Development Lab Impressions

[Daniel_09]

I think most of us have already tried the new development lab.

I would like to know your impressions or opinions about it, personally I can say that I have done several tests and the % of success is between 15% and 28% which seems to me quite accurate because personally if it were higher, it is a way to cheat the engine.

Another thing I would like to know is if you keep the number of slots in default or you have changed it, the maximum is 20, I think a real MLB organization has more than 20 players between offseason and especially in ST working or developing something additional.

Do you find 6 slots too few or do you find 20 slots too high.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

I think most of us have already tried the new development lab.

I would like to know your impressions or opinions about it, personally I can say that I have done several tests and the % of success is between 15% and 28% which seems to me quite accurate because personally if it were higher, it is a way to cheat the engine.

Another thing I would like to know is if you keep the number of slots in default or you have changed it, the maximum is 20, I think a real MLB organization has more than 20 players between offseason and especially in ST working or developing something additional.

Do you find 6 slots too few or do you find 20 slots too high.

1. Pitchers can't do baserunning exercises.

2. There's not enough time in the off-season to do any of the 5-6 month trainings (bug report submitted)

3. It's a good start. Now that it's in place, there's room for it to improve as players mess around with it.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by uruguru

1. Pitchers can't do baserunning exercises.

2. There's not enough time in the off-season to do any of the 5-6 month trainings (bug report submitted)

3. It's a good start. Now that it's in place, there's room for it to improve as players mess around with it.

I think point 2 is quite important, I know it is a bug but maybe it is better that these programs were shorter to avoid these problems or that the lab is available a little before the offseason or is more permissive with the time.

[Daniel_09]

I also think it is a very solid starting point, personally it is the best feature that OOTP has brought in the last 5 or 6 versions.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

I think point 2 is quite important, I know it is a bug but maybe it is better that these programs were shorter to avoid these problems or that the lab is available a little before the offseason or is more permissive with the time.

Some players seem to be able to do this, so maybe it's off-season specific.


However, even though I as a GM cannot use this feature, if I put AI control on then it can.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Some players seem to be able to do this, so maybe it's off-season specific.


However, even though I as a GM cannot use this feature, if I put AI control on then it can.

It has never happened to me, but the way you say it if it is a bug.

[cpsabotage]

I like the direction, but it does further expose a longtime weakness of scouting reports - can't easily see if something improved beyond the main categories. Would be nice to have a more complete "snapshot" of the player before and after.

[Sweed]

I'm enjoying it in my first off season. So happy to see that it isn't overpowered.

Will did say in one of the threads the plan was to expand the scouting reports.

Originally Posted by Will Beh

Yeah the issue here is that the scouting system only tracks the main ratings. For things like base stealing, it won't be visible in the scouting report unfortunately

Originally Posted by Will Beh

It's something we wanted to add but didn't have time unfortunately this year

I think it's a good start and, not surprisingly, it sounds like additions will be made in the next version to keep fleshing it out.

[rujumpin]

Having an issue where if I choose a longer term program on the first day of off-season it’ll end and I can’t select a 4-6 week program to round out ST, but if I click “AI Fill” it auto populates and I just redo that until I get a decent program set up.

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing. Maybe being able to set up dev program and do pre-intake the few days before offseason would give a little better margin to prevent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm enjoying it in my first off season. So happy to see that it isn't overpowered.

Will did say in one of the threads the plan was to expand the scouting reports.





I think it's a good start and, not surprisingly, it sounds like additions will be made in the next version to keep fleshing it out.

that is correct I have seen many OOTP 25 videos where the scout's email reveals that there is an improvement in a rating that has never been in the scouting report, such as the speed and steals ratings as well as the defensive ratings.

I think it would be a good addition (I imagine it will be in another version of the game) where one can see through the scouting report the evolution of the defensive ratings (range, arm, etc...) since with the development lab there can be important changes.

I know that the scouting have DEF rating but that only shows the experience of the player in that position but does not reflect any positive or negative change of the defensive ratings.

