Talent Change Randomness

[tktkrtktkr]

I think the TCR changed too dramatically in the last update. I agree that the previous version's TCR was low, but the current TCR is too high. In addition to international prospects, the failure of high-potential prospects to grow is also a problem.

For example, It's not realistic that young prospects like Ethan Salas and Walker Jenkins have a high probability of not making it to solid big leaguer(not superstar). They're already quite developed players, and It's strange that it happens so often that they don't survive in the big leagues.

[Baconi]

The chance of success for top prospects irl is probably less than you think, but agreed that it's maybe too drastic with the recent update - I've been running some sims and it seems common for 1OA picks to never even make the majors, realistically almost all of them should make it but many will still flame out. I kind of want the probability of random 11th rounders getting TCR boosted to be increased while having the chance of top prospects never even reaching the majors be reduced. I feel like there is now a better chance of the former but it came at the expense of the latter.


Also, I wish the development curve had more variance - like some players debuting at 19, others at 25 just like in real life. In OOTP, most players seem to debut and peak all at around the same time. Also, having TCR affect players that are in their late 20s and early 30s more would be great - I'm pretty sure it only affects young players' development.

[Pelican]

Well, one easy answer is that, if talent change seems too much, you can reduce the number by moving the slider. I've had the reverse problem - not enough change - and have moved the slider up to 185 without total chaos.

Agreed that the degree of change should depend upon the prospect's age and experience. That 16-year-old international prospect who has 75/75/50 potential has less than a 10% chance of playing a single MLB game. But the 23-year-old guy out of an SEC program who was MVP of a Summer wooden bat league should be more like 75% - still not a sure thing.

For pitching prospects, it's different (in IRL and in OOTP). Injuries play a huge part. Yes, a 100-mile per hour fastball is real, if the guy can control it. But that's tremendous torque on a young arm. A high school guy throwing that hard has a 1% chance of being the next Nolan Ryan.

[Brad K]

Does the TCR adjustment change how much talent changes or how often it happens?

[tktkrtktkr]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Well, one easy answer is that, if talent change seems too much, you can reduce the number by moving the slider. I've had the reverse problem - not enough change - and have moved the slider up to 185 without total chaos.

Agreed that the degree of change should depend upon the prospect's age and experience. That 16-year-old international prospect who has 75/75/50 potential has less than a 10% chance of playing a single MLB game. But the 23-year-old guy out of an SEC program who was MVP of a Summer wooden bat league should be more like 75% - still not a sure thing.

For pitching prospects, it's different (in IRL and in OOTP). Injuries play a huge part. Yes, a 100-mile per hour fastball is real, if the guy can control it. But that's tremendous torque on a young arm. A high school guy throwing that hard has a 1% chance of being the next Nolan Ryan.

Does this mean you set TCR to 185 after the patch a week ago and didn't think it was weird?

[OutS|der]

TCR generally speaking is more about how much the potential rating changes. So with TCR off, the player will likely keep their potential rating through his career. (With TCR on, that value will drop or change).

Not sure how it effects current ratings

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

TCR generally speaking is more about how much the potential rating changes. So with TCR off, the player will likely keep their potential rating through his career. (With TCR on, that value will drop or change).

Not sure how it effects current ratings

Well, something turns star SPs in to mop up RPs in RL years when they were Cy contenders.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by tktkrtktkr

Does this mean you set TCR to 185 after the patch a week ago and didn't think it was weird?

Nah, I was talking about past seasons, or this year before that patch. I have played a few games in my sim with the high TCR without noticing anything awry; but that's admittedly too small a sample size. I play out games, so things move at a glacial pace.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Well, something turns star SPs in to mop up RPs in RL years when they were Cy contenders.

It effects current ratings as well. I'm just unsure how exactly that works

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

It effects current ratings as well. I'm just unsure how exactly that works

Nobody knows even approximately how it works. For example, does changing the setting change how often or how much?

[thenewchuckd]

I am about to make a positive post - so maybe things are going in the right direction.

I actually think this update to talent change almost has things right or at least close to real. There still seems to differences I don't quite understand between pitchers and batters, but I think it is there

(with the caveat that I create a special minor league for U20s and turn the Dominican into a U21 league).

