OOTP 24 public beta patch (version 24.4.61) available! (May 11, 2023)

[Red08]

If I download the beta patch, once the full patch comes out will I need to do anything or can I just keep playing. Want to start a long playthrough and since the cards suck, the sooner I can get in and start fixing this damn team the better and wonder if I can just download the beta and hope that no big bugs pop up

[kurzov]

Originally Posted by Red08

If I download the beta patch, once the full patch comes out will I need to do anything or can I just keep playing. Want to start a long playthrough and since the cards suck, the sooner I can get in and start fixing this damn team the better and wonder if I can just download the beta and hope that no big bugs pop up

Assuming you're on FastSpring, you'll need to download the patch, like how you installed the game the first time. If you want to install it to a separate folder to prevent messing up existing saves that can be done from the installer.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think it’s because of the way the ratings appear to now be. Average is no longer average…above average seems to be average.

We've never really treated 50 as the true MLB level average in OOTP.

Defense the average has always been more around 60 and overall, probably more like 50-55.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by KRSW

Does the scale of Overall change dynamically?
In other words, I have a rotation of 5 starting pitchers whose Overall is 50. If I replace the other 29 teams' rotations with 5 Max Scherzer, will 100% accurate Overalls for my starting pitchers go down from 50 (=average)?

If the answer is "No", it is possible that those average looking veterans are not average.

The answer here is indeed 'no'.

This is exactly why treating 50 as an average rating in game will result in misunderstanding the OOTP ratings scale.

The 20-80 ratings in OOTP are not comparative like they are in real life, and won't automatically fluctuate with talent changes in a specific league. They might shift a little over time, but certainly not to the extent they would if they were using the real-life system where each ten points you move away from 50 represents a full standard deviation above or below average.

The OOTP scale is not the same as the real-life scouting scale, even when you use the 20-80 ratings. This isn't something that changed this year, it's never been the case, since whenever it was that we originally introduced the 20-80 ratings into OOTP.

[rdomico]

Originally Posted by rdomico

Can you give a more detailed explanation of 'Adjusted player creation modifiers'?

Pretty please?

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The answer here is indeed 'no'.

This is exactly why treating 50 as an average rating in game will result in misunderstanding the OOTP ratings scale.

The 20-80 ratings in OOTP are not comparative like they are in real life, and won't automatically fluctuate with talent changes in a specific league. They might shift a little over time, but certainly not to the extent they would if they were using the real-life system where each ten points you move away from 50 represents a full standard deviation above or below average.

The OOTP scale is not the same as the real-life scouting scale, even when you use the 20-80 ratings. This isn't something that changed this year, it's never been the case, since whenever it was that we originally introduced the 20-80 ratings into OOTP.

Does this apply to both absolute and relative ratings?

[Guthrien]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The answer here is indeed 'no'.

This is exactly why treating 50 as an average rating in game will result in misunderstanding the OOTP ratings scale.

The 20-80 ratings in OOTP are not comparative like they are in real life, and won't automatically fluctuate with talent changes in a specific league. They might shift a little over time, but certainly not to the extent they would if they were using the real-life system where each ten points you move away from 50 represents a full standard deviation above or below average.

The OOTP scale is not the same as the real-life scouting scale, even when you use the 20-80 ratings. This isn't something that changed this year, it's never been the case, since whenever it was that we originally introduced the 20-80 ratings into OOTP.

I think this is one of the more interesting explanations that's come out if you'd like to go on at greater length

[WarningTrakPower]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Jester54

Excellent! I'm planning to start my long term playthrough once the full release of this patch comes out. Looking forward to spending the weekend figuring out what to do about the Rockies big contracts...

It is a fun team, I quite enjoyed it for my first sim of OOTP24.

[Infinite_Jester54]

Originally Posted by WarningTrakPower

It is a fun team, I quite enjoyed it for my first sim of OOTP24.

Nice, well done! Any tips for me, haha?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by jcard

Does this apply to both absolute and relative ratings?

Originally Posted by Guthrien

I think this is one of the more interesting explanations that's come out if you'd like to go on at greater length

Matt would probably have to explain the specific details more so than I could, if he wanted to. But the main point I wanted to get across is that the OOTP ratings, whether relative or absolute are not comparative in the same way that the 20-80 real-life scouting scale is.

