Development Lab Results are Buggy??

[mjt205]

I've now had three occasions where I get "development program successful" for a player, but when I look at their scouting tab to verify improvements, their ratings for the skill that was supposedly improved actually went backwards, has anyone else seen this? I emailed the developers last week but haven't heard anything back.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by mjt205

I've now had three occasions where I get "development program successful" for a player, but when I look at their scouting tab to verify improvements, their ratings for the skill that was supposedly improved actually went backwards, has anyone else seen this? I emailed the developers last week but haven't heard anything back.

This may just be that your scouting is lagging on recognizing the improvements.

If you look at the actual ratings in the editor, or run a rescout, do you see the same thing?

[Will Beh]

It's almost certainly because of natural player development since the last scouting report. The best way to see actual numbers for the results is to look in the editor the day before the program finishes vs the day after. Or you could just trust what your scout says

[DcS]

Originally Posted by Will Beh

It's almost certainly because of natural player development since the last scouting report. The best way to see actual numbers for the results is to look in the editor the day before the program finishes vs the day after. Or you could just trust what your scout says

I was a bit unsure about my previous year results so I did this on the 4 programs that looked like they were going to succeed. Here's my results day before and day of (including a decrease after a successful program)

H Davis - 27 YO - "Outstanding" Batspeed

• Before: POW 421/417/415
• After: POW 427/427/422 - Very small improvement

T Johnson - 22 YO - "Outstanding" Batspeed

• Before: POW 358/358/353
• After: POW 396/396/391 - Noticeable Improvement

P Skenes - 24 YO - "Successful" Pitch Movement

• Before: RAW MOV 382/382/384, HR 396/396/398, Mov OVR 401/410/407
• After: RAW MOV 389/389/384, HR 403/403/398, Mov OVR 405/414/407 - Very Small Improvement

H Smith - 23 YO - "Successful" Pitch Control

• Before: CON 277/277/270
• After: CON 274/274/268 - Small DECREASE

[DcS]

Additionally, a related issue. After finishing long programs, I am unable to start short programs during Spring Training (no programs show as available). However, the "Ask AI to Fill Complex" button will still populate all training slots. I suspect there isn't actually enough time to finish as there's only just over a month before the season (or it will be very close) but the AI is throwing them in there anyway.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by DcS

I was a bit unsure about my previous year results so I did this on the 4 programs that looked like they were going to succeed. Here's my results day before and day of (including a decrease after a successful program)

H Davis - 27 YO - "Outstanding" Batspeed

• Before: POW 421/417/415
• After: POW 427/427/422 - Very small improvement

T Johnson - 22 YO - "Outstanding" Batspeed

• Before: POW 358/358/353
• After: POW 396/396/391 - Noticeable Improvement

P Skenes - 24 YO - "Successful" Pitch Movement

• Before: RAW MOV 382/382/384, HR 396/396/398, Mov OVR 401/410/407
• After: RAW MOV 389/389/384, HR 403/403/398, Mov OVR 405/414/407 - Very Small Improvement

H Smith - 23 YO - "Successful" Pitch Control

• Before: CON 277/277/270
• After: CON 274/274/268 - Small DECREASE

What you have matches my own experiences, which I put in another thread. Outstanding “seems” to offer up to a 10% increase in raw editor numbers, but it is very inconsistent. I have also seen NO IMPROVEMENT result in improvement and SUCCESSFUL result in a decrease. I do not think I ever saw POOR result in improvement and I did see a significant decrease there once.

Could be bad in game messaging, working as intended, who knows. It is not particularly user friendly however, particularly if you are not using commissioner mode.

[snepp]

Originally Posted by DcS

Additionally, a related issue. After finishing long programs, I am unable to start short programs during Spring Training (no programs show as available). However, the "Ask AI to Fill Complex" button will still populate all training slots. I suspect there isn't actually enough time to finish as there's only just over a month before the season (or it will be very close) but the AI is throwing them in there anyway.

I've found that it won't let the user select them if they won't complete prior to opening day, but that the "ask ai" function will still allow them to be filled in if they will complete on opening day itself.

[md40022]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

This may just be that your scouting is lagging on recognizing the improvements.

If you look at the actual ratings in the editor, or run a rescout, do you see the same thing?

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, I have yet to get through season 1 of my sim so I haven't played with the lab at all yet, but......

