Development Lab Broken / Waste of Time

[DSinSoCal]

After several seasons I hadn't really noticed any real difference before and after successfully completing training. I've recently started taking screenshots of the player's stats just before the end of training, and again the next day after training concludes.

I'm confirming that the lack of improvement (and, in some cases, regression) is very real.

I finally had a lucky stretch where 3 players were successful in their training at the same time. Here are the results:

SS prospect working on "Contact":
BABIP **REGRESSED** from 35/70 to 35/65
Avoid K **REGRESSED** from 30/55 to 30/50
Overall "Contact" remained the same at 35/65

SP improving "Secondary Pitch" (slider):
**NO CHANGE**. The pitch remained at 45/55

SP Improving "Control":
"Control" **REGRESSED** from 35/80 to 35/75


So, I wasted time in-game setting up something that seems like a really neat feature, but after waiting an entire offseason, my players actually got worse. Can someone clarify what's going on with this? Is it a known bug that the developers are working on? Or is it just perpetually broken and I should just ignore this aspect of the game going forward?

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by DSinSoCal

After several seasons I hadn't really noticed any real difference before and after successfully completing training. I've recently started taking screenshots of the player's stats just before the end of training, and again the next day after training concludes.

I'm confirming that the lack of improvement (and, in some cases, regression) is very real.

I finally had a lucky stretch where 3 players were successful in their training at the same time. Here are the results:

SS prospect working on "Contact":
BABIP **REGRESSED** from 35/70 to 35/65
Avoid K **REGRESSED** from 30/55 to 30/50
Overall "Contact" remained the same at 35/65

SP improving "Secondary Pitch" (slider):
**NO CHANGE**. The pitch remained at 45/55

SP Improving "Control":
"Control" **REGRESSED** from 35/80 to 35/75


So, I wasted time in-game setting up something that seems like a really neat feature, but after waiting an entire offseason, my players actually got worse. Can someone clarify what's going on with this? Is it a known bug that the developers are working on? Or is it just perpetually broken and I should just ignore this aspect of the game going forward?

So, question? Do you have scouting on? If you do, when was the last time your players were scouted? 6, 8, 9 months before the one you got from the Dev Lab?

If so, there is your answer. The Dev Lab is not what caused it. Most likely TCR and natural development and a lack of scouting your own players.

Oh, Quality of contact, would only effect BABIP and nothing else. Two-Strike approach only effects avoid k's, so it would be impossible for the Dev Lab to effect your SS like that since you only worked on BABIP and, you would ONLY lose BABIP through the Dev Lab, if you ended up with a BAD result and I doubt that happened since you never mentioned it.

So, even though they were successful, good chance that natural regression or TCR also hit your players over the months you didnt scout them. Always a good idea to scout your players when you put them in the lab so you get correct info when they finish over 6 months worth of scouting reports.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by DSinSoCal

After several seasons I hadn't really noticed any real difference before and after successfully completing training. I've recently started taking screenshots of the player's stats just before the end of training, and again the next day after training concludes.

I'm confirming that the lack of improvement (and, in some cases, regression) is very real.

I finally had a lucky stretch where 3 players were successful in their training at the same time. Here are the results:

SS prospect working on "Contact":
BABIP **REGRESSED** from 35/70 to 35/65
Avoid K **REGRESSED** from 30/55 to 30/50
Overall "Contact" remained the same at 35/65

SP improving "Secondary Pitch" (slider):
**NO CHANGE**. The pitch remained at 45/55

SP Improving "Control":
"Control" **REGRESSED** from 35/80 to 35/75


So, I wasted time in-game setting up something that seems like a really neat feature, but after waiting an entire offseason, my players actually got worse. Can someone clarify what's going on with this? Is it a known bug that the developers are working on? Or is it just perpetually broken and I should just ignore this aspect of the game going forward?

