Do I raise or lower player aging speed ?

strzepeksc · 07-23-2016, 11:17 PM

Confused on this setting. If I now have 1.0 for batter aging speed, and I want the players to decline at a faster rate..............meaning their career declines quicker than real life and retire sooner............Do I set it to .750 or 1.250 ?

And by how many years does the setting correspond to that setting

Edit: My goal is to have players decline and retire earlier than normal, so at about 35 years of age they have very limited skills.

diesel230 · 07-24-2016, 10:23 PM

I believe you would set it to 1.250 to speed up their decline.

Syd Thrift · 07-25-2016, 09:44 AM

Higher numbers make players age more quickly. I would highly recommend testing your aging settings before adding them into a league you care about, however. I personally like making aging lag a bit (have a number below 1) and then try and make the teams be more aggressive about cutting older players who might be slightly better than youth but who will never develop into something more. But then that would not be compatible with a Logan's Run league or whatever so YMMV of course.

PSUColonel · 07-25-2016, 10:20 AM

I'd still like to know what good numbers are if you're using realize stick injuries. Everything runs fine on defaults, but the default injuries aren't the realistic ones.

NoOne · 07-25-2016, 11:37 AM

look up richW posts in last month or two. use the search command with aging and showing individual posts, not he entire thread. use his screenname to limit search - don't copy and paste from me, i may have missed a letter or #, who knows.

anyway, he has a graph of a .800 aging result compared to some real-life data. it is definitely slower than real-life. it will help you pick a starting point and reduce trial and error, i think.

like someone said above, make sure to test all of this on a throwaway league you make from a Single backup... continue to test with that backup (a new iteration each test) before preceding with your "real" league. you may want to sim out 5-10 years to see the new effects.. possibly need a bit more than that.

information in addition to that graph:

at 1.000 you won't see a ton of overly productive 35-year olds. you'll see a handful of 40 year-olds. so, you won't need to slow it down much from 1.000. think of the .8000 as a mirror image of 1.2000... doe a little guesswork and pick a solid figure to start... then review results to see if it does what you want.

most info in the forums is likely aobut slowing the aging process. it's likely a normal distribution curve just shifting *for the most part, so you can likely take the mirror of a slower figure and have a really good idea of what would happen on the other side of "1.000".

* plethora of settings and league setups could influence that??? no idea

TuckerDuckson · 07-25-2016, 05:58 PM

Ok I want to give my piece of mind on this subject

In my experience players never want to retire, idk if they are trying to live out their glory days and it's one of my biggest pet peeves with this game, I had at least ~300 players who were active and over the age of 37, around 2/3 of these guys, or 200 of them were in a "cycle" between MLB and Triple A, 50 of them had a steady starting/bench job, and around 50 were in double A or below. My belief is that these 37 year old "cyclers" and double A players should be retiring, but nope they greatly "extend" their 14 year careers for around 4 years toiling in the minors just to cycle into the majors for 6 games just to get waived and DFA'd.

This also happens in free agency to where guys will stick there for 4 years before retiring but having no job instead of a chance, it pissed me off

So my solution to this was to speed up the decline by setting it forward for both to around 1.150-1.200 depending, this usually lets played flame out around 33-34 and them toil until they are 36 as a journeyman, then retire.

It makes me happier but not satisfied as I feel like players who are over the age of 37 and go 1 full year without playing a MLB should be automatically retired by the game.

PSUColonel · 07-25-2016, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoOne

look up richW posts in last month or two. use the search command with aging and showing individual posts, not he entire thread. use his screenname to limit search - don't copy and paste from me, i may have missed a letter or #, who knows.

anyway, he has a graph of a .800 aging result compared to some real-life data. it is definitely slower than real-life. it will help you pick a starting point and reduce trial and error, i think.

like someone said above, make sure to test all of this on a throwaway league you make from a Single backup... continue to test with that backup (a new iteration each test) before preceding with your "real" league. you may want to sim out 5-10 years to see the new effects.. possibly need a bit more than that.

information in addition to that graph:

at 1.000 you won't see a ton of overly productive 35-year olds. you'll see a handful of 40 year-olds. so, you won't need to slow it down much from 1.000. think of the .8000 as a mirror image of 1.2000... doe a little guesswork and pick a solid figure to start... then review results to see if it does what you want.

most info in the forums is likely aobut slowing the aging process. it's likely a normal distribution curve just shifting *for the most part, so you can likely take the mirror of a slower figure and have a really good idea of what would happen on the other side of "1.000".

