Ratings go up, Ratings go down...

[tjw4]

I have tried long and hard to minimize the downturn in ratings of my best players while trying to maximize the uptick for all others.

I am sure everyone tries this, I have noticed something similar amongst my players that seem to go up and down.


1) I have found that players that are attempting to learn a new position or are playing poor defense at their non prime position tend to lose batting skills.

2) Players playing the same position with defensive superiority seem to get a rise in their batting skills.

3) Players with normal or worse loyalty seem to lose offensive skills greater.

4) Work Ethic and Intelligence appear to slow or increase the gains but don't appear to prevent players from going down in potential ratings if they are playing poor defense.

Has anyone else found anything similar or completely different.

I realize I can alter the games engine, but this is more for my online leagues where things are set in stone and I want to minimize risks while maximizing rewards.

[The Wolf]

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that."

[RchW]

Originally Posted by tjw4

I have tried long and hard to minimize the downturn in ratings of my best players while trying to maximize the uptick for all others.

I am sure everyone tries this, I have noticed something similar amongst my players that seem to go up and down.


1) I have found that players that are attempting to learn a new position or are playing poor defense at their non prime position tend to lose batting skills.

2) Players playing the same position with defensive superiority seem to get a rise in their batting skills.

3) Players with normal or worse loyalty seem to lose offensive skills greater.

4) Work Ethic and Intelligence appear to slow or increase the gains but don't appear to prevent players from going down in potential ratings if they are playing poor defense.

Has anyone else found anything similar or completely different.

Can't say I've ever seen these exact matches. I don't think there is any directly predictable cause and effect connection. The interrelation is far more complex than that. I think the single biggest mistake made by players of this game is an overreliance on personal attributes to predict results. Talent/skills skills/talent whatever way you rank them wins. It's on the second and third tier talent where these attributes may provide additional value.

Originally Posted by tjw4

I realize I can alter the games engine, but this is more for my online leagues where things are set in stone and I want to minimize risks while maximizing rewards.

I don't think you can alter the game engine at all. You might be able to massage it slightly by using players where they are most effective. The AI is not as adept at that skill or other human skills like taking risks. I don't understand the "set in stone" reference to online leagues. Online leagues are wildly variant because human players change the talent distribution far more than a solo league with similar settings. You tend to see some strange distributions of output as a result.

Last but not least; if you minimize risk you will never maximize results. That remains true in every endeavour.

[tjw4]

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't understand the "set in stone" reference to online leagues. Online leagues are wildly variant because human players change the talent distribution far more than a solo league with similar settings. You tend to see some strange distributions of output as a result.

Last but not least; if you minimize risk you will never maximize results. That remains true in every endeavour.

What I meant here was that if I play offline I can adjust the slider for player growth variation. In online leagues the commissioner is in charge of that and I have no influence into it. I like variability in prospects and players but I would like to gain an advantage over opponents.

[jaysdailydose]

I mean, I haven't tracked any date on it, but everything seems to make sense, except maybe the loyalty part... A player playing his natural defensive position, for example, wouldn't have to put in extra effort towards his defense and would be able to watch more film of his swing or the upcoming pitcher, hypothetically, of course.

I generally won't take a player with bad mentals -- or I might take one on a roster full of bright, hard-working leaders, and hope it rubs off.

One thing that I will definitely concur with you on is that potentials will definitely still drop if a guy plays poor defense, but you have to remember that is because the overall and potential ratings both look at everything the player does, so if he's playing poorly defensively, its going to hurt those numbers.

I'd have to figure that you don't have the same AI Evaluation settings in your online leagues as you would a solo, either... I have so little of my evaluations from ratings and so much from stats (I use 5/67/22/6) that I am sure a few errors would definitely affect my overall and potential ratings.

I have always thought the mentals played more of a key role than they are given credit for, and I think you are definitely on the right track!

[RchW]

Originally Posted by tjw4

What I meant here was that if I play offline I can adjust the slider for player growth variation.

I have no idea what slider you mean. Not aware of any slider in v15 wrt player growth.

I'll assume you mean player development and aging settings. Yes you have control of that. Your statement suggests you would change this often? Why? If one makes too many changes of such a critical component in a short time then one can't possibly establish a strategy to compete.

Originally Posted by tjw4

In online leagues the commissioner is in charge of that and I have no influence into it.

So what? The objective of online leagues is to compete against other players. It seems obvious the game settings should be the same for all. Your challenge is to evaluate better than your competitors. I'm aware of online leagues where such settings are discussed and the GM's have input. Do you want more input than others?

Originally Posted by tjw4

I like variability in prospects and players but I would like to gain an advantage over opponents.

OK but what's the point? I like both things as well. I interpret this as suggesting you want a cheat/knowledge not available to others. If I'm wrong then please explain it so I can understand.

[jaysdailydose]

I have to admit, I don't really know what he's asking for, either...

[Lafayette53]

I don't disbelieve a lot of this per say, but do you have any wider study of data proving any of this?

For example people here used to think the Talent Change Randomness setting messed with things a lot more than it does and recommended turning it down, but when somebody posted a wider study of the data on it the attitude on the forums towards it completely changed and many people even suggest turning it way up now.

[BIG17EASY]

The only possible answer I can think of is spending more money on player development and hiring better coaches. Although, in 5-6 years of playing OOTP religiously, I've yet to see much tangible effect that coaches have on a prospect's development. But I haven't done any actual testing of that theory, so if someone has, they're welcome to correct me.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Lafayette53

I don't disbelieve a lot of this per say, but do you have any wider study of data proving any of this?

For example people here used to think the Talent Change Randomness setting messed with things a lot more than it does and recommended turning it down, but when somebody posted a wider study of the data on it the attitude on the forums towards it completely changed and many people even suggest turning it way up now.

I don't see it as a matter of believing or proof per se. Just like the posts that claim there is "too much of x", or "not enough of y", it is virtually impossible for humans to objectively discern a pattern without confirmation bias. I'd also suggest that Markus is acutely aware of patterns and takes steps to ensure that they are not easily predicted.