There are soooooo many factors at play here. The first thing I'd want to know is, how old are these players? The big gap between potential and current ratings implies that they're younger but that's not always the case. But beyond all this, it's entirely possible to have a successful offseason but then have other factors - TCR being the biggest one - cause things to go sideways in other ways. Even a younger player you might expect to just get better on his own might have a bad, random hit to his control or whatever that wound up being counterbalanced by the development lab and he just didn't develop much on his own this offseason for any number of reasons (one of which being that the particular "path" he's on calls for later-than-expected development bumps - yes, this is a thing the game does behind the scenes a bit).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that the dev lab is just plain not going to turn a guy with 35 control into a 75 control pitcher overnight, no matter what his potential ratings might be. If it did that, *that* would be the sign of a broken game because, like, if getting a player to fulfill his potentials was as easy as dropping him into a successful development lab or two, why don't players cash in on their potentials all the time? The nature of baseball is that it's hard to predict guys, especially very young players, actually turning into 100% of what they were "supposed" to become. Baseball is very, very much not basketball or football and also I think with both of those sports players get into the league/organization much, much closer to "major league" ready than in baseball as well. The draft is a crapshoot, there are lots and lots of busts and unrealized gems in every single draft, and nobody has it figured out.

[OutS|der]

Look at actual ratings in the editor not the displayed ratings if you want to prove Development is not working.

As mentioned displayed ratings can change on many factors and don't always mean a change in the underlying ratings.

[Rain King]

Also, I think it should be mentioned that the Dev Lab is not mean to have a massive impact. It can help players improve, but it isn't going to make them a completely different player or anything like that.

You could absolutely decide that micromanaging it is a waste of your time and allow your assistants to manage who is being chosen. That is your personal preference.

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by twins_34

So, question? Do you have scouting on? If you do, when was the last time your players were scouted? 6, 8, 9 months before the one you got from the Dev Lab?

If so, there is your answer. The Dev Lab is not what caused it. Most likely TCR and natural development and a lack of scouting your own players.

Oh, Quality of contact, would only effect BABIP and nothing else. Two-Strike approach only effects avoid k's, so it would be impossible for the Dev Lab to effect your SS like that since you only worked on BABIP and, you would ONLY lose BABIP through the Dev Lab, if you ended up with a BAD result and I doubt that happened since you never mentioned it.

So, even though they were successful, good chance that natural regression or TCR also hit your players over the months you didnt scout them. Always a good idea to scout your players when you put them in the lab so you get correct info when they finish over 6 months worth of scouting reports.

All of my players are scouted several times per year. I actually raised this question on another thread, where a top prospect completed successful training to improve his "stuff" and instead of gaining points, he LOST 20 points in the related area.

The improvement showed up four months later when he was next scouted again. It really makes no logical sense. I shouldn't have to worry and micromanage this aspect of the game to make sure I'm getting the deserved improvements.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Also, I think it should be mentioned that the Dev Lab is not mean to have a massive impact. It can help players improve, but it isn't going to make them a completely different player or anything like that.

You could absolutely decide that micromanaging it is a waste of your time and allow your assistants to manage who is being chosen. That is your personal preference.

I think as one achieves achievements as a gm or manager the game should award points or coins. When enough coins are collected, one should be able to use those coins to ensure a player has super powers. For example, if I save enough coins, I can turn Tom Veryzer into Ozzie Smith over night........ducks

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

There are soooooo many factors at play here. The first thing I'd want to know is, how old are these players? The big gap between potential and current ratings implies that they're younger but that's not always the case. But beyond all this, it's entirely possible to have a successful offseason but then have other factors - TCR being the biggest one - cause things to go sideways in other ways. Even a younger player you might expect to just get better on his own might have a bad, random hit to his control or whatever that wound up being counterbalanced by the development lab and he just didn't develop much on his own this offseason for any number of reasons (one of which being that the particular "path" he's on calls for later-than-expected development bumps - yes, this is a thing the game does behind the scenes a bit).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that the dev lab is just plain not going to turn a guy with 35 control into a 75 control pitcher overnight, no matter what his potential ratings might be. If it did that, *that* would be the sign of a broken game because, like, if getting a player to fulfill his potentials was as easy as dropping him into a successful development lab or two, why don't players cash in on their potentials all the time? The nature of baseball is that it's hard to predict guys, especially very young players, actually turning into 100% of what they were "supposed" to become. Baseball is very, very much not basketball or football and also I think with both of those sports players get into the league/organization much, much closer to "major league" ready than in baseball as well. The draft is a crapshoot, there are lots and lots of busts and unrealized gems in every single draft, and nobody has it figured out.

All of these players are prospects, 22 or under.

