Do We Need Talent Change Randomness?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

My first question would be.... if you are using recalc, then why do you have TCR also on? What is your TCR setting at? (from 1 to 200)

This was the default setting from at least OOTP 11 through OOTP 24. Why shouldn't I use it?

Nobody has said anything about TRC working differently in 25. The difference is that someone decided to change what had been established game setup defaults that had existed for over a decade.

Was this change based on the data OOTP collects on how people play the game? <Guffaw> Probably someone decided people should play the game differently.

Originally Posted by uruguru

Is Bunning on the same team in OOTP as in real life? The effect of defense on pitching is significant and you have to rule that out as well.

Is your league setting set to 5-man rotations or 4-man rotations? Strict or Start Highest Rested? Because Bunning in that period was pitched in a 4-man strict rotation, which would give him about 5-7 more starts than OOTP in a 5-man (7 if strict, 5-6 if start highest rested). That league setting alone would give his real-life WAR a 20-25% advantage over his OOTP WAR.

And keep in mind that WAR is calculated a bit differently in different places, so I'm not sure how comparable OOTP WAR is to whatever WAR you are referencing. FIP might be a better comparison

There are a lot of things to consider before jumping to the conclusion that the fault lies in TCR. It might be!

Fishing.

I checking Bunnings actual ratings in the editor. Huge drop in stuff, movement, and pitch quality. Interestingly, potential was much higher in the editor, what you'd expect of an All Star and Cy Young and MVP contender. However this was not shown in the potential ratings even when set to 100%.

[Rain King]

Potential ratings display equal to Current Ratings even if they are higher under the hood after a player turns 30. This is because they are very unlikely to develop positively at that point.

In a recalc league if the Current Ratings are lower than the Potential ratings under the hood that is almost definitely a result of negative "development" (i.e. aging) and not TCR (which would also affect the Potential ratings).

[Brad K]

So instead of a plausible decline the system turns a star into a throwaway player four years running. Why bother with recalc? I had this happen with Nolan Ryan also.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Brad K

So instead of a plausible decline the system turns a star into a throwaway player four years running. Why bother with recalc? I had this happen with Nolan Ryan also.

It isn't related to Recalc. I would say "why have development on in a historical sim if you don't like this type of outcome".

[hfield007]

Yes.

I enjoy being able to control this in fictionals. I like less volatility and love that for as long as I can remember I had the ability to use that slider to my liking.

[kcyr41]

I love the passion on this thread and I'm glad there are others out there that get as heated about fake baseball as I do.

Seems to me that the question isn't so much "do we need it", it's "is it working to make the game better?"

My main frustration on this topic is that in the last two offseasons I've had 4 players between the age of 24-30 drop 10+ points in their scouting ratings for no apparent reason. These are players that I took great pains to develop and/or acquire. I had one 26 year old OF go from 59/80 to 40/80 in 2 months after I signed him to a long term extension. Maybe it's just a sucky coincidence, but I've simulated many dozens of seasons on past versions of this game and never experienced a drop like that to a healthy player in-season with no red flags.

My assumption is that "Talent Change Randomness" doesn't impact the normal development and decline of a player (which presumably has its own inherent randomness) but is more an indication of how likely it is a player's talent rating will change significantly throughout their career.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

It isn't related to Recalc. I would say "why have development on in a historical sim if you don't like this type of outcome".

Why have development only when development with recalc gives the same result?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Why have development only when development with recalc gives the same result?

It doesn't.

Recalc...recalculates the players ratings at the beginning of each off-season based on the options chosen under Historical Settings. If Recalc is not on, that does not happen.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by kcyr41

I love the passion on this thread and I'm glad there are others out there that get as heated about fake baseball as I do.

Seems to me that the question isn't so much "do we need it", it's "is it working to make the game better?"

It exists in historical games to provide variation from real life performance. However the game engine natural randomness does that on it's own. That's my actual point in starting this thread. And so since its function is already fulfilled it isn't working to make the game better and we don't need it.

If the game had floors and ceilings on player's output in historical games, then maybe TCR would have a job to do.

[Rain King]

Has anyone ever said that Historical games need TCR?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

I would like my leagues to ensure Ron Santo plays close to real life and not take the chance that TCR will drop him.

