Development Complex works, but no visible ratings change

[nphyte]

Hi,


I am new to the forums, and I've looked through but was unable to find an issue similar to what I experienced. Apologies if the issue has been raised.



I am having an issue where a player who completed the Quality of Contact Program with "outstanding" results had no change in his ratings. (both current and potential)



Could it be the case that he improved, but at a very minuscule level that does not reflect on the 20-80 scale?



I am playing on challenge mode (imported save from '24), 20-80 ratings, latest version of OOTP, development and labs both enabled.



Thanks in advance,

[rujumpin]

Have experienced the same. So far have had 3 "Outstandings" from programs and only one showed a visible "Current Eye Improved from 60...". Other 2 didnt lead to any rating or scout change at all. I haven't had any "Good" results though so I was assuming it was just showing the Outstanding label but giving Good rewards.

It's hard to figure out the Dev Lab to test it for now but I assume its still leading to a smaller change within the grade that could be verified with editor, swap to 1-100 rating , or something along those lines.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by rujumpin

Have experienced the same. So far have had 3 "Outstandings" from programs and only one showed a visible "Current Eye Improved from 60...". Other 2 didnt lead to any rating or scout change at all. I haven't had any "Good" results though so I was assuming it was just showing the Outstanding label but giving Good rewards.

It's hard to figure out the Dev Lab to test it for now but I assume its still leading to a smaller change within the grade that could be verified with editor, swap to 1-100 rating , or something along those lines.

It's a small change. If you use a larger rating scale, you will most likely see more changes to front-end ratings.

[jksander]

Yeah I've been able to see the results by looking in the editor, but I like that it's happening under the hood and I'm also assuming a lot is hidden by the "fog of war" in your own scouting info etc. ... i.e. how much do you trust that your scouts know what they're doing when they tell you things lol

[nphyte]

So I changed my ratings to 1-100, and did a bit of save-scumming and here is what I observed.Since my scouting is not 100% and I was too lazy to start a new non-challenge mode save, take this with a HUGE grain of salt...


Like some of you said, the results to the ratings were pretty small.
What I did find interesting is that this player would get outstanding results consistently compared to the other 5 players in the lab. (He has high adaptability and high intelligence.) This is consistent with the developer notes.

But then again, there are too many variables, the sample size is tiny (about 10 save scums), and the accuracy of the observable data (scouting) is not 100% so nothing here is conclusive/significant.

I think the important thing to take away here is that its unlikely for the development lab to transform an average player to a superstar, so don't stress over it. (like me)

Maybe I'll run a sim that can produce actual results in the future, but since regular development happens in the background as well, not sure what the best way would be to control for that... Maybe in the near future after the flurry of post-release patches cease.

[nphyte]

*fixed

[rujumpin]

Had Brett Baty year one offseason go from 55-65 Power and a massive jump in overall after a bat-speed program.

Likely combined with a favorable scouting increase anyway but then, next offseason Eury Perez dropped from a 65 OVR/POT to 50 OVR/POT just from one failed movement program.
So it seems like there can be some pretty major outcomes, stocking up on High WE + INT players in my online league for sure haha

[rujumpin]

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by jksander

Yeah I've been able to see the results by looking in the editor, but I like that it's happening under the hood and I'm also assuming a lot is hidden by the "fog of war" in your own scouting info etc. ... i.e. how much do you trust that your scouts know what they're doing when they tell you things lol

Seems like a player completing this should automatically update your scouting report on him

[Will Beh]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Seems like a player completing this should automatically update your scouting report on him

You do get an updated scouting report both after the 5 day intake period and when they complete the lab. However, if you are on a 20 to 80 scale for example, the change may be too minimal to be picked up or the scout's accuracy might not be the best to pick up the change in numbers.
a 38 and 42 will both display as a 40 for example.

Also a lot of people seem to be getting confused by the reports they are getting including other stuff, but remember that for a 4 month long program, the player is likely to also have natural development on top of the program.

The best way to see what changed for a player is actually to just read what the scout describes. Although I totally get the urge to figure out the exact numbers since it's all brand new

[snepp]

Originally Posted by Will Beh

Although I totally get the urge to figure out the exact numbers since it's all brand new

Part curiosity, and part balance feedback going forward.

I do think the fielding bumps might be a little on the strong side, given the short duration of the task (humble opinions and all that).

Had one last night with an "outstanding" result for an outfielder that provided gains of 23, 24, and 23, which was about a 20% improvement across the board for 5 weeks of time. I would have been thrilled to see half of those gains.

[RockiesFan420]

Agreed that the fielding is really unbalanced. I had my utility player learn a new position, and he ended up learning catcher as that was the only position he hadn't played yet. He ended up with a 45 on blocking and framing, with a 55 on arm. So not a good catcher, but more than feasible as a positions 1-9 super utility guy who preventing me from needing to use a roster spot on a backup catcher. From 1 training, seems too much of a bump.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by RockiesFan420

Agreed that the fielding is really unbalanced. I had my utility player learn a new position, and he ended up learning catcher as that was the only position he hadn't played yet. He ended up with a 45 on blocking and framing, with a 55 on arm. So not a good catcher, but more than feasible as a positions 1-9 super utility guy who preventing me from needing to use a roster spot on a backup catcher. From 1 training, seems too much of a bump.

I imagine that over time the OOTP team will adjust this, likewise if I have a player who already has experience in all positions I wouldn't teach him a new position, I would try to improve in one.

And although the C issue is quite peculiar, let's not forget that in recent years players like MJ Melendez and Henry Davis have moved from C to OF because of team need.

With this I am not saying that it is justified that an IF and OF player can and wants to learn to play C.

Although in another thread I wrote that I don't agree with a defensive cap, I think the solution is for players to have a cap at the positions they could play.
for example, if a player only has OF ratings and very low IF ratings when taking him to the lab and tell him to learn a new position could automatically get a message that the player is not able to learn a new position due to his ratings.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

I imagine that over time the OOTP team will adjust this, likewise if I have a player who already has experience in all positions I wouldn't teach him a new position, I would try to improve in one.

And although the C issue is quite peculiar, let's not forget that in recent years players like MJ Melendez and Henry Davis have moved from C to OF because of team need.

With this I am not saying that it is justified that an IF and OF player can and wants to learn to play C.

Although in another thread I wrote that I don't agree with a defensive cap, I think the solution is for players to have a cap at the positions they could play.
for example, if a player only has OF ratings and very low IF ratings when taking him to the lab and tell him to learn a new position could automatically get a message that the player is not able to learn a new position due to his ratings.

Beyond the small sample size, I am not sure that C-to-OF transitions imply a similar feasibility of the reverse. C has a very particular skill set, the elements of which are not really acquired through experience at other positions.

[RockiesFan420]

Originally Posted by jcard

Beyond the small sample size, I am not sure that C-to-OF transitions imply a similar feasibility of the reverse. C has a very particular skill set, the elements of which are not really acquired through experience at other positions.

I agree with this. We rarely hear about players who transition to catcher. Players not sticking at catcher is fairly common. Jorge Posada transitioning from 2B to C after in 1991 after his first season in pro ball comes to mind. Nothing else really does.