The Annual Settings Thread

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Like you said using only potentials will foggy up the vets, so what is a good AI evaluation setting, knowing only potentials are seen by the human, while the AI still sees all?

Well the AI will still make lineup and bull pen decisions based on individual ratings even if you go 0% ratings for evaluation. The user only using potential is just another layer of fog like going from 20-80 to 2-8 or turning off ratings all together.

The game never stops using ratings (the user have the option to ignore them) all AI evaluation does is give you the tool to change how the AI values players when it comes to making trades, signings and roster decisions such as 40 man promotion/demotion. Do you want the world to view players based on performance or what scouts say and ignore performance.

I've seen the AI benched a 80 OVR player in favor of a scrub because the 80 OVR player didn't match the manager's preferences. I personally think that is ridiculous and the preferences might have too much of an effect but thats for another thread discussion.

[surly manservant]

This thread has inspired me to give stats only a go, I just have a couple of questions:

1. I like to keep things simple, I usually play small fictional leagues (12 - 16 teams) with two levels of minors (AA and Rookie). I wonder if not having enough minors will this detract from my enjoyment of stats only, should I add a third level of minors?

2. I would also prefer to play without feeders, I've seen comments here about both methods, what is the disadvantage of not using feeders?

[asheft]

Originally Posted by asheft

Exactly. Both are equally flawed, what is needed is a complete overhaul of the scouting system to represent what actual scouts do, not more arguments about which system is "better". The written reports are, as many have said, numerical representations of the "godlike" numbers. I don't understand why Wolf thinks that they are somehow better than 2-8 or 20-80 numbers on very low accuracy.

As a follow up, aren't the scouting reports actually worse in many ways? Debate the validity of the "god" ratings all you want, but I would think a number on a 13 point scale is a little more ambiguous than "I totally expect this guy to hit .280/.330/.400 with 10 home runs and 80 RBI", which is what you get quite often with the written scouting reports. Again, I'm all for an overhaul of the rating/scouting system to represent how scouts actually do their work (needing to see actual games, for instance), but I don't think it's right to claim that the written scouting reports are, assuming the same scouting accuracy settings, inherently better than the numerical ratings on a sufficiently wide scale (i.e. 2-8 or 20-80 as opposed to 1-100).

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And you can say it forever, but it will never be right.

Why not?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by asheft

As a follow up, aren't the scouting reports actually worse in many ways? Debate the validity of the "god" ratings all you want, but I would think a number on a 13 point scale is a little more ambiguous than "I totally expect this guy to hit .280/.330/.400 with 10 home runs and 80 RBI", which is what you get quite often with the written scouting reports. Again, I'm all for an overhaul of the rating/scouting system to represent how scouts actually do their work (needing to see actual games, for instance), but I don't think it's right to claim that the written scouting reports are, assuming the same scouting accuracy settings, inherently better than the numerical ratings on a sufficiently wide scale (i.e. 2-8 or 20-80 as opposed to 1-100).

It doesn't go into that much detail lol. It says things like "he'll hit .290" "don't expect no mire than 20 hr's"

If you played long enough then you can translate those words into the numbers it translate to. It's a little more vague than it is in previous versions but if you see the report say "average" or .250 then we know his contact rating is somewhere between 45-50.

[Silent_Thunder]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

It doesn't go into that much detail lol. It says things like "he'll hit .290" "don't expect no mire than 20 hr's"

If you played long enough then you can translate those words into the numbers it translate to. It's a little more vague than it is in previous versions but if you see the report say "average" or .250 then we know his contact rating is somewhere between 45-50.

The main difference is, it prevents you from going "I want to find a guy with 70-80 contact, and at least 60 power", and then start sorting through the 7 tool guys statlines to see whose personalities are gelling the best with their ratings. It's not so much that written reports are less accurate, as much as you aren't having every report in your face at all times on all screens.

You instead find a guy with a promising statline, and then check the scouting reports to FIND a seven tool guy, instead of the other way around. That's why I prefer it, it's just a more natural flow.

[asheft]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

It doesn't go into that much detail lol. It says things like "he'll hit .290" "don't expect no mire than 20 hr's"

Well, I've definitely seen the full statlines before. It's true that it isn't every time though

Originally Posted by Silent_Thunder

The main difference is, it prevents you from going "I want to find a guy with 70-80 contact, and at least 60 power", and then start sorting through the 7 tool guys statlines to see whose personalities are gelling the best with their ratings. It's not so much that written reports are less accurate, as much as you aren't having every report in your face at all times on all screens.

You instead find a guy with a promising statline, and then check the scouting reports to FIND a seven tool guy, instead of the other way around. That's why I prefer it, it's just a more natural flow.