When I invest fully into development and hire the best coaches: Also keep them in a minor league where they are performing well (as soon as they struggle, they drop in ratings - how they perform seems to be the most important factor in everything)

Pitchers:
-I am developing and bringing late round picks (like 10th round plus) into my team as starting pitchers that are 60 rated,
-There does seems to be a weird thing where their ratings accelerate from A to AAA, then once they hit the majors they hit a wall. Although, I remember this from previous versions as well. It is a weird thing, they'll hit the majors like gangbusters (both rating and stats wise) before dropping off and levelling around 25-26.
-It is a bit tricky to develop high rated high schoolers. Their ratings will drop in rookie ball. You have to hope they can hit A ball still highly rated so they can accelerate and still be studs when they make it to the bigs.
-Relievers seem harder to develop. There must be something on the hood there. It is so bad, I'm 10 years in and the AI is throwing 30 million per season at good free agent relievers. Maybe something to look in to.

Batters
-High schoolers and internationals have the drop-drop-drop mechanism in rookie ball and likely at the international complex as well. I think you can mitigate it by creating leagues where they can play and perform, but it is still a thing. Unless you get some lucky rolls (at the development lab or elsewhere), they're not going to be as good as when you signed them.
-Again, if you can get them performing at A ball you're golden. The progression from A ball to the majors is usually pretty fast.
-Good defensive catchers and center-fielders are almost non-existent at a certain point; there seems to be something off with defense development/regression

Overall, I can now draft and sign and be pretty confident things will work out. I get the occasional dud but its offset by surprises.

I feel the game is off in development in the balance between how long players play in rookie ball vs A-AAA. 17-18 year olds in OOTP can spend a long time in rookie ball and a short time in A-AAA; it should be the opposite.

Internationals are more of a crap shoot, although this seems realistic. Usually I just sign the best rated international that I can, although maybe it is a strategy now to splash cash around. I would have to experiment.

So overall, not bad. Certainly a very major improvement.

I know someone complained that their top rated prospect dropped down the board. I actually wish guys didn't show up on the top prospect list until they've "proven" themselves in the minors.

One negative: I still feel like this makes scouting half-baked. I know when drafting, especially young guys, that they'll never turn out the way my scout says. Usually they're worse. The scouts certainly don't give any indication of the guys who will eventually get better (as it is pure random from what I see). I wish there were ways to get rid of this random stuff as much as possible; make the game more based on decisions.

[aks62]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

I am about to make a positive post - so maybe things are going in the right direction.

I actually think this update to talent change almost has things right or at least close to real. There still seems to differences I don't quite understand between pitchers and batters, but I think it is there

(with the caveat that I create a special minor league for U20s and turn the Dominican into a U21 league).

When I invest fully into development and hire the best coaches: Also keep them in a minor league where they are performing well (as soon as they struggle, they drop in ratings - how they perform seems to be the most important factor in everything)

Pitchers:
-I am developing and bringing late round picks (like 10th round plus) into my team as starting pitchers that are 60 rated,
-There does seems to be a weird thing where their ratings accelerate from A to AAA, then once they hit the majors they hit a wall. Although, I remember this from previous versions as well. It is a weird thing, they'll hit the majors like gangbusters (both rating and stats wise) before dropping off and levelling around 25-26.
-It is a bit tricky to develop high rated high schoolers. Their ratings will drop in rookie ball. You have to hope they can hit A ball still highly rated so they can accelerate and still be studs when they make it to the bigs.
-Relievers seem harder to develop. There must be something on the hood there. It is so bad, I'm 10 years in and the AI is throwing 30 million per season at good free agent relievers. Maybe something to look in to.

Batters
-High schoolers and internationals have the drop-drop-drop mechanism in rookie ball and likely at the international complex as well. I think you can mitigate it by creating leagues where they can play and perform, but it is still a thing. Unless you get some lucky rolls (at the development lab or elsewhere), they're not going to be as good as when you signed them.
-Again, if you can get them performing at A ball you're golden. The progression from A ball to the majors is usually pretty fast.
-Good defensive catchers and center-fielders are almost non-existent at a certain point; there seems to be something off with defense development/regression

Overall, I can now draft and sign and be pretty confident things will work out. I get the occasional dud but its offset by surprises.

I feel the game is off in development in the balance between how long players play in rookie ball vs A-AAA. 17-18 year olds in OOTP can spend a long time in rookie ball and a short time in A-AAA; it should be the opposite.

Internationals are more of a crap shoot, although this seems realistic. Usually I just sign the best rated international that I can, although maybe it is a strategy now to splash cash around. I would have to experiment.

So overall, not bad. Certainly a very major improvement.

I know someone complained that their top rated prospect dropped down the board. I actually wish guys didn't show up on the top prospect list until they've "proven" themselves in the minors.