Given that it is your team and your organization running said player through the development program, wouldn't it be your scouts and your coaches making the determination if the development program was a success or not?

And if that's the case, the ratings changes should be instantaneous to the completion of the program. And not only should the ratings changes be instantaneous, but they should also directly reflect the success or lack of success from the development program

If it's my coaches and my scouts saying this development project was a success, and then those very same scouts DECREASE the player's given ratings in the corresponding categories, that definitely sounds like something needs to be fixed there.

It's not like an outside party is saying the development drills were a success and then my personal scouts may not agree. It's my own organization saying it was a success and therefore the ratings should immediately reflect that...... at least it would sure seem that way.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by md40022

It's not like an outside party is saying the development drills were a success and then my personal scouts may not agree. It's my own organization saying it was a success and therefore the ratings should immediately reflect that...... at least it would sure seem that way.

It wouldn't be the first time one person in an organization said something and another person in the organization disagreed. I'm assuming it's the coaches who are running the dev lab, not the scouts.

[DcS]

Originally Posted by snepp

I've found that it won't let the user select them if they won't complete prior to opening day, but that the "ask ai" function will still allow them to be filled in if they will complete on opening day itself.

For what it's worth, these ones all ended up finishing on opening day, so seems you're right and it does seem to be a genuine bug since there was enough time.

These ones lined up with the results more like I would expect as well.

Cal Miller - C Def - Outstanding

CBLK 120 --> 129
CFRM 114 --> 126
CARM 110 --> 121

Francisco Acuna - Baserunning - Successful

Run 105 --> 115

Eli Wilson - Baserunning - Successful

Run 84 --> 94

[md40022]

Originally Posted by locuspc

It wouldn't be the first time one person in an organization said something and another person in the organization disagreed. I'm assuming it's the coaches who are running the dev lab, not the scouts.

Totally agree with you speaking IRL, but I'd really hope that's not incorporated into OOTP

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by md40022

Totally agree with you speaking IRL, but I'd really hope that's not incorporated into OOTP

This is the nuance that seems to get lost sometimes.

I’m happy to devote $ to scouting and player development and tinker with my scouts and coaching staff to get “Very High” scouting reports…but if I do this and play the game I am asked to play by the game mechanics, I should also have a reliable narrator giving me information.

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by mjt205

I've now had three occasions where I get "development program successful" for a player, but when I look at their scouting tab to verify improvements, their ratings for the skill that was supposedly improved actually went backwards, has anyone else seen this? I emailed the developers last week but haven't heard anything back.

Since this is OOPT 1st year using the Lab Developments, I'd expect the Dev Team would still need to make tweaks here and there. It's been quite a common expectation since Season Ticket first came out that tweaks will be make every year for different things. Can anyone really expect a simulation game to playout exactly as the IRL game playout? Of Course not. Just remember for the 1st 24 editions we didn't have the LAB option. I trust this team to get it close as possible to the IRL game. But I realize not every player that goes through LAB will do so with positive results as IRL positive bumps mostly comes through years of playing the game.
I take the LAB function for what it's worth, good or bad results. But I do understand the original post.

Bunktown Ballers

BB

[md40022]

Originally Posted by md40022

Totally agree with you speaking IRL, but I'd really hope that's not incorporated into OOTP

To elaborate what I meant here....

If my scout loves an outfield prospect that I have in AA, that report and the ratings I have from my scout is the only info I have on that player. Therefore we have to treat the scout's word as what we go off of. But if the AA manager and AA hitting coach don't agree with the scout and both of those coaches think that exact same player is a total turd who is over rated, we have no access to that info. All we have is what the scout says, not what my coaches say.

Scouts and coaches disagree all the time in real life. Of course. Butttttt being that the scout is sort of the end-all be-all with OOTP (given that he's the only one to give us reports and ratings) then saying a coach called the development program for a player a success, but the ratings still decreased for that player because the scout didn't agree with the coach would be absolute madness lol.

The way it's laid out right now, if the development program was a success (per the only voice in our organization that we have access to) then the ratings should be changed at that very moment and their changes should reflect it being a success.

[locuspc]

I don't know why you say you don't have access to what the coach says. You can find what the coach says in the development lab completion report in your email. It's another piece of information you can use, the development lab completions are stored in the player history so you can use them to inform your view of a player. You're saying that the scout is the end-all be-all, that he's the only voice in your organization, but it seems like your actual complaint is that in this case he's not.

