Player evaluation AI settings

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

I know this thread was created for 2016, but I'd really like to restart it and gather more answers for the criteria that people use.

I am using
0
50
25
25

Which I think is actually fairly light as I think players stats should be incorporated more severely for ratings. I just started a new game with them and it seems to work okay, but I'm curious about how others pursue, or don't pursue, these ratings when setting up their games.

[Habsfan18]

For my 2 long-term fictional leagues, I have always used:

40
30
20
10

I've always been interested in seeing what others use.

[jaysdailydose]

Even if I don't play stats-only, I still use:

5
62
22
11

That allows the AI a bit of room to incorporate ratings, even in leagues where I don't have them visible.

I'm just now returning to OOTP and the community since leaving the community about two years ago, but this is one thing I haven't changed since maybe OOTP 12.

I know a lot of people have success with 0-67-22-11, but I've modified it for myself to good results.

[NoOne]

i wouldn't worry about how this setting affects you, a human player, nearly as much as how it affects the AI. it only affects overall rating, which is most likely not heavily relied upon when making a decision as it is with the AI.

what i mean is the ai cannot look at a pitcher that is well-rated and looks great untill you see he throws fb-sinker and nothing else. (maybe the ai is sophisticated enough for this example, but you get the idea... it doesn't understand nuance as well as we can)

So, this setting has profound influence on what your ai competition is doing and very little to do with what you see... in fact nothing oustide of a bloated or shrunken overall rating. if you see ai decisions that you don't like, this is something you should look into adjusting.

as long as your game's settings provides ratings that are more predictive than resulting statistics as the simulation runs, the AI is better off with less weight going to stats of the previous 3 years.

ratings better?
100%? yes, obviously
normal? most likely
low? in my experience with a maxed scouting budget and legendary scout, yes still beter.

haven't played on other settings, so i cannot attest... even so, the human eye will not be able to tell if it is anywhere near the breakeven point. i could be wrong about low accuacy setting, but quite certain about normal.

this setting incorporates potentially insufficcient sample sizes... the impact it has depends on the base it is affecting. in some cases it may actually improve ai perception and in others it could make it worse... i think this setting, and some others, are strongly correlated to the threads i see complaining about what the AI is doing in transactions and decisions.... this is one of the first things you should be willing to change your thoughts about.

there is no one-size-fits-all answer unless we all use the same settings that affect or are affected by ai evaluation. there are times when it's a good idea and times when it is a bad idea.... i'm not intimating that it should be one or the other, or i would be specific about it.

instead of looking at it from a top down approach... use resulting AI behavior as your compass, even if your idea of how things worked could be proven to be wrong

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i wouldn't worry about how this setting affects you, a human player, nearly as much as how it affects the AI. it only affects overall rating, which is most likely not heavily relied upon when making a decision as it is with the AI.

what i mean is the ai cannot look at a pitcher that is well-rated and looks great untill you see he throws fb-sinker and nothing else. (maybe the ai is sophisticated enough for this example, but you get the idea... it doesn't understand nuance as well as we can)

So, this setting has profound influence on what your ai competition is doing and very little to do with what you see... in fact nothing oustide of a bloated or shrunken overall rating. if you see ai decisions that you don't like, this is something you should look into adjusting.

as long as your game's settings provides ratings that are more predictive than resulting statistics as the simulation runs, the AI is better off with less weight going to stats of the previous 3 years.

ratings better?
100%? yes, obviously
normal? most likely
low? in my experience with a maxed scouting budget and legendary scout, yes still beter.

haven't played on other settings, so i cannot attest... even so, the human eye will not be able to tell if it is anywhere near the breakeven point. i could be wrong about low accuacy setting, but quite certain about normal.

this setting incorporates potentially insufficcient sample sizes... the impact it has depends on the base it is affecting. in some cases it may actually improve ai perception and in others it could make it worse... i think this setting, and some others, are strongly correlated to the threads i see complaining about what the AI is doing in transactions and decisions.... this is one of the first things you should be willing to change your thoughts about.

there is no one-size-fits-all answer unless we all use the same settings that affect or are affected by ai evaluation. there are times when it's a good idea and times when it is a bad idea.... i'm not intimating that it should be one or the other, or i would be specific about it.

instead of looking at it from a top down approach... use resulting AI behavior as your compass, even if your idea of how things worked could be proven to be wrong

I usually use an accuracy rating of "high" honestly simply because I believe that to be the truest ratings towards modern day baseball. Especially with the modern techniques and everything. Understandably some people may disagree and probably hope for a tougher game, but in my opinion the draft/international game produces so many busts (just like real baseball) and the draft is very difficult regardless, that I attempt to make that section of the game slightly easier. It also doesn't produce unfair balance or any sort of advantage for me seeing as I seemingly still miss frequently regardless.

My understanding of this setting, and this could very well be incorrect, is simply that it shows a rating for a player based on their statistical season as opposed to the rating system. So that it weighs the statistics heavier than the (I can't remember the name, but the standard scouting system) which seems like a benefit considering some of the scouting system I disagree with (no disrespect intended). Is this not a correct perception? That's why I put the first one at 0 and made the statistics based ones higher 25/50.

[MizzouRah]

50
30
15
5

Been using these for a couple years now.

[PSUColonel]

right now I am using 55/25/15/5 with what I would consider good results.

[TuckerDuckson]

25/25/25/25