Historical Game Adjust/Weaken settings AKA the Make Bad Setting

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

I have stated that OOTP25 Adjust/Weaken inputs are different than previous OOTP games.

That is a major change. Why isn't it in the release notes?

Why were we never told that prior to 25 the game was multiplying the inputs? Right there next to the settings is says SPs get 4x the IPs. A perfect place to explain 3x and 5x if that's what's happening.

It could be I'm the only one who thinks this not being mentioned in the release notes, the first mention being by you in a thread about another subject in one of the least read forums on the board, your avoidance of questions, and the devs ignoring the issue including a post in the bugs forum, is an indication we're gotten incomplete/incorrect information. Maybe I'm the only one. I guess the powers that be are willing to take that chance.

And another thing? Why do people think adjusting a player who doesn't have 1000 ABs in five years is a good idea? A player with 200 ABs doesn't get adjusted on one year ratings!

[Garlon]

You can use any adjust/weaken settings you want.

You can use 200/50 for 5yr if you want. You will have an abundance of talent in the league though.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Reed

Tough question. 1 yr or 3 yr or 5 yr recalc.? How many teams? If you are going to import players above “x” ABs and “y” IP then you are already kind of doing the work of the adjust/default. If 1 yr recalc then the above setting for adjust/weaken should work out ok IMO. Most of your starting line up and SP should be above that setting. Hopefully someone else will chime in. Good luck.

Thanks for your reply... appreciate it.

I apologize for my ignorance on this subject... I haven't create a league like this since version 6.5... I played 10 years and finally stopped because many good players did poorly... I couldn't accept Tom Seaver going 7-22 with a 5.00 ERA... however, many of the players performed well... Babe Ruth led it in homers... Cobb and Joe Jackson hit for average.

Since that alltime allstar league, I have used fictiona players.

I always used default settings... my thinking was Markus knows the game a little bit better than me.

I will just take a leap of faith... import my players... use default settings and run a test league and see what happens.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Brad K

That is a major change. Why isn't it in the release notes?

Why were we never told that prior to 25 the game was multiplying the inputs? Right there next to the settings is says SPs get 4x the IPs. A perfect place to explain 3x and 5x if that's what's happening.

It could be I'm the only one who thinks this not being mentioned in the release notes, the first mention being by you in a thread about another subject in one of the least read forums on the board, your avoidance of questions, and the devs ignoring the issue including a post in the bugs forum, is an indication we're gotten incomplete/incorrect information. Maybe I'm the only one. I guess the powers that be are willing to take that chance.

And another thing? Why do people think adjusting a player who doesn't have 1000 ABs in five years is a good idea? A player with 200 ABs doesn't get adjusted on one year ratings!

The main reason we haven't listed it is that I'm not actually sure it's a change from previous years. It's possible that many years ago it may have worked that way, but at least in OOTP24, I think it works similarly to how it does now (except that we use different levels to adjust to).

Like if you take OOTP 24, start up a new historical game in 1953 with a limit of 400 AB for both adjust and weaken with 3 year recalc, Ted Williams still imports as a 5 star player. But he very clearly has less than 400 AB in 1953, and less than 1200 in the 1952-1954 range.

As for what level people want the adjust to be at, that's obviously still up for debate. Too high of a level and you can wipe out a lot of legit player performances (1000 AB even in a 3 year sample is a pretty solid sample size). But too low and that can have an impact too on the distribution of plays.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Scoman

If your doing 5 year recalc you multiply those numbers by 5 according to Garlon.

So 1000/250 and 125/50.

Ive tested those setting with very good results.



https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=352747

Thank you... appreciate your help and advice.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by thehef

If I'm understanding both your settings and how A/W now works, you shouldn't have any issues. It sounds like all of the players you select for your game - not being mediocre with few AB's or IP's - would exceed the 200 AB & 50 IP thresholds and therefore not be adjusted (or weakened)... And if you do have a smattering of players who come in - over a five-ear period - under 200 or 50 (seems highly unlikely with three-year and your choice of players who only played "a lot of games"), they would probably be just barely under 200 or 50 and therefore only slightly adjusted...

That's my understanding. I could be wrong on my understanding of your game, and/or of how A/W is now working...

