Patch #2 - Development Report

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

No, because internally the ratings are on a 1-200 scale, so in your case, he would go from 70 to 80, and this does not happen since he improves by single steps

I know he won't go from 70 to 80 (actually, isn't it 60-69 to get a 7 rating? anyway...) in a single step, but there is a threshold, right? I mean, At one point my player will be a 7, and at another point he'll be an 8. At point, the number being shown will change from one to another, and even though it's only a very small change in the player's actual performance, but as I hopefully described accurately here, on a 1-5, 2-8 or 1-10 scale, a point changing is something huge - it can change radically player expectancy. Basically, what I mean is that you can have a continuous process (on a small scale) and have absolutely no way to figure it out until ratings change. On a 1-5 scale, you can go from 101 to, say, 139 very slowly, and still have a 3 rating, and never notice it. But, then, you go from 139 to 141 and you suddenly become a 4. Someone playing on a 100-point rating scale will see the player constantly improving his ratings, but someone playing with a 1-5 scale will see the guy at 3 for years and then see him at 4 - the threshold reached by the player is hugely important to his evaluation.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that even if they don't change drastically, the ratings that are shown do change, players go from a 7 to an 8 at one particular point in time even if the underlying 200-scale ratings change more smoothly, which is a good thing. But, if you don't see that 200-point scale, you can still see the guy, on one particular date, go from a 7 to an 8, which can have big implications on a 1-10 or 2-8 scale. It would be nice, at least in my opinion, to have a log of all the shown rating changes. I hope you understand what I mean now . That said, once again, the development report you're suggesting is still something I'll be using, and it's a fine addition.

[Ambermonk]

Good Job. Can't wait to get it in my hands.

[cody8200]

People ask and Markus listens. Typical Markus.

[SittingDuck]

He's very good at that.

Well done, Markus.

[Base Stealer]

I really like this!!! Thanks!!!

[gordyhulten]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

No... this would be way too complicated, and not needed IMO.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but I really hope that this report is generated with all the other HTML reports for online leagues, etc.

And I second the request to have this information included in CSV dumps.

[NomarHits400]

Sounds great! Is there any chance we could view "draft classes" in this report? I think it would be neat to evaluate your drafts years later.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I know he won't go from 70 to 80 (actually, isn't it 60-69 to get a 7 rating? anyway...) in a single step, but there is a threshold, right? I mean, At one point my player will be a 7, and at another point he'll be an 8. At point, the number being shown will change from one to another, and even though it's only a very small change in the player's actual performance, but as I hopefully described accurately here, on a 1-5, 2-8 or 1-10 scale, a point changing is something huge - it can change radically player expectancy. Basically, what I mean is that you can have a continuous process (on a small scale) and have absolutely no way to figure it out until ratings change. On a 1-5 scale, you can go from 101 to, say, 139 very slowly, and still have a 3 rating, and never notice it. But, then, you go from 139 to 141 and you suddenly become a 4. Someone playing on a 100-point rating scale will see the player constantly improving his ratings, but someone playing with a 1-5 scale will see the guy at 3 for years and then see him at 4 - the threshold reached by the player is hugely important to his evaluation.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that even if they don't change drastically, the ratings that are shown do change, players go from a 7 to an 8 at one particular point in time even if the underlying 200-scale ratings change more smoothly, which is a good thing. But, if you don't see that 200-point scale, you can still see the guy, on one particular date, go from a 7 to an 8, which can have big implications on a 1-10 or 2-8 scale. It would be nice, at least in my opinion, to have a log of all the shown rating changes. I hope you understand what I mean now . That said, once again, the development report you're suggesting is still something I'll be using, and it's a fine addition.

I understand what you're saying, and certainly respect your desire for this type of information. However, it certainly wouldn't be realistic. A player irl progresses gradually. He doesn't one day go from a 7 to an 8 in contact. You cannot pinpoint the exact time in his progression when he went from 7 to 8, you just notice it over a period of time.

This is how I see these reports working, much like real life.

[SittingDuck]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I understand what you're saying, and certainly respect your desire for this type of information. However, it certainly wouldn't be realistic. A player irl progresses gradually. He doesn't one day go from a 7 to an 8 in contact. You cannot pinpoint the exact time in his progression when he went from 7 to 8, you just notice it over a period of time.

This is how I see these reports working, much like real life.

By the same token, this very priniciple - sudden talent change - was a HOT honking topic a few months ago in the ootp8 general discussions forum, and from the standpoint of massive, quick talent drops.