One negative: I still feel like this makes scouting half-baked. I know when drafting, especially young guys, that they'll never turn out the way my scout says. Usually they're worse. The scouts certainly don't give any indication of the guys who will eventually get better (as it is pure random from what I see). I wish there were ways to get rid of this random stuff as much as possible; make the game more based on decisions.

I like your observations, but I take issue with your final sentiment:

The scouts certainly don't give any indication of the guys who will eventually get better (as it is pure random from what I see). I wish there were ways to get rid of this random stuff as much as possible; make the game more based on decisions.

You just described the essence of TCR. If you want players and prospects to meet their potential, set your TCR to zero or close to it. That fix exists already.

[Brad K]

Does TCR affect fictional players? With historical players TCR provides a variance from what the players real life performance based ratings are. With fictional players there is no equivalent to real life performance.

Isn't development of fictional players already randomized? I'd say it has to be or else similar year one players would develop the same way.

[aks62]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Does TCR affect fictional players? With historical players TCR provides a variance from what the players real life performance based ratings are. With fictional players there is no equivalent to real life performance.

Isn't development of fictional players already randomized? I'd say it has to be or else similar year one players would develop the same way.

I've never played a historical sim, but my understanding has always been that TCR is not respective of the kind of game created. It's just a feature that allows for variance from the hypothetical development trajectory, based on potential, as well as the amount of decline — if any — that stems from injury and/or aging. It also is the modicum for random changes in potential, i.e. velocity changes or dips in contact ratings, that otherwise have no overt cause.

Without TCR, development would always go to plan, and injuries and aging would always have the same effect, with the distinction being the player's overall ceiling differs from one to the next. For fictional players, that would mean that a player's entire trajectory would depend on how they are generated, whether by potential and/or injury proneness.

If I'm wrong about any of this, I'd love for someone on the dev team to set the record straight.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Nobody knows even approximately how it works. For example, does changing the setting change how often or how much?

It's how often. The lower the less you see it. The higher the more you see it. It has always been this way. All that has changed is now it happens more often but at less of a change. So if you always had it at 100, you might see it happen a bit more often then you use too but still, the change is so minor (not like it used to be) In the past a dude could go from a 40 nobody, overnight, to a 65 stud. Now you won't see that anymore. If you want to see less TCR make it like 50. If you want more TCR make it 150.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Does TCR affect fictional players? With historical players TCR provides a variance from what the players real life performance based ratings are. With fictional players there is no equivalent to real life performance.

Isn't development of fictional players already randomized? I'd say it has to be or else similar year one players would develop the same way.

TCR does not care if it is historic or fictional. If you are running the OOTP Development Engine (The only way TCR does anything) then you are most likely NOT using recalc. If you are using recalc, there is no point to using TCR because at the end of the year or however you have recalc setup, everything will get undone and made any TCR change, pointless.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by twins_34

TCR does not care if it is historic or fictional. If you are running the OOTP Development Engine (The only way TCR does anything) then you are most likely NOT using recalc. If you are using recalc, there is no point to using TCR because at the end of the year or however you have recalc setup, everything will get undone and made any TCR change, pointless.

What if you have zero interest in retire according to history and have the game setup to use a combo of recalc and the development engine? I didn't like the movie Groundhog Day and have no interest in reliving it every season of my OOTP leagues.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Nobody knows even approximately how it works. For example, does changing the setting change how often or how much?

It is my understanding that the net effect is the same as in the past. In the past a players ratings may change by say 12 points at 4 months. Now it will change 3 points a month or 12 points in 4 months.
The setting itself determines how big a rating change there will be in that 4 month (or whatever period the engine uses) period but it will be broken down to smaller increments but more frequent. It is to make the change more smoother instead of a sudden big change.
At least that is my understanding.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by twins_34

TCR does not care if it is historic or fictional. If you are running the OOTP Development Engine (The only way TCR does anything) then you are most likely NOT using recalc. If you are using recalc, there is no point to using TCR because at the end of the year or however you have recalc setup, everything will get undone and made any TCR change, pointless.

In historical games OOTP defaults to recalc with dev.so I suggest it's unlike many are using dev only or recalc only.

I have observed over many versions that recalc doesn't necessarily completely undo TCR the following year.

HERE is a thread where I posted about peculiar activity by TCR

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

In historical games OOTP defaults to recalc with dev.so I suggest it's unlike many are using dev only or recalc only.

I have observed over many versions that recalc doesn't necessarily completely undo TCR the following year.

HERE is a thread where I posted about peculiar activity by TCR

OOTP25 is different from past versions. I think 2 of the options in the wizard default to recalc only, with development disabled. One option defaults to a combo of recalc and the development engine and random debut defaults to a the combo as well.