Playing OOTP Without Overall Ratings

PSUColonel · 06-06-2018, 05:31 PM

I'd like to see how many people feel playing with out overall ratings (stars or 20-80) feel much more authentic and realistic?

Now having asked this question, I have to say I feel the answer is "yes"...which leads me to another question...what AI evaluation is appropriate for this style of play? Just as the stats only crowd has it's own AI evaluation settings, I believe turning overall ratings "off:" also presents a new situation.

With this the overall ratings off, I feel this inherently makes stats a bit more important, but in a more realistic way than states only. The component ratings still tell you what type of player you have (eg. power hitter, OBP guy, power pitcher etc..) but without the overall rating, you don't get a peak into what the AI thinks of a player overall. (this goes back to the no longer existing option to view overall ratings based only on ratings and not the overall AI evaluation)

So my question is this: With the overall ratings off, what AI evaluation do you think might be the most realistic? In this instance, I no longer feel 65/20/10/5 is appropriate, and think you could go one of three ways.

they are:

55/25/15/5

50/30/15/5

40/30/20/10

which do people think are the most realistic AI settings with the overall ratings off?

Some may still feel the default, but if you are using 20-80 component ratings , it just feels as though stats become that more important, as the ratings are condensed and it's much tougher to decide between talent without the overall ratings.

Trent Booty · 06-06-2018, 05:49 PM

I always go 40/30/20/10 even with overall ratings.

SirMichaelJordan · 06-06-2018, 06:11 PM

Ive been good with either...

0/50/25/25

or

25/25/25/25

Note that the settings are general and every GM/Manager have a setting of their own which is based on the guidline you set.

Orcin · 06-06-2018, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I'd like to see how many people feel playing with out overall ratings (stars or 20-80) feel much more authentic and realistic?

Keep in mind that you asked for opinions...

I see no good reason to turn off any ratings. It certainly does not make a game, which is based on statistics and runs on a computer, feel more authentic.

hluraven · 06-07-2018, 03:50 AM

I used to play stats only, but actually found it less realistic. The reason was, for any extra challenge that I got, the AI got an even bigger challenge. So, while I may not know which player to promote (etc), it didn't matter as the AI was far more clueless without ratings to help it.

There's no point in making things more realistic/harder/authentic for one GM (human) and less so for 29 (AI).

BIG17EASY · 06-07-2018, 08:55 AM

It's not a question of authenticity or realism. It's a matter of opinion based on what gives people the most enjoyment. For me, the game is more enjoyable with overall ratings turned off because it forces me to look at the individual ratings much closer. With the overall ratings on, I had a bad tendency to just glance at stars, and players who have the same overall rating can be vastly different players. By focusing on individual ratings, I feel like I can judge the players for what they truly are.

And as far as AI evaluation settings, that's also a personal preference things. There's no right or wrong.

cmaug · 06-07-2018, 09:22 AM

I haven't played ootp19 much yet, but in my recent leagues I've been using 40/30/25/5.

Sweed · 06-07-2018, 10:22 AM

Too me playing without the overall potential is less realistic. I have a scout and the overall potential rating is him giving his opinion. Why wouldn't he give me that information?

Scout : "hey boss, I think this guy can hit for average, + power, good eye, K a lot, average fielder, runs like feet are in quicksand"

Me: "how do you think he fits among others at his position?"

Scout: "sorry boss, can't tell you"

Not a knock on how others want to play, we can all have it our way. Just my 2 cents.

Sweed · 06-07-2018, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

It's not a question of authenticity or realism. It's a matter of opinion based on what gives people the most enjoyment. For me, the game is more enjoyable with overall ratings turned off because it forces me to look at the individual ratings much closer. With the overall ratings on, I had a bad tendency to just glance at stars, and players who have the same overall rating can be vastly different players. By focusing on individual ratings, I feel like I can judge the players for what they truly are.

And as far as AI evaluation settings, that's also a personal preference things. There's no right or wrong.