Thank you... appreciate your advice and help.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Eugene, nobody has done quite what you are doing. Any advice is a guess. Maybe an educated guess but still a guess. Plus there's the issue of there being some question of whether adjust and weaken worked in the past the way Garlon has described. If he's wrong then entering the higher numbers is a change.

The ajust and weaken feature is to compensate for data that is unrealiable due to small sample size. So a guy as a one year career with 200 ABs and he's not adjusted on one year ratings. But he's highly adjusted if five year is selected because the standard for no adjustment is 1000 ABs. How does this make any sense? If 200 is good enough for one year it's good enough for five year.

This is why I suspect 24 and back were what you see is what you get, no multiplier behind the scenes and that using Garlon's method is a change. The devs have been completely silent on this despite multiple threads and Garlon has gone into hiding. I'm not saying my analysis is right but this sure looks like a ignore it and hope it goes away situation. Somebody screwed up.

Thank you for your help and advice... I apologize to all of you guys for sorta highjacking the the thread... what you are discussing is more important than my unique league... still my unique league is related somewhat to this thread.

[Eugene Church]

Rather than clutter this thread up... this will be my last post.

Thanks to all of you who responded... much appreciate all of you.

I think I will try to find goat's quickstart and use it to download his players like sprague suggested... yeah, buddy, that would save me some import time.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Eugene Church

Thank you for your help and advice... I apologize to all of you guys for sorta highjacking the the thread... what you are discussing is more important than my unigue league... still my unique league is related somewhat to this thread.

You didn't hijack the thread. I like forum discussions to go wherever the conversation takes it. I've never done what you're trying to do, so I had nothing to offer in terms of help, but please don't feel you have to exit thread .

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The main reason we haven't listed it is that I'm not actually sure it's a change from previous years. It's possible that many years ago it may have worked that way, but at least in OOTP24, I think it works similarly to how it does now (except that we use different levels to adjust to).

Like if you take OOTP 24, start up a new historical game in 1953 with a limit of 400 AB for both adjust and weaken with 3 year recalc, Ted Williams still imports as a 5 star player. But he very clearly has less than 400 AB in 1953, and less than 1200 in the 1952-1954 range.

As for what level people want the adjust to be at, that's obviously still up for debate. Too high of a level and you can wipe out a lot of legit player performances (1000 AB even in a 3 year sample is a pretty solid sample size). But too low and that can have an impact too on the distribution of plays.

Thank you for your response. I'm not surprised at it not being known how the game worked previously. I'm under the impression making changes has taken precedence over documentation of them for many years. It's easy to get into a situation of trying something but not documenting it at the time due to not being sure it's permanent and then getting caught in the push to get a product out and not going back to document.

That it wasn't known for sure could have been stated days ago. The delay has caused harm. Please consider this when there's an issue in the future.

There clearly is no doubt in Garlon's mind about how it works now and how it worked then despite the doubt in yours. I suggest perhaps some better supervision is appropriate.

Thanks again.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Thank you for your response. I'm not surprised at it not being known how the game worked previously. I'm under the impression making changes has taken precedence over documentation of them for many years. It's easy to get into a situation of trying something but not documenting it at the time due to not being sure it's permanent and then getting caught in the push to get a product out and not going back to document.

That it wasn't known for sure could have been stated days ago. The delay has caused harm. Please consider this when there's an issue in the future.

There clearly is no doubt in Garlon's mind about how it works now and how it worked then despite the doubt in yours. I suggest perhaps some better supervision is appropriate.

Thanks again.

I have to agree. For a developer from a small core to respond with conditional certainty on a matter of code is discouraging. It suggests one of either a) he has access to the dispositive material in the form of a fellow developer or internal documentation but is not willing to take the time to get that information or b) that there is no in-house colleague who is familiar with the matter through either direct experience or institutional knowledge nor adequate work product archiving.

[David Watts]

Is there anywhere in the OOTP manual that it says that the game multiplied the adjust/weaken settings by the number of recalc years, either 3 or 5? I think it was somewhere around OOTP21 or 22 that I started hearing that it worked that way. Just curious.

