Knoblauch I can't think of another guy off the top of my head who just stopped being a good player.

If you set the game up this way, potentials would have virtually no meaning, since to get a realistic dev model you'd need to have random ratings changes that bear little relation to potential. So you might as well turn potentials off completely.

[AD31]

My problem with the idea of making potential ratings static or only increase is that I am not sure how the AI will handle these players.

For example, I f I have a couple guys who are 24 or 25 who have not developed (and there potential has remained the same) will it be too easy to ship them to a computer AI. Or will the AI start stockpiling underachieving busted prospects because they have an inflated potential rating?

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by AD31

My problem with the idea of making potential ratings static or only increase is that I am not sure how the AI will handle these players.

For example, I f I have a couple guys who are 24 or 25 who have not developed (and there potential has remained the same) will it be too easy to ship them to a computer AI. Or will the AI start stockpiling underachieving busted prospects because they have an inflated potential rating?

I think that would be a separate AI issue, but one relatively easy to overcome. There is already a hidden 'value' rating in the game that the AI looks at. I would presume this would not change and as a result, the AI would pass on players 24 - 27 years old with low ratings, but high potentials.

I'd like to thank AD31, RonCo, mikev, endgame, and everyone else that has chosen to discuss the perceived issue rather than throw insults, veiled or direct.

We all love and want OOTP to be the best game it can be. We just have different opinions of how to get there. Unfortunately, one current aspect of the game has had such a negative affect on my playing experience that it is not enjoyable to continue playing. I am not shouting down the game or even saying how 'terrible' it is. I do think the current system is flawed and have suggested ways to make it more palatable to me (and others). Hopefully there is a middle ground that Markus can find to make the game remain enjoyable to those who like it now and bring me and others back to playing it more regularly.

Unless anyone directly addresses me, I'll refrain from making further posts on the subject.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by mikev

[regarding the number of talent changes]

Not at all, or at least very, very rarely.

Okay, then how would you deal with the part of development that currently manifests itself as talent boosts? Do you

- just put every player's talent at really high numbers, ensuring that next year OOTP players will be complaining that even more of their drafted players are seemingly becoming busts, or

- do you keep a normalized distribution of talents, ensuring that we'll be back to the early OOTP2006 complaints that it's useless to draft beyond the 3rd round or so because those players will never amount to anything anyway?

If you have a solution to those twin problems, I dare say you're holding the holy grail of the developmental engine.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Zeyes

Okay, then how would you deal with the part of development that currently manifests itself as talent boosts? Do you

- just put every player's talent at really high numbers, ensuring that next year OOTP players will be complaining that even more of their drafted players are seemingly becoming busts, or

- do you keep a normalized distribution of talents, ensuring that we'll be back to the early OOTP2006 complaints that it's useless to draft beyond the 3rd round or so because those players will never amount to anything anyway?

If you have a solution to those twin problems, I dare say you're holding the holy grail of the developmental engine.

Has anyone experienced drafting a high round draft pick that ever amounted to anything? Except for pitchers, I've never had this happen. It seems in all my drafts all the hitters with any potential are gone in the first two rounds. There's alway an abundance of pitching prospects, but none of them have any endurance. People are always talking in this forum about how normal it is for prospects to bust. I agree, but it's also normal for that 20th round draft pick to develop into a star. I'm just curious if anyone has gotten late round guys who have turned into allstars.