And I'm a bit of the opposite. I've never just glanced at Ovr\Pot ratings to make any decisions, I've always dug into the individual ratings. Having said that, I like looking at an overall that is the same for two guys that have very different skill sets and then looking at the individual skill ratings to see why.

As you said it's whatever gives each of us the most enjoyment.

Orcin · 06-07-2018, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

It's not a question of authenticity or realism.

Yes, in fact that was the exact question asked in the original post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I'd like to see how many people feel playing with out overall ratings (stars or 20-80) feel much more authentic and realistic?

Rain King · 06-07-2018, 10:54 AM

I use 35/35/20/10

Rain King · 06-07-2018, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hluraven

I used to play stats only, but actually found it less realistic. The reason was, for any extra challenge that I got, the AI got an even bigger challenge. So, while I may not know which player to promote (etc), it didn't matter as the AI was far more clueless without ratings to help it.

There's no point in making things more realistic/harder/authentic for one GM (human) and less so for 29 (AI).

This doesn't make any sense. These settings don't hide the overall ratings from the AI, just the user. The AI will still use the ratings based on the percentage that is set.

NoOne · 06-07-2018, 11:07 AM

i could play either way as long as the individual components of overall/potential are visible. my current filters don't use either, so very little would change.

if you use a small scale, it's almost useless information anyway.

totally removing ratings would just slow things down. if familiar with your league, you can easily translate a suitable sample of results into ratings fairly accurately. it slows things down because of the lag-time required to build up a suitable sample size.

some contexts preclude the possibility of a 'suitable sample size.' so, you have to guess a bit with a lower confidence in what the stats tell you.

Calvert98 · 06-07-2018, 11:31 AM

I have been playing OOTP for about 8 years or so, and I stopped using the stars in OOTP 18.

I have found that not using them, has in-fact given me a much more immersive experience, and it's more challenging.

So, I use the standard out-of-the box AI evaluation settings, the 20-80 scale (what the scouts use), and no "Stars." For me, this is the best way to play OOTP; it forced me to focus more on the player reports, ratings, stats, history, player make-up and to dig in deeper overall; as a result, it as provided me a richer experience.

BIG17EASY · 06-07-2018, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Yes, in fact that was the exact question asked in the original post.

I know. My point to the OP is that the use of overall ratings isn't related to realism or authenticity. We can all evaluate players whatever way we choose, just like MLB teams can do the same.

An example of something related to realism or authenticity would be playing an MLB game without the Rule 5 Draft or the DH.

BIG17EASY · 06-07-2018, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweed

And I'm a bit of the opposite. I've never just glanced at Ovr\Pot ratings to make any decisions, I've always dug into the individual ratings. Having said that, I like looking at an overall that is the same for two guys that have very different skill sets and then looking at the individual skill ratings to see why.

As you said it's whatever gives each of us the most enjoyment.

Right, my problem (which relates to both of your replies to me) is that I was lazy with the overall ratings on. I wouldn't pay much attention to individual ratings, at least for guys outside my organization. That's my own fault. Turning off overall ratings forced me to not be lazy. I suspect that after years of playing with them off, I could turn them back on now and have the same enjoyment of the game. But with that mindset, it basically makes them useless to me now. But I'm in no way saying they're useless, period.

Hotwheelz · 06-08-2018, 05:46 PM

I've been bouncing back and forth between stats only and ratings turned on. I don't feel the scouting reports offer enough to make a decision on a player and sometimes the minor league stats can get a bit wonky and don't match a players actual potential.

I did just notice that the league totals for the minors in my favorite fictional league were way out of whack. Walks were up to over .800 and K's down around .400. So that might be why.

PSUColonel · 06-14-2018, 02:50 PM

For me, is that I still see some inconsistencies between the overall current/potentials and the scouting report overall/potentials.

The profile overall/potentials seem to update in real time while the scouting report ones update only after a re-scout is performed. To me the happy medium here is to base all reports within the game off of the scouting report...and hide the real time overall ratings( even if that’s what the AI is actually using.

So a big part of the “overall stars rating” argument for me has also been about the system wonkiness which has always been present, even though it’s a bit better this year.