Obviously the relative ratings in OOTP are comparative and will fluctuate if the league's talent level does (you can see this just by switching to compare MLB against a minor league).

Even then though, they are not comparative in the same way that the real-life scouting scale is. They don't work on the basis of standard deviations like the real-life scale does.

The real-life scale treats 50 as average and each 10 points above or below represent a full-standard deviation off average. OOTP's 20-80 scale doesn't do this. So even where the ratings are comparative, 50 doesn't necessarily represent a perfect average of all the players currently in the league, and 80 does not represent three standard deviations in skill level above 50.

So judging OOTP ratings using the real-life scouting scale is going to result in misjudging things, since they do not use the same basis for calculations. OOTP can and most usually will have more 80 level players than the real-life scale ever would and depending on the specific league, 50 may or may not actually represent the average rating in OOTP. Using the real-life scale, it would always represent an average rating.

[Lukas Berger]

We just released an updated beta patch, build 60. Links are updated in the initial post.

[wallewalls]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

We just released an updated beta patch, build 60. Links are updated in the initial post.

Awesome, thank you.

[84Cubs]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

We've never really treated 50 as the true MLB level average in OOTP.

Defense the average has always been more around 60 and overall, probably more like 50-55.

Given how much one bases their decisions based on ratings it would be nice if something like this was made more clear. Granted you always try to get the highest rated players but having something so important be vague and unclear could be a barrier to new players. Kind of frustrating.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by 84Cubs

Given how much one bases their decisions based on ratings it would be nice if something like this was made more clear. Granted you always try to get the highest rated players but having something so important be vague and unclear could be a barrier to new players. Kind of frustrating.

I was just going to post this point myself, having raised it in the past. The idea that you are a 21st century GM getting scouting evaluations that are not defined is ludicrous. Maybe not every team uses the same systems in real life, but for a given team the GM knows what one of his scouts means in practical terms when the scout gives a grade; there is no Tower of Babel element within an organization.

Of course, the obvious corollary is that there should be projected statistics available, as from a data analysis staff.

(This paragraph reflects the picture given by the player editor; I acknowledge that the editor might not precisely represent the actual gameplay effect, but I assume it at least generally conveys the mechanic.) Relative ratings only complicate the matter, because where your league average falls on the absolute ratings scale for any of the split-scale attributes means that the difference between identical pairs of two ratings vary in magnitude. This means you have to be aware of where the absolute scale shift (i.e., 50, or 100 in the editor) occurs on the relative rating scale.

Finally, I find the answer here to run counter to or at least unclear alongside what has long been my understanding of the game engine. Namely, the league totals and modifiers govern the cumulative statistics in a league, while the distribution of ratings relatively to each other determine the allocation of those cumulative totals (per PA). That would suggest that the question about changing the average rating for an attribute in a league (while leaving league totals and modifiers unchanged) would influence the performance of players whose ratings stayed the same in the opposite direction of the shift in league average for that rating. It might be true that the absolute rating of these unchanged players stays the same, but the on-field value of that rating has changed… Which I suppose gets back to your original point: What do these ratings mean?

[Infinite_Jester54]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Matt would probably have to explain the specific details more so than I could, if he wanted to. But the main point I wanted to get across is that the OOTP ratings, whether relative or absolute are not comparative in the same way that the 20-80 real-life scouting scale is.

Obviously the relative ratings in OOTP are comparative and will fluctuate if the league's talent level does (you can see this just by switching to compare MLB against a minor league).

Even then though, they are not comparative in the same way that the real-life scouting scale is. They don't work on the basis of standard deviations like the real-life scale does.

The real-life scale treats 50 as average and each 10 points above or below represent a full-standard deviation off average. OOTP's 20-80 scale doesn't do this. So even where the ratings are comparative, 50 doesn't necessarily represent a perfect average of all the players currently in the league, and 80 does not represent three standard deviations in skill level above 50.

So judging OOTP ratings using the real-life scouting scale is going to result in misjudging things, since they do not use the same basis for calculations. OOTP can and most usually will have more 80 level players than the real-life scale ever would and depending on the specific league, 50 may or may not actually represent the average rating in OOTP. Using the real-life scale, it would always represent an average rating.

As someone who is just fascinated by how the game works "under the hood", can I suggest that the details of the rating system would make for a super interesting episode of the podcast!