* plethora of settings and league setups could influence that??? no idea

Can't seem to find the post, but if .800 is slower, (with high injuries) then really you are right that 1.000 is likely not too far off, but a small adjustment is likely needed nonetheless. I am thinking .825 or .830 could be a good place to begin. I'd love to see what others have come with as over the past few months to compare.

Quick question though: Do you feel development needs to be adjusted? This is just aging I have been talking about. It is a lot of variables to test all of this, as there are so many different combinations to potentially use.

EDIT: last month I decided .825 would be a good number for pitcher and batter aging, but with so many variables, my head is spinning. I just wish realistic injuries would be made the default....that would seriously solve all these issues. Then those who don't like things as realistic as MLB can adjust. Although I think the future may change some of this in terms of how aging and development curves are input.

07-23-2016, 11:17 PM	#1
strzepeksc All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 648	Do I raise or lower player aging speed ? Confused on this setting. If I now have 1.0 for batter aging speed, and I want the players to decline at a faster rate..............meaning their career declines quicker than real life and retire sooner............Do I set it to .750 or 1.250 ? And by how many years does the setting correspond to that setting Edit: My goal is to have players decline and retire earlier than normal, so at about 35 years of age they have very limited skills. Last edited by strzepeksc; 07-24-2016 at 08:05 AM.

07-25-2016, 11:37 AM	#5
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	look up richW posts in last month or two. use the search command with aging and showing individual posts, not he entire thread. use his screenname to limit search - don't copy and paste from me, i may have missed a letter or #, who knows. anyway, he has a graph of a .800 aging result compared to some real-life data. it is definitely slower than real-life. it will help you pick a starting point and reduce trial and error, i think. like someone said above, make sure to test all of this on a throwaway league you make from a Single backup... continue to test with that backup (a new iteration each test) before preceding with your "real" league. you may want to sim out 5-10 years to see the new effects.. possibly need a bit more than that. information in addition to that graph: at 1.000 you won't see a ton of overly productive 35-year olds. you'll see a handful of 40 year-olds. so, you won't need to slow it down much from 1.000. think of the .8000 as a mirror image of 1.2000... doe a little guesswork and pick a solid figure to start... then review results to see if it does what you want. most info in the forums is likely aobut slowing the aging process. it's likely a normal distribution curve just shifting for the most part, so you can likely take the mirror of a slower figure and have a really good idea of what would happen on the other side of "1.000". plethora of settings and league setups could influence that??? no idea Last edited by NoOne; 07-25-2016 at 11:38 AM.

07-25-2016, 05:58 PM	#6
TuckerDuckson Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 446	Ok I want to give my piece of mind on this subject In my experience players never want to retire, idk if they are trying to live out their glory days and it's one of my biggest pet peeves with this game, I had at least ~300 players who were active and over the age of 37, around 2/3 of these guys, or 200 of them were in a "cycle" between MLB and Triple A, 50 of them had a steady starting/bench job, and around 50 were in double A or below. My belief is that these 37 year old "cyclers" and double A players should be retiring, but nope they greatly "extend" their 14 year careers for around 4 years toiling in the minors just to cycle into the majors for 6 games just to get waived and DFA'd. This also happens in free agency to where guys will stick there for 4 years before retiring but having no job instead of a chance, it pissed me off So my solution to this was to speed up the decline by setting it forward for both to around 1.150-1.200 depending, this usually lets played flame out around 33-34 and them toil until they are 36 as a journeyman, then retire. It makes me happier but not satisfied as I feel like players who are over the age of 37 and go 1 full year without playing a MLB should be automatically retired by the game. __________________ Plays legit baseball now. My OOTP ratings are low. 2022 update: I'm two stars! Last edited by TuckerDuckson; 07-25-2016 at 05:59 PM.

07-24-2016, 10:23 PM	#2
diesel230 All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Long Island NY Posts: 723	I believe you would set it to 1.250 to speed up their decline.

07-25-2016, 10:20 AM	#4
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,141	I'd still like to know what good numbers are if you're using realize stick injuries. Everything runs fine on defaults, but the default injuries aren't the realistic ones.