PSUColonel · 06-14-2018, 02:53 PM

It also seems to me, if you turn overall ratings off, and also turn off relative ratings, that a more stat based evaluation could/should be used such as 40/30/20/10

jimmysthebestcop · 06-14-2018, 08:28 PM

I like the Overall Ratings just because it helps speed up my play time while I am doing things of lesser importance.

I'm usually tracking my players/prospects by the stat categories I prefer anyway. And if I'm doing anything like major trade or draft I dive in deeper.

But if I need a quick glance that sorta gives me an idea what is going on I like the stars.

I think of it just as here are your top 100 prospects but there are always IRL call ups from outside that where scouts maybe weren't high on but once they put up minor league numbers 3 years in a row the front office starts paying attention.

The Star rating that's my employees work. But as their boss I have to check it. I had Willie Calhoun in 1 file and he was only 2 stars. But he hit 40-50 HRS 5 years in a row, WRC+ of 140+ all 5 years. He caught my eye cause of minor league stats. I'm like this guy is ready to explode time to move up.

Won rookie of the year and didn't look back. He wasn't a HoF or have staying power. But had a great 5-7 years in the majors.

Do you miss breakouts? Yes. Do you get busts? Yes. But so does MLB. So I'm down with the Stars even if the only thing its doing is saving me 30 minutes a game session.

06-06-2018, 05:31 PM	#1
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,136	Playing OOTP Without Overall Ratings I'd like to see how many people feel playing with out overall ratings (stars or 20-80) feel much more authentic and realistic? Now having asked this question, I have to say I feel the answer is "yes"...which leads me to another question...what AI evaluation is appropriate for this style of play? Just as the stats only crowd has it's own AI evaluation settings, I believe turning overall ratings "off:" also presents a new situation. With this the overall ratings off, I feel this inherently makes stats a bit more important, but in a more realistic way than states only. The component ratings still tell you what type of player you have (eg. power hitter, OBP guy, power pitcher etc..) but without the overall rating, you don't get a peak into what the AI thinks of a player overall. (this goes back to the no longer existing option to view overall ratings based only on ratings and not the overall AI evaluation) So my question is this: With the overall ratings off, what AI evaluation do you think might be the most realistic? In this instance, I no longer feel 65/20/10/5 is appropriate, and think you could go one of three ways. they are: 55/25/15/5 50/30/15/5 40/30/20/10 which do people think are the most realistic AI settings with the overall ratings off? Some may still feel the default, but if you are using 20-80 component ratings , it just feels as though stats become that more important, as the ratings are condensed and it's much tougher to decide between talent without the overall ratings.

06-08-2018, 05:46 PM	#17
Hotwheelz All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,620	I've been bouncing back and forth between stats only and ratings turned on. I don't feel the scouting reports offer enough to make a decision on a player and sometimes the minor league stats can get a bit wonky and don't match a players actual potential. I did just notice that the league totals for the minors in my favorite fictional league were way out of whack. Walks were up to over .800 and K's down around .400. So that might be why. __________________ "It's a great day for a ballgame; let's play two." Ernie Banks

06-06-2018, 05:49 PM	#2
Trent Booty Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Kelso-Longview, WA Posts: 44	I always go 40/30/20/10 even with overall ratings.

06-06-2018, 06:11 PM	#3
SirMichaelJordan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 2,716	Ive been good with either... 0/50/25/25 or 25/25/25/25 Note that the settings are general and every GM/Manager have a setting of their own which is based on the guidline you set.

06-07-2018, 03:50 AM	#5
hluraven Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: London, England Posts: 357	I used to play stats only, but actually found it less realistic. The reason was, for any extra challenge that I got, the AI got an even bigger challenge. So, while I may not know which player to promote (etc), it didn't matter as the AI was far more clueless without ratings to help it. There's no point in making things more realistic/harder/authentic for one GM (human) and less so for 29 (AI).