What is TCR? Is that the same thing as RNG (random number generator)? I just started playing this game recently, so I've only played, probably, 20-30 game seasons so far, but I have yet to complete successful training on a single player where I opened up his player screen and actually noticed an improvement. I have, however, noticed regressions like this many times. I've tried to rationalize these results from every direction, but I just can't anymore. There just isn't a rational explanation for this consistently poor result.

It's possible that I just don't understand the point of the development lab, or how it's supposed to work. I'm not expecting miracles to occur. My assumption is that if you have a prospect that ranks 30/70 in a certain area, the development lab can be used to improve the "current" rating 5-10 points, while also potentially impacting the "potential" rating if you're lucky.

Successful training should turn 30/70 into 40/70, or 35/75, no? I would expect successful training to result in incremental improvements -- just like real life. What I don't expect to see is consistent regression in the areas where prospects complete successful training. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Also, I think it should be mentioned that the Dev Lab is not mean to have a massive impact. It can help players improve, but it isn't going to make them a completely different player or anything like that.

You could absolutely decide that micromanaging it is a waste of your time and allow your assistants to manage who is being chosen. That is your personal preference.

Thanks Rain. I was never expecting massive talent shifts or anything, but I *was* expecting to see noticeable improvement in players that completed successful training. What's the point of even having the mechanic in the game if it doesn't lead to visible player improvement?? The development lab is a GREAT idea on paper. I love the idea of hand selecting certain prospects and molding them. But if I never see tangible results then it all just feels like a giant waste of time -- and a giant wasted opportunity to provide the end user with a rewarding gameplay experience.

I mean, I've noticed several instances where players have completed successful training to learn a new position... but they never actually get rated at that new position. That's when I really started to notice the problem.

hundreds of rankings, ratings and numbers are hard to remember and keep straight over the course of months. But I absolutely notice when a player supposedly learns how to play 2B, but it never gets reflected on his player screen.

[Rain King]

Whether it leads to a visible improvement can depend on what rating scale you are using. A player can improve quite a bit without bumping up to the next level on a 13-point scale (i.e. 20-80 by 5's). That scale is covering 550 rating points under the hood...and the lower you are on the scale the bigger the gap before hitting the next level if you are looking at things compared to MLB players.

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Whether it leads to a visible improvement can depend on what rating scale you are using. A player can improve quite a bit without bumping up to the next level on a 13-point scale (i.e. 20-80 by 5's). That scale is covering 550 rating points under the hood...and the lower you are on the scale the bigger the gap before hitting the next level if you are looking at things compared to MLB players.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

(hypothetically speaking, because I don't know what the actual numbers are....) If a rating of 50 requires 400 points, and you have to get to 450 points to reach a 55 rating. I can understand not seeing a ratings improvement while your player technically improves from 402 to 438.

What I still don't get is why the ratings for my players seem to consistently go *down* after successful training -- sometimes massively, or why a player wouldn't get credit for successfully learning a new position.

If anyone knows of a good guide that explain the numerical mechanics behind the lab (ie. how talent points are awarded/deducted based on the relative success/failure of the training) I would love to read it.

[Rain King]

The new position thing is hard to explain without seeing the specific example....and I'm not a Dev Lab expert so don't know specifically what learning a new position actually changes.

However, a couple of reasons the player might not have a defensive rating shown:

1.) A player has to have some experience at a position to have a rating.

2.) Some positions require a minimum rating for an individual rating to display a positional rating (i.e. to get a SS rating you have to have a minimum of "X" for Turn DP). Also, certain positions won't give a rating to left handed throwers.



Regarding your examples of "regression" above. Those all seemed to be in the Potential ratings.

The DevLab is meant, generally, to improve Current ratings. I think if you get a GREAT (or whatever it is actually called) result it may also improve the Potential rating also but I don't think that is what is expected from a regular successful result.

Meanwhile, in general, most prospects are not going to live up to their original potential. You are likely going to see most prospects potential slowly slide a bit over time so those changes are just likely typical of a prospect and not related to the Dev Lab.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by DSinSoCal

All of my players are scouted several times per year. I actually raised this question on another thread, where a top prospect completed successful training to improve his "stuff" and instead of gaining points, he LOST 20 points in the related area.

The improvement showed up four months later when he was next scouted again. It really makes no logical sense. I shouldn't have to worry and micromanage this aspect of the game to make sure I'm getting the deserved improvements.