[KingDavis]

I think it needs some balancing overall, but I like it so far. From what I've seen the short ones are too easy, especially the fielding ones that have a major impact on a player.

For example in my test game I'm playing right now, in the 2027 offseason I've got Soto up to 60/70/75 defensive ratings by training him at LF in 25, 26, and 27, and then learning a new position once. That shouldn't really happen in my mind. There's no way that Soto should ever be able to get to a 75 grade corner OF or 55 grade CF. He just doesn't have that potential. In 2024 he had a -7.1 ZR for the Yankees, and now he had a 3.1 ZR for me in 2026. In 3 years he became a legit fielder.

I'm not sure what the fix is, maybe there should be a fielding cap? Or based on the original position there's a limit to how the skills transfer to other positions, but something like a bat first guy becoming a true elite fielder just isn't really possible in the MLB.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by KingDavis

I think it needs some balancing overall, but I like it so far. From what I've seen the short ones are too easy, especially the fielding ones that have a major impact on a player.

For example in my test game I'm playing right now, in the 2027 offseason I've got Soto up to 60/70/75 defensive ratings by training him at LF in 25, 26, and 27, and then learning a new position once. That shouldn't really happen in my mind. There's no way that Soto should ever be able to get to a 75 grade corner OF or 55 grade CF. He just doesn't have that potential. In 2024 he had a -7.1 ZR for the Yankees, and now he had a 3.1 ZR for me in 2026. In 3 years he became a legit fielder.

I'm not sure what the fix is, maybe there should be a fielding cap? Or based on the original position there's a limit to how the skills transfer to other positions, but something like a bat first guy becoming a true elite fielder just isn't really possible in the MLB.

I don't know if the solution is Cap's defensive ratings, since what you say is the norm in MLB, but we also see cases like Adam Duvall who by urgency of Atlanta played relatively decent CF at a relatively high age to learn a new position or show tools that he didn't have before.

I agree that defensive ratings should not start low and then evolve to their potential like batting or pitching ratings, but I think a solution to those drastic defensive changes with development lab could be solved if each player has positions with which his ratings qualify.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by KingDavis

I think it needs some balancing overall, but I like it so far. From what I've seen the short ones are too easy, especially the fielding ones that have a major impact on a player.

For example in my test game I'm playing right now, in the 2027 offseason I've got Soto up to 60/70/75 defensive ratings by training him at LF in 25, 26, and 27, and then learning a new position once. That shouldn't really happen in my mind. There's no way that Soto should ever be able to get to a 75 grade corner OF or 55 grade CF. He just doesn't have that potential. In 2024 he had a -7.1 ZR for the Yankees, and now he had a 3.1 ZR for me in 2026. In 3 years he became a legit fielder.

I'm not sure what the fix is, maybe there should be a fielding cap? Or based on the original position there's a limit to how the skills transfer to other positions, but something like a bat first guy becoming a true elite fielder just isn't really possible in the MLB.

Specifically in the case of Juan Soto it could be that his initial defensive ratings should not be so good, since he has never been a good defensive player, and even if you train him defensively three years in a row he should not be so high.

[KingDavis]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

I don't know if the solution is Cap's defensive ratings, since what you say is the norm in MLB,

I agree that maybe it's not a cap, but a player like Soto who was a -7 OAA player last year becoming a very very good fielder over three years is not really the MLB norm. I'm not sure I've ever seen one of the worst fielders become one of the best like is possible in the dev lab.

Last year Soto was 19/25 of players who played 500+ innings in LF by OAA. He was 42/51 of all players who played 500+ innings in RF/LF.

In this sim he's 13/55 in ZR of players with 500+ innings in corner OF. Not the same I know but there's no OAA in OOTP lol.

If that was something that was possible in MLB teams would be doing it. I think defensive trainings are just way too valuable in the game, especially for MLB level players.

[KingDavis]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

Specifically in the case of Juan Soto it could be that his initial defensive ratings should not be so good, since he has never been a good defensive player, and even if you train him defensively three years in a row he should not be so high.