[Daniel_09]

Ok I think you guys are going off topic with regards to coaches and scouts, what is stated at the beginning is that unfortunately the way the scouting report is done currently there are rating increases and decreases that can only be seen in the player's editor.

and at the same time the player's normal development is running in the player's background while he is in the lab, something which at the end of a long training you can get reports with contradictory results to the offseason results.

I think that a noticeable improvement (surely for next year's version) is to significantly improve the reporting of players coming from scouting, which would allow us to see defensive improvements such as arm, range, and also speed and other things that could be more in line with the development lab.

[Will Beh]

On a couple points mentioned here;
Keep in mind that the range of results varies between programs and also between completions of the same program.

It's 100% a bug that you can't start the short programs, I think it has to do with the fact that it ends on opening day. I was going to adjust the lengths a bit so you have more time anyway and also fix that bug for the next patch. I think if you start the long programs ON the day that playoffs end, you can manually fit in the short programs, but if you fill the lab on a specific date there will be this bug.

In terms of the results, I can 100% guarantee that for a no improvement result, you won't see any changes related to the lab since it essentially just skips over all the bonuses when nothing happens.
In terms of the success resulting in a decrease, keep in mind that at the end of each practice, it updates the scouting of the player. So even if the ratings go up, if the scout was already overestimating the rating and then corrects by reducing the rating you see, it may look like the rating itself drops.

I'm thinking I may just include an option in the settings to include the exact numbers that got increased in the completion emails, since so many people want to know the exact change and some people may like to see it quantitatively.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Will Beh

On a couple points mentioned here;
Keep in mind that the range of results varies between programs and also between completions of the same program.

It's 100% a bug that you can't start the short programs, I think it has to do with the fact that it ends on opening day. I was going to adjust the lengths a bit so you have more time anyway and also fix that bug for the next patch. I think if you start the long programs ON the day that playoffs end, you can manually fit in the short programs, but if you fill the lab on a specific date there will be this bug.

In terms of the results, I can 100% guarantee that for a no improvement result, you won't see any changes related to the lab since it essentially just skips over all the bonuses when nothing happens.
In terms of the success resulting in a decrease, keep in mind that at the end of each practice, it updates the scouting of the player. So even if the ratings go up, if the scout was already overestimating the rating and then corrects by reducing the rating you see, it may look like the rating itself drops.

I'm thinking I may just include an option in the settings to include the exact numbers that got increased in the completion emails, since so many people want to know the exact change and some people may like to see it quantitatively.

I think it's a good idea Will to include it in the scout or coaches report, since for example I play without being a commissioner, so I don't have the editor tab enabled, and I wouldn't enable it just to see this.

[Daniel_09]

and so, one can get these small changes with an email because on a scale for example of 20-80 with a scale of increase of 5 there is no increase in ratings if it is less than 5 what the player improved.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Will Beh

On a couple points mentioned here;
Keep in mind that the range of results varies between programs and also between completions of the same program.

It's 100% a bug that you can't start the short programs, I think it has to do with the fact that it ends on opening day. I was going to adjust the lengths a bit so you have more time anyway and also fix that bug for the next patch. I think if you start the long programs ON the day that playoffs end, you can manually fit in the short programs, but if you fill the lab on a specific date there will be this bug.

In terms of the results, I can 100% guarantee that for a no improvement result, you won't see any changes related to the lab since it essentially just skips over all the bonuses when nothing happens.
In terms of the success resulting in a decrease, keep in mind that at the end of each practice, it updates the scouting of the player. So even if the ratings go up, if the scout was already overestimating the rating and then corrects by reducing the rating you see, it may look like the rating itself drops.

I'm thinking I may just include an option in the settings to include the exact numbers that got increased in the completion emails, since so many people want to know the exact change and some people may like to see it quantitatively.

What does the scout have to do with the raw numbers in the editor? Are those not 100% true?

I have tested this - I have put a player in the lab, screenshotted their raw numbers. Asked for a re-scout 2 weeks prior to the lab completion - screenshotted the raw editor numbers before and after the rescout. Screenshotted the numbers the day before lab completion and then after getting the email. Most players, most offfseasons I have checked, don’t show changes at these checks, let alone “daily at the end of practice”.

Based on the raw editor numbers, what you claim is simply not true in the current version of the game.