Doing a scouting report, right before you start the Dev lab is micromanaging, on 6 to however many people? No, it's a right click on players name, scout player and should be done in about 3 days to 2 weeks, shorter than the time they are in the lab and it is to give you the best info on your player.

Thank you for showing us that the last time he was scouted was in July and then in November when the lab completed. That was 4 months of scouting data that had to be caught up on and this proves my point, ALL the info you got was from July to November. Not just the Dev Lab. EVERY change in them 4 months to that player. Players do not stay static they go up and down constantly even of the span of a month. Then on top of that, your scout is not 100% correct on a player either.

If you want to know what happened to the player in the dev lab you go to your emails and you and look at what happened. If you do not have these emails turned on then you go to the location in my other screenshot and enable the emails.

What you see in scouting reports, is not what has happened in the Dev Lab. A scouting report is just a scouting report of ALL info since your LAST scouting report and you get a free one done when the lab completes, but you need to do one BEFORE so you do not get jumped like this, and then think it's because you stuck guys in the Dev Lab. No, you just got a free scouting report done because they completed the Dev Lab. But all that info is for the last 4 to whatever months since their LAST scouting report.

[Pdubya64]

DS: You are definitely not the only one trying to figure out how the Dev Lab should (could?) work.
Old School Sports is doing a bit of an experiment with a full 20 slots to get a better sample size. Results so far are mixed as we kind of expected.

His basic tennent is send players to the Lab who according to your head scout have potential left "in the tank" and a possibility to improve. Defense seems to be an exception but that's conjecture as well. Another anecdotal piece is that it seems prospects who are age 16-18ish may not respond to development as well, although again it is a small sample and conjecture.
I would say that overall in OSS's case with the A's playthrough the Lab has seemed pretty balanced overall. Some guys get poor results and regress, many get no change results and the occasional surprise outstanding result happens, which is definitely an outlier but makes the effort worthwhile IMO.

Obviously the jury is still out while we know so little about how DL works. I will say that if there is no equal weight on the chance of failing or regressing it wouldn't be right. Baseball is tough and all I can say is as of October '24 it feels pretty good on the whole.
I am sure the Devs will continue to work on this new feature this winter for next spring.

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The new position thing is hard to explain without seeing the specific example....and I'm not a Dev Lab expert so don't know specifically what learning a new position actually changes.

However, a couple of reasons the player might not have a defensive rating shown:

1.) A player has to have some experience at a position to have a rating.

2.) Some positions require a minimum rating for an individual rating to display a positional rating (i.e. to get a SS rating you have to have a minimum of "X" for Turn DP). Also, certain positions won't give a rating to left handed throwers.



Regarding your examples of "regression" above. Those all seemed to be in the Potential ratings.

The DevLab is meant, generally, to improve Current ratings. I think if you get a GREAT (or whatever it is actually called) result it may also improve the Potential rating also but I don't think that is what is expected from a regular successful result.

Meanwhile, in general, most prospects are not going to live up to their original potential. You are likely going to see most prospects potential slowly slide a bit over time so those changes are just likely typical of a prospect and not related to the Dev Lab.

When a player learns a new position, the notification email will say something to the effect that the player did great, adapted well to the position, and that the coaches are now comfortable with that player playing that position in game situations. But if the player doesn't actually receive a rating at that position, the field manager will never use him there, so that seems to defeat the purpose.

That's how I interpreted the lab to work as well... effecting mostly the current ratings and *occasionally* improving the potential ratings if training went particularly well. At least, that's how it appears to be written in the program descriptions. It seems like a reasonable suggestion that the 5 point losses in potential that I'm often seeing might be attributable to natural attrition over the 2-4 month period since the last scouting report.
What doesn't seem reasonable to me is never seeing any noticeable increase in current ratings as a result of a successful training program. Either the programming is broken or I'm the unluckiest GM in baseball history. lol

As you mentioned previously, perhaps the improvements are so slight that it's not often enough to push the player to the next rung of the ratings ladder from, say, 40 to 45. But if that's the case then I still maintain that the developers are wasting a massive opportunity in the game. People play games to see their characters progress. If they can't clearly and tangibly see those improvements then it's kind of a pointless endeavor. It's more likely to lead to frustration rather than enhancing immersion in the game.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Pdubya64

DS: You are definitely not the only one trying to figure out how the Dev Lab should (could?) work.
Old School Sports is doing a bit of an experiment with a full 20 slots to get a better sample size. Results so far are mixed as we kind of expected.