06-07-2018, 08:55 AM	#6
BIG17EASY Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,291	It's not a question of authenticity or realism. It's a matter of opinion based on what gives people the most enjoyment. For me, the game is more enjoyable with overall ratings turned off because it forces me to look at the individual ratings much closer. With the overall ratings on, I had a bad tendency to just glance at stars, and players who have the same overall rating can be vastly different players. By focusing on individual ratings, I feel like I can judge the players for what they truly are. And as far as AI evaluation settings, that's also a personal preference things. There's no right or wrong.

06-07-2018, 09:22 AM	#7
cmaug Major Leagues Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 344	I haven't played ootp19 much yet, but in my recent leagues I've been using 40/30/25/5.

06-07-2018, 10:22 AM	#8
Sweed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 7,018	Too me playing without the overall potential is less realistic. I have a scout and the overall potential rating is him giving his opinion. Why wouldn't he give me that information? Scout : "hey boss, I think this guy can hit for average, + power, good eye, K a lot, average fielder, runs like feet are in quicksand" Me: "how do you think he fits among others at his position?" Scout: "sorry boss, can't tell you" Not a knock on how others want to play, we can all have it our way. Just my 2 cents.

06-07-2018, 10:54 AM	#11
Rain King Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,323	I use 35/35/20/10

06-07-2018, 11:07 AM	#13
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	i could play either way as long as the individual components of overall/potential are visible. my current filters don't use either, so very little would change. if you use a small scale, it's almost useless information anyway. totally removing ratings would just slow things down. if familiar with your league, you can easily translate a suitable sample of results into ratings fairly accurately. it slows things down because of the lag-time required to build up a suitable sample size. some contexts preclude the possibility of a 'suitable sample size.' so, you have to guess a bit with a lower confidence in what the stats tell you.

06-07-2018, 11:31 AM	#14
Calvert98 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 579	I have been playing OOTP for about 8 years or so, and I stopped using the stars in OOTP 18. I have found that not using them, has in-fact given me a much more immersive experience, and it's more challenging. So, I use the standard out-of-the box AI evaluation settings, the 20-80 scale (what the scouts use), and no "Stars." For me, this is the best way to play OOTP; it forced me to focus more on the player reports, ratings, stats, history, player make-up and to dig in deeper overall; as a result, it as provided me a richer experience.

06-14-2018, 02:50 PM	#18
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,136	For me, is that I still see some inconsistencies between the overall current/potentials and the scouting report overall/potentials. The profile overall/potentials seem to update in real time while the scouting report ones update only after a re-scout is performed. To me the happy medium here is to base all reports within the game off of the scouting report...and hide the real time overall ratings( even if that’s what the AI is actually using. So a big part of the “overall stars rating” argument for me has also been about the system wonkiness which has always been present, even though it’s a bit better this year.

06-14-2018, 02:53 PM	#19
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,136	It also seems to me, if you turn overall ratings off, and also turn off relative ratings, that a more stat based evaluation could/should be used such as 40/30/20/10

06-14-2018, 08:28 PM	#20
jimmysthebestcop Banned Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 1,727 Infractions: 0/2 (5)	I like the Overall Ratings just because it helps speed up my play time while I am doing things of lesser importance. I'm usually tracking my players/prospects by the stat categories I prefer anyway. And if I'm doing anything like major trade or draft I dive in deeper. But if I need a quick glance that sorta gives me an idea what is going on I like the stars. I think of it just as here are your top 100 prospects but there are always IRL call ups from outside that where scouts maybe weren't high on but once they put up minor league numbers 3 years in a row the front office starts paying attention. The Star rating that's my employees work. But as their boss I have to check it. I had Willie Calhoun in 1 file and he was only 2 stars. But he hit 40-50 HRS 5 years in a row, WRC+ of 140+ all 5 years. He caught my eye cause of minor league stats. I'm like this guy is ready to explode time to move up. Won rookie of the year and didn't look back. He wasn't a HoF or have staying power. But had a great 5-7 years in the majors. Do you miss breakouts? Yes. Do you get busts? Yes. But so does MLB. So I'm down with the Stars even if the only thing its doing is saving me 30 minutes a game session.