Progression or regression, unless via injury, is always a gradual thing. I think ootp9 does it much better now.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I understand what you're saying, and certainly respect your desire for this type of information. However, it certainly wouldn't be realistic. A player irl progresses gradually. He doesn't one day go from a 7 to an 8 in contact. You cannot pinpoint the exact time in his progression when he went from 7 to 8, you just notice it over a period of time.

This is how I see these reports working, much like real life.

I agree with you that it's not realistic, but in OOTP, the player does go from 7 to 8 in contact on one day (whenever he goes from 69 to 70 on a 200 scale, or whatever). And, since it does happen in OOTP that players go from a 7 to an 8 drastically, doesn't it make sense to have a log of all such changes?

Even if, in fact, going from a 7 to an 8 in this case would be minimal (1 point on a 200 scale), it makes a colossal difference for people playing with small scales, as I pointed out in the link provided in the post you quoted. If you play with a 1-5 scale and your player goes from 139 to 141, he'll go from a 3 to a 4. Of course, the "real" change is minimal, 2 points out of 200. But, the thing is, the owner doesn't know that. When the owner saw a 3 in contact, he'd estimate that it's about a 120, but it could be as low as 101 and as high as 140, or whatever. But, by seeing the 4, which is only a minimal actual change, his perception radically changes - a 4 means that the player is 20 points higher than you'd expect, possibly 40 more than you thought. Basically, what I mean is this: with rating scales 10 and under, every "shown" rating change really matters, and that's why I'd like to see a log of these changes. It's unrealistic, of course, but that's how OOTP works, players do go from 7 to 8 on one particular day in OOTP, and I as well as others would really like to be able to see a list of these changes. Besides, what Markus is offering here, which is a big step in the right direction (it would still be great for online leaguers, say, to be able to see what happened in the past sim, development-wise, which isn't possible now; perhaps eventually, who knows! I think it'd be a great addition anyway), is also "unrealistic" by your standards - I honestly really don't mind.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I agree with you that it's not realistic, but in OOTP, the player does go from 7 to 8 in contact on one day (whenever he goes from 69 to 70 on a 200 scale, or whatever). And, since it does happen in OOTP that players go from a 7 to an 8 drastically, doesn't it make sense to have a log of all such changes?

Even if, in fact, going from a 7 to an 8 in this case would be minimal (1 point on a 200 scale), it makes a colossal difference for people playing with small scales, as I pointed out in the link provided in the post you quoted. If you play with a 1-5 scale and your player goes from 139 to 141, he'll go from a 3 to a 4. Of course, the "real" change is minimal, 2 points out of 200. But, the thing is, the owner doesn't know that. When the owner saw a 3 in contact, he'd estimate that it's about a 120, but it could be as low as 101 and as high as 140, or whatever. But, by seeing the 4, which is only a minimal actual change, his perception radically changes - a 4 means that the player is 20 points higher than you'd expect, possibly 40 more than you thought. Basically, what I mean is this: with rating scales 10 and under, every "shown" rating change really matters, and that's why I'd like to see a log of these changes. It's unrealistic, of course, but that's how OOTP works, players do go from 7 to 8 on one particular day in OOTP, and I as well as others would really like to be able to see a list of these changes. Besides, what Markus is offering here, which is a big step in the right direction (it would still be great for online leaguers, say, to be able to see what happened in the past sim, development-wise, which isn't possible now; perhaps eventually, who knows! I think it'd be a great addition anyway), is also "unrealistic" by your standards - I honestly really don't mind.

No, it doesn't make sense to me at all. There is no diffinitive time that a player actually goes from 7 to 8, irl. The only reason there is a definitive date in OOTP is because it's a computer game and has to change on a certain day. Markus sais it's gradual, and I agree it should be this way.

I would not use it if it were set as definitive just because a mathematical machine has to use a definitive day.


Oh, and BTW - Laraque is a great signing.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by BruceM

No, it doesn't make sense to me at all. There is no diffinitive time that a player actually goes from 7 to 8, irl. The only reason there is a definitive date in OOTP is because it's a computer game and has to change on a certain day. Markus sais it's gradual, and I agree it should be this way.

I would not use it if it were set as definitive just because a mathematical machine has to use a definitive day.


Oh, and BTW - Laraque is a great signing.