His basic tennent is send players to the Lab who according to your head scout have potential left "in the tank" and a possibility to improve. Defense seems to be an exception but that's conjecture as well. Another anecdotal piece is that it seems prospects who are age 16-18ish may not respond to development as well, although again it is a small sample and conjecture.
I would say that overall in OSS's case with the A's playthrough the Lab has seemed pretty balanced overall. Some guys get poor results and regress, many get no change results and the occasional surprise outstanding result happens, which is definitely an outlier but makes the effort worthwhile IMO.

Obviously the jury is still out while we know so little about how DL works. I will say that if there is no equal weight on the chance of failing or regressing it wouldn't be right. Baseball is tough and all I can say is as of October '24 it feels pretty good on the whole.
I am sure the Devs will continue to work on this new feature this winter for next spring.

I have done a whole video on the dev lab using tons of data, days and days of testing each program to try and figure out what each program does and how each program effects the players how some programs vanish from players because players exceed the parameters of the programs. Like S&C will not show up if even 1 proneness category drops below 20 in the editor. The pitch arsenal program will vanish if all pitches are over 375 in the player editor, but this is the ONE program that can increase the fastball if it is below 375.

However, for programs like avoid k (two-strike approach), BABIP (quality of contact), Hit Power (Generate Batspeed), Gap Power, Eye (Plate discipline), improve Control, Increase Pitch Movement, all of these are worthless to do on developed players, UNLESS you get an Outstanding outcome which, it will then boost potential but I am going to guess that changed through the season to only be <5 where it use to be 5.

Now, if I have noticed right, some things might have changed slightly since I have made my video and I should probably revisit doing my testing of each program again. However, my video is still quite accurate. Things I have seen that have changed are, they lowered how much players gain. Use to be <5, 5, or >5 and now I have not been seeing 5 or >5 anymore and it seems like not every pitcher gets a velo boost for an outstanding outcome for Strength and Conditioning anymore, but most still do, but all batters with outstanding S&C programs get a <5 potential power boost (probably 3 points to potential) but that use to be 5.

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by twins_34

Doing a scouting report, right before you start the Dev lab is micromanaging, on 6 to however many people? No, it's a right click on players name, scout player and should be done in about 3 days to 2 weeks, shorter than the time they are in the lab and it is to give you the best info on your player.

Thank you for showing us that the last time he was scouted was in July and then in November when the lab completed. That was 4 months of scouting data that had to be caught up on and this proves my point, ALL the info you got was from July to November. Not just the Dev Lab. EVERY change in them 4 months to that player. Players do not stay static they go up and down constantly even of the span of a month. Then on top of that, your scout is not 100% correct on a player either.

If you want to know what happened to the player in the dev lab you go to your emails and you and look at what happened. If you do not have these emails turned on then you go to the location in my other screenshot and enable the emails.

What you see in scouting reports, is not what has happened in the Dev Lab. A scouting report is just a scouting report of ALL info since your LAST scouting report and you get a free one done when the lab completes, but you need to do one BEFORE so you do not get jumped like this, and then think it's because you stuck guys in the Dev Lab. No, you just got a free scouting report done because they completed the Dev Lab. But all that info is for the last 4 to whatever months since their LAST scouting report.

If you need to run special scouting reports, take screenshots before and after, then compare those screenshots in order to verify that the results match expectations, then that absolutely is called micromanaging. Unless you want to use another word for it. Whatever you want to call it, it shouldn't be necessary.

I suppose it's possible that 3 or 4 months is long enough between reports to explain the issue. Your point is well taken and I'll run reports just before training concludes in order to improve the control group.

In my experience, the ratings don't fluctuate that wildly on the reports so I didn't identify that as a potential issue, but more accurate information is always better to have than not. I've attached the specifics on the three players in question below, and this pattern is indicative of all of the training I've done, spanning a few different leagues -- old time and modern.

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...nw&oe=671E05A6

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...sg&oe=671DF418

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...lg&oe=671E0513

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by DSinSoCal

If you need to run special scouting reports, take screenshots before and after, then compare those screenshots in order to verify that the results match expectations, then that absolutely is called micromanaging.