Ok that makes sense. I can get behind and see the logic behind that method of thinking. I'm not saying that using scouting reports is worse than numerical ratings, just that it isn't inherently more accurate. Both are still susceptible to instant ratings changes over the offseason, too exact despite low scouting settings, etc.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Silent_Thunder

The main difference is, it prevents you from going "I want to find a guy with 70-80 contact, and at least 60 power", and then start sorting through the 7 tool guys statlines to see whose personalities are gelling the best with their ratings. It's not so much that written reports are less accurate, as much as you aren't having every report in your face at all times on all screens.

You instead find a guy with a promising statline, and then check the scouting reports to FIND a seven tool guy, instead of the other way around. That's why I prefer it, it's just a more natural flow.

Well yea if you want to be the head scout. As a GM I would think my scouts would have already sorted those players out for me.

Seems like more work but to each their own.

[NotMuchTime]

Originally Posted by asheft

Exactly. Both are equally flawed, what is needed is a complete overhaul of the scouting system to represent what actual scouts do, not more arguments about which system is "better". The written reports are, as many have said, numerical representations of the "godlike" numbers. I don't understand why Wolf thinks that they are somehow better than 2-8 or 20-80 numbers on very low accuracy.

I agree with OOTP scouting needing a complete overhaul.

[PSUColonel]

Yes..and I think it should be one of the premier features for version 18, as it has been long overdue

[Bub13]

Originally Posted by Spanish Lefty

I just ran another simulation with .310 aging speed and 1.300 dev speed until 2027

(snip)

Going back to this: I'm in the middle of my current season; will changing these factors now alter anything? Should I wait until the off-season? Or maybe any mid-season changes won't take effect until the off-season? Never played around with these settings before but wanting to take the chance, since I'm frustrated with the same things happening w/ 32-33 year olds all dropping off the cliff.

[hluraven]

Every version I do the same thing, play a couple of saves with ratings on (v.low accuracy etc), dominate, get bored, and try stats only.

Every version stats only is the same thing - harder work due to GUI not suiting it, more time consuming, more delegated to the ai (drafting etc), and actually easier and less game time to dominate. More real life time, but quicker in the game.

My suspicion is that the AI needs the ratings as a crutch, but as no AI in a commercial game like this can come close to a human, using 0 for the AI in analysing players just makes the game easier, as a human can spot which players are better far easier.

Fine to call stats only more realistic, in most ways it is. Fine to call it significantly harder to play in terms of the effort you have to put in, it definitely is. But easier in terms of "winning", very debatable. It should be harder, but until computer AI is a lot more developed, all stats only does is highlight that humans have more ability than the AI at OOTP.

That said, I'm just starting up a new stats only league now, maybe 17 is the version I finally stick with it, I really want to and if I can find a way to get the game difficulty up (and UI navigation difficulty down!) then I won't have to do the same pattern again.

[catcherjul]

Originally Posted by Spanish Lefty

Right now, for me the most challenging way of playing is:

- Scouting report updates: season start and end. (forces you to request a scouting report if it's trading deadline, for instance)
- Scouting accuracy: very low (varies a lot for prospects, not so much for veterans)
- Player actual ratings: none (guide yourself with stats)
- Player potential ratings 2 to 8, although for youngsters is better to read the written scouting report)
- Other player ratings: 2 to 8
- Overall and potential rating: none displayed (makes a huge difference in difficulty)

-Injury frequency: high (realistic modern day)
-Batter and pitcher aging speed: .310 (I've tried many settings, this is the good one)
-Batter and pitcher dev speed: 1.300 (it adjusts to today's number of youngster in the show)
- Talent Randomness: 150

- Trading difficulty: very hard
- Preference: Heavily favor prospects
- AI Settings: 25 / 50 / 20 / 5

Just for fun, every year, when the World Series ends, I go to the financial tab under "league settings" and multiply every cell by x1.03 to x1.05. Sometimes x1.02... others I leave it the same. Because, you know, inflation I like to see how contracts are every year a bit higher, like in real life.

Anyway, the game still has a problem with the trading difficulty. If you know what you're doing, you can get a nº1 farm system and decent team in one year.