He doesn't need TCR to drop. The normal randomness of the game engine will cause him to perform widely better or worse than RL. No TCR affected the example I gave in my first post.

In a past save I had Tony Armas hit .325 one year and .179 the next. Both are ridiculous.

[Pelican]

My answer to the original question is yes, I need TCR, as do many others who happen to value random development over tracking RL. Of d course I recognize there are many users who do not want to depart from reality, a little or a lot. Those users can effectively nullify TCR by setting it to 1 or 0. Problem solved - without depriving the rest of us of a tool we like.

I play historical seasons with annual recalc off. Never use it. But I’m not asking OOTP to eliminate the option. I toggle off RAH and transactions and missed years, too. I use relatively high TCR and live with the consequences. Of course it can be infuriating, frustrating, maddening, but also miraculous and rewarding. For one thing, it reduces my advantage of knowing which prospects will flourish. More challenge.

I also have to chuckle at the demands to know how TCR works. I mean, it’s random by design. Your results may (and will) differ. That’s the point. I see no pattern. No need for me to go under the hood. I don’t see anny andvantage in trying to reverse-engineer TCR. Either you have a tolerance for risk, or you don’t. If you don’t, eliminate TCR as a factor.


As to default settings, hard to argue with settings that anticipate what new users want. Annual recalc and historical rosters and lineups and trades and missed seasons and retirements. No problem. I’ll shift to my preferred settings to allow random development based - in part - on how I handle my organization, coping with the unpredictability of high TCR.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

So instead of a plausible decline the system turns a star into a throwaway player four years running. Why bother with recalc? I had this happen with Nolan Ryan also.

If you are using the OOTP engine, there are options to delay and/or slow the aging process if it is not to your liking.

This game is a really complex sandbox. Don't be afraid to play with all of the toys. The odds of the default settings just happening to be your favorite way to play are pretty slim.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I also have to chuckle at the demands to know how TCR works.

I previously posted a revision of the question which is "what does it do?" Is that more agreeable to you?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Pelican

My answer to the original question is yes, I need TCR, as do many others who happen to value random development over tracking RL.

But ratings of real life often don't create performance that tracks real life.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Has anyone ever said that Historical games need TCR?

The devs, who made it the default from at least V 11 until this year when they expanded the use of volunteers to make design decisions.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The devs, who made it the default from at least V 11 until this year when they expanded the use of volunteers to make design decisions.

I don't think a default setting says that something needs to be used. Otherwise, they wouldn't make it an option that can be changed (which it is and can).

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I don't think a default setting says that something needs to be used. Otherwise, they wouldn't make it an option that can be changed (which it is and can).

Really? There are all kinds of things in life that aren't prohibited but that are really stupid to do.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pelican

My answer to the original question is yes, I need TCR, as do many others who happen to value random development over tracking RL. Of d course I recognize there are many users who do not want to depart from reality, a little or a lot. Those users can effectively nullify TCR by setting it to 1 or 0. Problem solved - without depriving the rest of us of a tool we like.

I play historical seasons with annual recalc off. Never use it. But I’m not asking OOTP to eliminate the option. I toggle off RAH and transactions and missed years, too. I use relatively high TCR and live with the consequences. Of course it can be infuriating, frustrating, maddening, but also miraculous and rewarding. For one thing, it reduces my advantage of knowing which prospects will flourish. More challenge.

I also have to chuckle at the demands to know how TCR works. I mean, it’s random by design. Your results may (and will) differ. That’s the point. I see no pattern. No need for me to go under the hood. I don’t see anny andvantage in trying to reverse-engineer TCR. Either you have a tolerance for risk, or you don’t. If you don’t, eliminate TCR as a factor.


As to default settings, hard to argue with settings that anticipate what new users want. Annual recalc and historical rosters and lineups and trades and missed seasons and retirements. No problem. I’ll shift to my preferred settings to allow random development based - in part - on how I handle my organization, coping with the unpredictability of high TCR.

Exactly, why does anyone ask, or imply, things should be removed from the game when said features can effectively be turned off? They may not use the feature but others do. If one thinks it doesn't belong in the game turn it off and move on.

[Brad K]

Why should our only option be to disable a feature when the problem is that it doesn't work as reasonably expected? Any problem reported with the game will be answered by the cheerleaders who don't play with those settings as being the users fault. Well, if a feature is available with a setting, it should work with that setting.