For one, I am not taking screenshots. Secondly, I am lowing the amount of time between the scouting reports. My, 1 month between reports for a 5-6 week program or 5-6 month program is going to be MUCH better than your 4 month discrepancy in scouting reports! I will only see things that changed in 4 weeks where you are seeing things that have changed in 16 weeks.

After all you are the one that claims that your players ONLY regressed because the Dev Lab is broken or bugged and for some odd reason think that I am micromanaging lol, yet I am getting more clear cut scouting reports than you are. I won't see the things you are because I am not gonna see months worth of regression, that has nothing to do with the Dev Lab.

I know quite a lot about about the Dev Lab and I am trying to educate you that the Dev lab did not cause what you seen in your 4 month update of scouting reports, but TCR and natural development caused it, and that the only numbers you see in the Dev Lab emails are the ONLY ratings the Dev Lab have effected. If you are doing Quality of Contact, only BABIP will be effected if you get a successful or outstanding outcome, it's not going to regress anything unless the outcome is poor and it is for sure NOT going to effect avoid K's since that program is called two-strike approach and since you did not do that program and can't do both Quality of contact and Two-strike approach at the same time, there is no way the Dev Lab can regress both.

Also, TCR will make things fluctuate quite a bit depending on your settings on it. Your players will change quite a bit over just one month. They will go up and down up and down but hopefully they will go up and develop. This is just the way OOTP works though, Players change in small hits constantly either up or down.

Just so you know you can attach up to 5 pictures through the forums over using Facebook or other sites. Hit Go Advanced and scroll down under the typing box under Additional Options and click on manage attachments.

[Rain King]

When you are putting players that young into the Dev Lab, well, they have a long way to go yet. I think I mentioned it earlier, but when looking at a player from an MLB Rating Scale perspective...the lower they are on the rating scale the larger the gaps between ratings. An average rating at the MLB level is 400 out of the 550 scale under the hood.

When looking at those players, it might be a good idea to check them out compared to the league they are actually in before going into the lab and then compare them afterwards. The improvements are more likely to be visible there.

[DSinSoCal]

Originally Posted by twins_34

For one, I am not taking screenshots. Secondly, I am lowing the amount of time between the scouting reports. My, 1 month between reports for a 5-6 week program or 5-6 month program is going to be MUCH better than your 4 month discrepancy in scouting reports! I will only see things that changed in 4 weeks where you are seeing things that have changed in 16 weeks.

After all you are the one that claims that your players ONLY regressed because the Dev Lab is broken or bugged and for some odd reason think that I am micromanaging lol, yet I am getting more clear cut scouting reports than you are. I won't see the things you are because I am not gonna see months worth of regression, that has nothing to do with the Dev Lab.

I know quite a lot about about the Dev Lab and I am trying to educate you that the Dev lab did not cause what you seen in your 4 month update of scouting reports, but TCR and natural development caused it, and that the only numbers you see in the Dev Lab emails are the ONLY ratings the Dev Lab have effected. If you are doing Quality of Contact, only BABIP will be effected if you get a successful or outstanding outcome, it's not going to regress anything unless the outcome is poor and it is for sure NOT going to effect avoid K's since that program is called two-strike approach and since you did not do that program and can't do both Quality of contact and Two-strike approach at the same time, there is no way the Dev Lab can regress both.

Also, TCR will make things fluctuate quite a bit depending on your settings on it. Your players will change quite a bit over just one month. They will go up and down up and down but hopefully they will go up and develop. This is just the way OOTP works though, Players change in small hits constantly either up or down.

Just so you know you can attach up to 5 pictures through the forums over using Facebook or other sites. Hit Go Advanced and scroll down under the typing box under Additional Options and click on manage attachments.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the lab is *causing* the ratings to go down. I'm saying that, to date, I have seen no evidence of the lab actually improving my player's ratings, and I was asking if this was a typical result that people were experiencing. I've experienced all sorts of weird bugs with this game in the few weeks I've played it, and didn't know if this might just be another bug.

As to why the ratings often regress rather than improve, that was an open question ... which has now likely been explained by natural attrition between scouting reports.

My only issue with the lab is that whenever my players complete a successful training session there never seems to be any noticeable improvement, which struck me as problematic, not to mention extremely frustrating.