[Jeff1787]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The main reason we haven't listed it is that I'm not actually sure it's a change from previous years. It's possible that many years ago it may have worked that way, but at least in OOTP24, I think it works similarly to how it does now (except that we use different levels to adjust to).

Like if you take OOTP 24, start up a new historical game in 1953 with a limit of 400 AB for both adjust and weaken with 3 year recalc, Ted Williams still imports as a 5 star player. But he very clearly has less than 400 AB in 1953, and less than 1200 in the 1952-1954 range.

As for what level people want the adjust to be at, that's obviously still up for debate. Too high of a level and you can wipe out a lot of legit player performances (1000 AB even in a 3 year sample is a pretty solid sample size). But too low and that can have an impact too on the distribution of plays.

That was a three paragraph non-answer. A simple answer would have been: I don't know but I'll find out ASAP.

As of now, I am going on what Garlon finally said - 3yr multiply adjust numbers by 3...5yr multiply adjust numbers by 5.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Is there anywhere in the OOTP manual that it says that the game multiplied the adjust/weaken settings by the number of recalc years, either 3 or 5? I think it was somewhere around OOTP21 or 22 that I started hearing that it worked that way. Just curious.

It's all Garlon's proclamations. Not documented in the manual. Based on Matt's post it's not documented in whatever notes the devs keep on their work which appears to be close to none. And they don't remember. So unwilling to challenge Garlon with "we don't know" Garlon's statements made it into the public consciousness as fact.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The main reason we haven't listed it is that I'm not actually sure it's a change from previous years. It's possible that many years ago it may have worked that way, but at least in OOTP24, I think it works similarly to how it does now (except that we use different levels to adjust to).

Like if you take OOTP 24, start up a new historical game in 1953 with a limit of 400 AB for both adjust and weaken with 3 year recalc, Ted Williams still imports as a 5 star player. But he very clearly has less than 400 AB in 1953, and less than 1200 in the 1952-1954 range.

As for what level people want the adjust to be at, that's obviously still up for debate. Too high of a level and you can wipe out a lot of legit player performances (1000 AB even in a 3 year sample is a pretty solid sample size). But too low and that can have an impact too on the distribution of plays.

Ok, so now my question. What do I need to use if I am using the development engine with no recalc?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Jeff1787

That was a three paragraph non-answer. A simple answer would have been: I don't know but I'll find out ASAP.

As of now, I am going on what Garlon finally said - 3yr multiply adjust numbers by 3...5yr multiply adjust numbers by 5.

My view is it's unlikely that prior to 25 the game did the multiplication itself behind the scenes. And Garlon hasn't given any explanation of the necessity of setting the adjust value to 1000 ABs. All he's said is do it with an unconfirmable statement that's how it was done before. Not good enough for me.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by rwd59

Ok, so now my question. What do I need to use if I am using the development engine with no recalc?

My first guess is that turning off recalc results in no need for the adjust routine. OTOH, the initial numbers for a player's career have to come from somwhere.

Maybe there's a quick way of testing. Put in 1 for adjust and check the players BAs in the editor. Then put in 1000 and see if they differ.

[Reed]

We all make mistakes and it is time to learn and move on. We all misread the manual IMO. Just reread the OOTP 19 manual and it DOES NOT say that the adjust/weaken values will be modified based on the recalc settings. It probably never did. It is something we assumed for years.

It might make things easier if it did work like we assumed or maybe not.
I believe you should always test you game out before starting you league in earnest

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The main reason we haven't listed it is that I'm not actually sure it's a change from previous years.

This doesn't make sense. Is there new code or not? If yes then how can something be changed without knowing how it worked before? How can something in the program be cancelled or replaced without knowing where it is and what it does?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Reed

We all make mistakes and it is time to learn and move on. We all misread the manual IMO. Just reread the OOTP 19 manual and it DOES NOT say that the adjust/weaken values will be modified based on the recalc settings. It probably never did. It is something we assumed for years.

We didn't assume anything. We were told by a trusted insider. Who then continued the false information by this year saying it didn't work that way anymore. And so we now have a bunch of people who want to put 1000 in a field where the number in that field was never higher than 300.

And no, it's not time to move on. It's time for Garlon and the devs to undo the damage caused by Garlon telling people to put 1000 in the ABs adjust field.