We've had the "realism" vs. "comprehensiveness" discussion before - some of us prefer the game to include real-life limitations, while some find it foolish not to be able to benefit from things that software can offer because real GMs can't. That's what led to the choice between a dynamic and a yearly prospect report. I don't think we'll settle this debate now, anyway . I'm of the second category, I believe that if ratings change in OOTP (and they do, of course), it makes sense to have a screen that lists when anyone's rating change. Such information is available anyway (you can click on any player and see if his ratings are the same as yesterday, it's just very, very inconvenient, and some of us would love to be able to see that. Of course, many people wouldn't have any use for that screen, but I don't have any use for current MLB rosters or the scouting system, so I just don't use them .


And Laraque's an awful signing. There's already a surplus of players on the 4th line, especially if Sundin signs (Laraque takes potential money away at possibly signing Sundin). Laraque, Lapierre, Bégin, Kostopoulos, Chipchura, D'Agostini, perhaps Dandenault... that's an awful lot of people for three spots. Plus, a 3-year contract at 1.5mil? Too long a term, too highly paid for a guy who could spend a lot of time as a healthy scratch.

[Charley575]

Excellent! Much more than I would have asked for or expected. Thanks!

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I have just coded the new development report which will be introduced in patch #2 . . . I hope you like this

Cheers,
Markus

Gosh.

These are the things that make statements like this,

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...387-post8.html

a complete mockery. Will I ever be free of OOTP?

Must . . . throw . . . off . . . this . . . yoke . . . of . . . OOTP . . . tyranny . . . [struggles, groans, whimpers] . . . unnhh . . .

Alas. I must, but I cannot.

[cnield]

Yes! Awesome awesome awesome.

[NCBeachBum]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

LF Scott Roberts for example really developed into a quality player in the past 3 seasons

Aww, shucks...

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, in OOTP 9 there is no 'as they happen'... it's a flowing development, no sudden changes. That's the reason why the old report was gone in the first place

This would seem to be a problem. Ultimately, it's about ratings movement. Talent movement is "just" the raw mechanism OOTP uses to adjust future performance change. Maybe it no longer works this way, but in previous versions, the gap between ratings and potential was a strong indicator of growth rate--A guy with a 25 rating and a 150 potential would grow faster than a guy with a 25 rating and a 75 potential.

Changing talent/potential only very slowly is not a very good response to the cries over v2007/8's aggressive talent engine. You still want to include big talent changes so that you can have big rating changes happen quickly (or you want to totally revamp the development engine to accommodate this, but that's a water-under-the-bridge discussion that I'll no longer get into.

The big issue with the v2007/8 talent development engine was not really with the size of the swings...it was with the raw number of them, and the fact that a player would get big hits in all or many categories at once. Very few real life players get hits or develop in all categories at once. Steve Blass is an exception that "proves" the issue with OOTP's aggression...everyone talks about Blass's control issue, but if you plot his K/BF and HR/BF ratios as well as his bB/BF ratio you see he took major ratings hits in every OOTP category and immediately became useless. So OOTP was creating a bunch of Steve Blasses because it hit all or many categories with big swings and ratings woudl quickly go into the drink.

Instead, OOTP's model should have maintained big swings, but reduced their occurrence and limited them most of the time to only 1 rating category.

There exists quite a bit of evidence that real players do undergo fairly big changes to individual "rating categories" in short time periods. Mike Piazza's BABIP fell off the table at one point (though his power hung on and he was still a really good player). Sandy Koufax's control improved dramatically just before he became a legend, etc, etc. Hitters tend to develop and age in fairly smooth arcs, but a _lot_ of pitchers show evidence of dramatic change (Do a curve on Steve Carlton's strikeout rate for a really interesting one). I can go on and on with examples of players (mostly pitchers) who took big changes in ratings in single seasons.

Regardless, thanks for the dev report.

And, yeah, it really does need to be in HTML if you want to provide real support for online leagues. And yeah, we really do want to see every change...I think.

[statfreak]

It's a nice looking report and I'm glad something is being included. I still agree with Long Long Long Name and RonCo though.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Instead, OOTP's model should have maintained big swings, but reduced their occurrence and limited them most of the time to only 1 rating category.

That's still the case in OOTP 9, only the swing does not happen in a single day now, but rather in a time frame of 3-12 months. The # of talent drops is now reduced considerably as well, especially those not tied to injuries.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

The # of talent drops is now reduced considerably as well, especially those not tied to injuries.

This is precisely why a league-wide report is needed. Many, many people have been frustrated with this for a very long time. A league-wide report of some sort would go a very long way toward assuaging those many concerns. And keep in mind that there's a significant contingent that plays multiplayer only, and would therefore need to see it in an HTML report.