For example, my 2017 Athletics team has gome from 27th to 1st farm system and the team is:

SP: 1.- Sonny Gray (4.4 WAR in 2016), 2.- Jarred Cosart (5.4), 3.- Collin McHugh (3.7), 4.- Sean Manaea (Rookie), 5.- Jesse Hahn (1.1)

RP: Will Harris (0.9), Nick Burdi (Rookie), Justin Nicolino (0.3), Liam Hendricks (0.8), Justin Grimm (1.8), Keone Kela (1.6), Ken Giles (1.1)

Position players: Stephen Vogt (5.5), Andrew Susac (0.9 in late promotion), Brandon Belt (4.3), Rangel Ravelo (rookie), A.J. Reed (rookie), Joe Panik (5.6), Evan Longoria (6.1), Adeiny Hechavarria (1.7), Christian Adames (rookie), Preston Tucker (2.7 in 80 games), Abraham Almonte (1.5 in 60 games), Matt Den Dekker (1.2 in 200PA), George Springer (3.8)

There is no way a real GM could change the team this way.

There has to be a change to make the AI more real, with true untradeable players like Joe Panik or Springer in this case.

Hey! Did The Wolf finally tested those settings too? I rely a lot on this guy since he is one of the most experience player in this forum!

Thanks a lot Spanish Lefty for those settings

[catcherjul]

Also have a question to everyone : Does TCR affects more younger/prospect players or it affects everyone equally?

[endgame]

Originally Posted by catcherjul

Also have a question to everyone : Does TCR affects more younger/prospect players or it affects everyone equally?

There is no equality in randomness.

[hluraven]

I'm giving stats only another go, while it still seems a little too easy (even on harder settings) to trade for players that are clearly an improvement on what you are giving up, I am enjoying the extra doubt and guesswork that comes without visible ratings.

I have a few linked questions though, which originate from an injury leading me to need to call up someone from AAA. My settings include no visible ratings, and 0 on ratings for the player evaluation settings.

1 - Is there any way to change the scout report to show their estimate of a young player's current ability rather than potential? Players up to (IIRC) 25 show the scout's assessment of a player's potential ability, eg "Consensus premium talent" and "projects to be .xxx hitter" etc. This is not useful in judging which AAA player to call up right now if both choices are younger than 25, as there is no report anywhere showing any view whatsoever on current hitting.

2 - If you use the minor league system report, what is this based on? The only player suggested as ready for the majors in my minor league system is hiiting .091 and there is nothing to suggest he is better/more ready than his peers from his stats. Do these judgements still factor in ratings even with 0 as my setting for ratings in player evaluation?

3 - The same question for the top 20 players in the league list. They are very volatile, which suggest stats matter 100% as per my settings, but there are some ridiculous players in there. The #3 hitter in the league is shown as a 22yo with 2 career PA and never once got on base. It cannot be stats only that put him on the list with no worthy stats, but nor can it be ratings (0% weighting). The same is seen on the pitching side, #5 overall pitcher is a 23yo who went straight from rookie league (poor stats) to ML action, with a career ERA around 8 in about 2 IP. What could possibly put these players in there/what influences the list as it doesn't appear to be stats only, or AFAIK ratings.

Generally, what do these reports use as their basis, and how can you distinguish between players when there aren't enough stats to choose (and no report available for current ability).

[absurddoctor]

Originally Posted by surly manservant

This thread has inspired me to give stats only a go, I just have a couple of questions:

1. I like to keep things simple, I usually play small fictional leagues (12 - 16 teams) with two levels of minors (AA and Rookie). I wonder if not having enough minors will this detract from my enjoyment of stats only, should I add a third level of minors?

2. I would also prefer to play without feeders, I've seen comments here about both methods, what is the disadvantage of not using feeders?

I don't think the answer to the first question changes much if you are using stats only. One big advantage to a small number of minor leagues is that you have fewer players to keep an eye on, and this upside is magnified quite a bit in stats only where tracking players takes a much larger time investment.

When I played stats only with feeder leagues, those feeder leagues stats were only occasionally actually useful as predictors of how far a player would get in my organization. In the end, they were more about 'flavor' and role playing then being useful for gameplay purposes. Eventually I stopped using them because the sim speed penalties were too much, but maybe that is less of an issue now.

[Vulkan]

I have decided to try out stats only too. It sounds nice the way you guys describe it. I have one question though. If we set the AI evaluation to 0 (zero) in ratings, will the AI not consider any ratings at all? I am thinking like catching ratings and other defensive ratings that there isn't as much stats for.

I realize that there are stats for catcher ERA and catcher ability to throw out runners, but there is not stats for the catcher ability to call games. Will that ability just don't count for the AI when evaluating players?

[tpollex]

I too am curious about this. That is if Wolf tested Spanish Lefty's settings?

[The Wolf]

Testing is ongoing.

[djsatu]

Is there a way a baseball noob (Someone who doesn't know the players, prospects etc) can play stats only, but with some sort of minimal rating system visible to help as a guideline?