OOTP18 Rule Five is Broken

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by DelAbbot

To give an update, in the save for which I started this thread, year after year I can see at least one 55 or 60 FV in the rule 5 draft, and they develop into true starter/all-star level players after 1-2 years MLB experience. So it was not a fluke to see good players left unprotected.

I since started Challenge mode again in a brand new save. For the first 3 rule 5 drafts, I didn't see high end prospects

We've been keeping an eye out for this in testing of OOTP19 and have not seen it or gotten any reports of it happening. In fact, specifically anyone who's checked has said that it's not happening.

So I do wonder if there was something borked in that league causing that to happen.

It doesn't seem to be a general problem from what I can see.

[DelAbbot]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

We've been keeping an eye out for this in testing of OOTP19 and have not seen it or gotten any reports of it happening. In fact, specifically anyone who's checked has said that it's not happening.

So I do wonder if there was something borked in that league causing that to happen.

It doesn't seem to be a general problem from what I can see.

Both times I saw this, I started off with expansion (30 to 32 teams). But that should have the opposite effect of roster crunch...

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by DelAbbot

Both times I saw this, I started off with expansion (30 to 32 teams). But that should have the opposite effect of roster crunch...

Yeah, you'd certainly think so.

I have a long term test sim in OOTP that expanded three times (6 teams total) and I don't see this happening.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by NoOne

you're saying it's relative to overall, but it's not calculated that way in game. it is based on the potential of each rating etc etc. nothign to do with current ability at all. it's a ceiling. moving it based on current ability changes means it's relative. it doesn't exhibit that behavior in game in a 1:1 fashion.

I would argue the concept you describe is more about their current ability not potential. current ability is about work and effort with a ceiling of DNA.

more importantly in RL that doesn't mesh with biology - DNA doesn't change. the things that cause the differences are their own exclusive forces that act on dna. if you could reverse it (like aging), which with the right tech we 100% can, they'd stil have teh same potential due to their DNA. our lack of medical knowledge has nothign to do with real potential.

another reason why ootp clearly doesn't calculate it relative to current ability:
why doesn't aging always reduce potential along with overall? sometimes it reduces current ability but potentials all stay the same... how could his potential stay the same if he can't reach it anymore??? well, because it's potential and not anyhting to do with what influences current ability.

you damage your body, you still have the genetic potential to be all that you were before the injury... the injury is current ability, not potential. aging is damaging of the body too.

I'm not sure how the game calculates it exactly so this could all be irrelevant. However, I'm kind of in the same boat as the others. Potential is an arbitrary rating. In my view, you tag a player with A+ potential based on what you saw of him in amateur play. Then, as you see him more and more in professional play, that may cause you to change your view of what his potential is. Some guys, like Josh Hamilton, may be able to fulfill that potential with the right set of circumstances. Others, like Brien Taylor, may get injured which could significantly reduce their potential. Or guys just wind up not being quite as good as you thought and, after awhile, you downgrade their potential because you realize you overvalued them to begin with. Again, I have no idea if its similar in game but that is how I view it and would expect it to work.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by majesty95

I'm not sure how the game calculates it exactly so this could all be irrelevant. However, I'm kind of in the same boat as the others. Potential is an arbitrary rating. In my view, you tag a player with A+ potential based on what you saw of him in amateur play. Then, as you see him more and more in professional play, that may cause you to change your view of what his potential is. Some guys, like Josh Hamilton, may be able to fulfill that potential with the right set of circumstances. Others, like Brien Taylor, may get injured which could significantly reduce their potential. Or guys just wind up not being quite as good as you thought and, after awhile, you downgrade their potential because you realize you overvalued them to begin with. Again, I have no idea if its similar in game but that is how I view it and would expect it to work.

okay, so you think someone has high potential and later shown not to have it... i'd say that's just human error -- real life or in game -- and not the player's potential changing. 1st round draft picks fail because they weren't as good as people thought... the key there is people thinking and not knowing.

tcr-related stuff is a unique exemption. can't fault ourselves when we are fooled by scouting inaccuracy or the TCR stick good and bad.

you can always waste talent, too. examples like josh hamilton and other crackheads are viable excuses as to why they didn't meet potential... these guys can often show their ability before they fizzle... need money to be a super drug addicts like hamilton, gooden, strawberry, caminiti .. et al.

That stuff gets expensive. again, they didn't lose potential, they chose not to reach it or maintain it. as far as most players cause of not making it -- it's not drug abuse or poor choices.. they just aren't good enough. that's a hard pill to swallow when every kid nowadays is told they are super special, lol.

it's hubris to think it's the athletes fault for not making it (excluding the ******s similar to the ones named above - far outweighed by the ~1000 every year that won't make it after being drafted), when we are so clearly wretched at predicting future sucess at those ages. in the nfl, hitting on 50% of your draft picks leads to great things. baseball is even more of a crapshoot.

how can anyone consider themselves good at player evaluation when you are wrong more times than not. relatively speaking, they are "good" if they are above the baseline, of course, but hitting on such a low % should keep it in perspective. "we" are objectively bad at it.

potential shouldn't change at all -- logically -- even though that's not exactly how it works in game... it mostly works this way for good reason. whether you work out or not, their is a ceiling to how much your specific body can build up muscle based on how much testosterone you produce and other various factors... you can reach potential by eating well, but eating well does not change your potential.. etc etc. not developing doesn't change your potential it just means you didn't put in the work to develop. potential is just theory. real life often falls short of theoretical yield -- due to human error or environment related.

back in game:
overal and potential are the exact same proportions of the various factors. running speed / defensive factors and things that don't have a "potential" rating are just re-used as is. don't need to know the equation. you can verify this in editor without the exact equation in hand. you can even deduce the equation very easily this way too... although, a few more datapoints needed. it's not hidden or unknown to us... its' apparent and waiting for us. the only way they could "hide" it is to have something not visible that is part of the equation... and that would be obvious too, so more than 1 thing would need to be hidden from view.

there's a smaller scope of potential that relates to what you are saying, i guess. any ab has the potential of a HR, but a low potential power guy has no hope of ever hitting 500hr. any small sample can deviate greatly from what is normal.