Pretty sure he started as about 35/40/45 or something like that. He definitely starts out as a poor fielder (-7.1 ZR in the 2024 year of my sim), so I'm not sure that is the issue.

I've also trained Wyatt Langford to be a 2 time reigning Gold Glover which really nobody sees as possible in real life. Defense is one of the biggest weaknesses in his game.

It's not like a game breaking issue or anything so far (especially because you could just not do it, and you have to sacrifice other development to do so), but anyone not playing CF/SS/C basically doesn't need to worry about defense to start out if they don't want. By the time a draftee makes it to MLB they could be like 20+ points better in all the defensive categories.

[RockiesFan420]

I've peen playing with the 20 slots. 6 just feels too few, and I like to micromanage my guys (I am auditing my entire minor league system for development three times a year – after spring training, at the draft, and after the playoffs).

My impressions are that it makes me value players with good personalities even more than I used to as players with strong work ethic and strong intelligence seem to do the best in the lab.

My other impression as I've written in other places this morning is that the defensive changes are just OP. I'm personally probably going to avoid using them as I can make basically any player a gold glover which feels unrealistic to me.

I enjoy it a lot. Best change made to OOTP in quite a while, so congrats to the dev team!

[Sweed]

In some threads there are users saying it's too easy to get result x. Some say it's too hard to get result y. Then the "but I can't see how much the skill improved" comments, that are fair and reasonable. Replies come from Will that some of this stuff is going to be hard to see, or know whether it's coming from the new features or just the normal development that continues to run too. I think most realize there is a result, but it's hard to see/quantify due partly to the limits of the current scouting, and that will be improved over time.

I think the comments we've seen, be it "too easy or too hard", show they have it pretty close to where it should be. Adjustments and tweaks being needed shouldn't be a surprise to anyone for a feature like this, especially after going from a small beta team to the masses.

IMHO it's definitely a sound foundation to build on, and once the tweaks are done it will end up being one of the best features added to the game.

[Guthrien]

I'm definitely not seeing "easy" results. To me it seems appropriately low powered, but oddly satisfying when it works. Even when it works, it's pretty small outcome.

Honestly, I'm more confused by the development bars we have with each player. I read the developer discussion, and in my own thread I was told it was very minor, which I completely believe. What I still don't completely understand and maybe I've missed it, is the players are already set to their highest best attribute. If I bring those down to average levels and commit them all to actual problem areas, like a real plan for improvement, is that somehow worse for the player? I can't tell yet.

Either way, it's a nice feature, I like it.

[Will Beh]

With regards to the defensive ones, I also agree that the results are a bit too strong. It has been toned down a bit in the upcoming patch for defensive programs. There's also a fix such that the defensive programs can't be abused anymore by switching the player's position back and forth. And in general, the program offered is now that player's primary position, not their current one. This should overall help balance out the defensive programs to make more realistic sense.

It's also true that the scouting reports are unfortunately limited, and it's also a bit unfortunate that in some cases the player's improvements are not quite visible on the default 20 to 80 scale with 5 point increments. We had considered adding the actual number change onto the email you get from the scout when they finish a program, similar to the development reports you get, but didnt really like this because it made it feel too gamey. I completely understand everyone's drive to figure out the actual numbers for all the programs since it's a brand new feature, but in the long-run we want it to feel realistic with some fog-of-war, where changes aren't just numbers like +6, or +3, or whatever. Instead of chasing numbers, we like to consider the changes as actual things the player did, more qualitative than quantitative (which you can see quantitatively in the stats, or the speed at which they develop, etc.). The hope was to still have the change numbers in the scouting reports for people that really wanted to see them, but of course that hasn't been ideal.

[Rain King]

I wonder if giving them the change within the email based on the scale they have, but if it isn't enough to move them up say something like "We still rate Johnny as a 55, but they are now closer to pushing to that next level" would help.

Or even something like they have moved from a "weak/middling 55 to a strong 55".