[Marinersfan51]

It sounds like the key divide is that the OOTP ratings all get bumped up a little because most people don't understand how the actual 20-80 scale works and want to see higher ratings. People don't respond well to the idea that there are maybe 1-3 80 grade players at any given time and most draft classes as headlined by a 55 FV with maybe 10 players at 50 FV. The top prospect in all of baseball tends to be a 70 FV and that is in a strong year.

80 grade tools are extremely rare, like actually once in a generation rare, but it seems like most players would prefer to see them more frequently so the ratings get inflated a bit for presentational purposes.

I feel like everyone just kind of understands this and adjusts because there are probably very few people who are coming to OOTP with an intimate knowledge of the baseball scouting system who would be confused by this. You pick up pretty quick that 50 grade defenders up the middle are below average and 70 grade players aren't necessarily perennial MVP candidates.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

It sounds like the key divide is that the OOTP ratings all get bumped up a little because most people don't understand how the actual 20-80 scale works and want to see higher ratings. People don't respond well to the idea that there are maybe 1-3 80 grade players at any given time and most draft classes as headlined by a 55 FV with maybe 10 players at 50 FV. The top prospect in all of baseball tends to be a 70 FV and that is in a strong year.

80 grade tools are extremely rare, like actually once in a generation rare, but it seems like most players would prefer to see them more frequently so the ratings get inflated a bit for presentational purposes.

I feel like everyone just kind of understands this and adjusts because there are probably very few people who are coming to OOTP with an intimate knowledge of the baseball scouting system who would be confused by this. You pick up pretty quick that 50 grade defenders up the middle are below average and 70 grade players aren't necessarily perennial MVP candidates.

I would argue most draft classes are actually headlined by one to three 65 rated players, followed by about 3-5 60 rated players. 55 is still first round worthy…but there’s probably about a dozen or so players rated this high. So yes, 50 is still a very good grade, as is a 45.

The fact that OOTP refuses to mirror this basically would make me want to just disable overall and potential ratings.

[renojedi]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I would argue most draft classes are actually headlined by one to three 65 rated players, followed by about 3-5 60 rated players. 55 is still first round worthy…but there’s probably about a dozen or so players rated this high. So yes, 50 is still a very good grade, as is a 45.

The fact that OOTP refuses to mirror this basically would make me want to just disable overall and potential ratings.

This makes sense. I think part of the reason may be all those who complain that once they start the game, the 40-man rosters don't match real life miss the part that the moment they make their first action as a GM/manager they have already diverged from real life. The developers said that have to manipulate ratings to make the AI pick certain players for the 40-man so that too means ratings can't match real life 20-80.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I would argue most draft classes are actually headlined by one to three 65 rated players, followed by about 3-5 60 rated players. 55 is still first round worthy…but there’s probably about a dozen or so players rated this high. So yes, 50 is still a very good grade, as is a 45.

The fact that OOTP refuses to mirror this basically would make me want to just disable overall and potential ratings.

It kind of comes down to who is doing the grading. Eric Longenhagen and Kiley McDaniels at FG/ESPN has typically been a bit for conservative and haven't gone past a 60 while the MLB.com group (I don't think they specifically credit their scouts) tend to throw out the occasional 65 headliner or two.

The general point stands that 70 or 80 FV draft prospects basically don't exist outside of like Bryce Harper and even 70 FV prospects in the minors are not an every year occurrence. A 50 FV is a top 100 guy typically and a 45 is a big league contributor.

I recall a couple years ago the draft pools were having more realistic FV grades (no 80s, no 55s after the first round) and folks were in an uproar about how it was broken. Part of that is that the player base has been conditioned to expect a full first round of 75-80s and a full top 100 of 60s with 15-20 80 PV superstars, but I think it is fine to understand that the OOTP scouting scale doesn't match up with the actual scouting scale exactly.

[renojedi]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

It sounds like the key divide is that the OOTP ratings all get bumped up a little because most people don't understand how the actual 20-80 scale works and want to see higher ratings

This was also a problem when rating were 1-10 or 1-100. One to 10 was too precise, 1-100 was better because it was more like a range, etc.

People still complained that player x had 80 power but a better player (in their eyes) had a 75.

Then we went to 20-80 for realism when it is now not really a 20-80 (just found that out actually). Same arguments if you look at the MLB rosters thread in bug reports.

I would prefer that it use real 20-80 and we all normalize to what you are talking about. Of course, not sure that can happen due to what I wrote above.