I feel like I'm just going to go back to 25

[majesty95]

We usually update our online league to the new game around the All-Star break every year. So I've been trying to dig into 26 to get a feel for it. However, all of the confusion and disgruntlement with the scouting combine and dev lab lead me to believe we should just stick with 25.

I've tried doing some test sims and turning off the dev lab and even increasing the age players develop and increasing the development modifier still leads to extremely neutered progress.

Its a small sample but it just seems like its too cumbersome to get realistic development now. At least vs how its worked for as long as I can remember. I get wanting to give the players more control vs just dev budgets. But now its seems like a cluster where they'll only develop if you use the lab but then have to risk regression by trying to improve someone...

I dont know.

I like the idea of more control but we should still be able to turn things off if we dont feel theyre working for us and still get development. Yet, if you do turn it off you get extremely neutered development.

[majesty95]

As an aside, one of the things that's growing my frustration with the game is that, you cant just turn it on and play. There are so amny options and so many variables that if you dont spent 10+ hours of your life testing everything before playing youre going to waste even more hours runnign into something in your sim that breaks it for you.

Maybe Im just older now and have less time, but I really dont want to invest in a game that I waste dozens of hours of my life on trying to figure it out. It seems this aspect gets worse and worse every year

[Scipio Africanus]

Originally Posted by majesty95

As an aside, one of the things that's growing my frustration with the game is that, you cant just turn it on and play. There are so amny options and so many variables that if you dont spent 10+ hours of your life testing everything before playing youre going to waste even more hours runnign into something in your sim that breaks it for you.

Maybe Im just older now and have less time, but I really dont want to invest in a game that I waste dozens of hours of my life on trying to figure it out. It seems this aspect gets worse and worse every year

I just find myself turning off more and more features every year. My game is getting stripped down to more basics simply because so many of the features a) are constantly changing with patches; b) are too much of a black box and I can't tell what, if anything, is actually happening; c) don't seem to work. Also, like you, I just want to play the game -- I don't like having to spend hours beta testing my league every year to see what broke this year.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by Scipio Africanus

I just find myself turning off more and more features every year. My game is getting stripped down to more basics simply because so many of the features a) are constantly changing with patches; b) are too much of a black box and I can't tell what, if anything, is actually happening; c) don't seem to work. Also, like you, I just want to play the game -- I don't like having to spend hours beta testing my league every year to see what broke this year.

Same. I like to put myself in situations and make moves and see how they play out over seasons and like to get through as many years as quickly as possible. I used to make it though a season in a couple of hours but now with everything packed in it can take around 6 hours to get through a year and that's with delegating a lot of tasks to my staff as well. One of the strong suits of the game is/was the sim engine and tampering with that doesn't seem to make things better. From a feature set standpoint I wish they had built out the business model more instead, the sim engine is the shining grace, don't mess with your bread and butter.

[rwd59]

Admin please delete

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by majesty95

We usually update our online league to the new game around the All-Star break every year. So I've been trying to dig into 26 to get a feel for it. However, all of the confusion and disgruntlement with the scouting combine and dev lab lead me to believe we should just stick with 25.

I've tried doing some test sims and turning off the dev lab and even increasing the age players develop and increasing the development modifier still leads to extremely neutered progress.

Its a small sample but it just seems like its too cumbersome to get realistic development now. At least vs how its worked for as long as I can remember. I get wanting to give the players more control vs just dev budgets. But now its seems like a cluster where they'll only develop if you use the lab but then have to risk regression by trying to improve someone...

I dont know.

I like the idea of more control but we should still be able to turn things off if we dont feel theyre working for us and still get development. Yet, if you do turn it off you get extremely neutered development.

I kinda agree with you. I don't want to invest time learning and the using the development lab so I turn it off. With the out of the box numbers you can forget developing any players. I just don't think the game works as well with the development lab turned off. I am currently using the numbers Dr. Satan said he was using and I am having better results with pitchers but still not having a lot of luck developing hitters. I get an acceptable amount of average hitters but no top hitters.

[oldfatbaldguy]

You can delegate a lot of that stuff. I decided for my current save that since being the manager and the GM is already a bit unrealistic, my character wouldn't take anything else on. I'm not the player development guy. My assistant runs the lab and set the players' foci. My scout handles the combine, and yeah, I'm not really sure that feature is adding anything, but I've left it in to make sure things function as intended while not paying an undue amount of attention to it. (What does building a relationship accomplish? Does the player lower his bonus demand? This isn't free agency. He doesn't get to choose a team.)

The Manager Options screen is your friend.

[WhiskyTango]

That's what I do. I have the AGM, manager, minor league managers all making decisions, as much as possible. However, I have the last say in the bigger decisions, like signing/releasing (protect the players you want, then let the AGM deal away); will lock vertical movement at times; setting players strategies, positions and batter order; assigning instructor roles and of course I reserve the right to fire the AGM and any manager or coach.

[majesty95]

Ive tested both dev lab and dev focus on and off and neither seem to make much of a difference. Ive only tested one season a few times with different settings and prospects dont develop much in that one season. Many stay at 20/80 or 30/80. The most you usually see is a +5 OVR jump. Ive seen one guy of the 15 Ive followed go up 10 in OVR. It just seems extremely neutered and hard to develop guys. Isnt that kind of the point of the game, to develop prospects? lol

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Ive tested both dev lab and dev focus on and off and neither seem to make much of a difference. Ive only tested one season a few times with different settings and prospects dont develop much in that one season. Many stay at 20/80 or 30/80. The most you usually see is a +5 OVR jump. Ive seen one guy of the 15 Ive followed go up 10 in OVR. It just seems extremely neutered and hard to develop guys. Isnt that kind of the point of the game, to develop prospects? lol

1. Developing prospects is a part of the game, it certainly isn't the "point" of the game.

2. Moving up the lower part of the scale can mean a lot of actual development...and a lot of development can happen without moving on the 20-80 scale. There are a few ways you can see that better. For example, you have the ability to look at your players relative to a minor league instead of the major league. You can also broaden the scale you use so that you will see more of the nuance as they develop.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Rain King

1. Developing prospects is a part of the game, it certainly isn't the "point" of the game.

2. Moving up the lower part of the scale can mean a lot of actual development...and a lot of development can happen without moving on the 20-80 scale. There are a few ways you can see that better. For example, you have the ability to look at your players relative to a minor league instead of the major league. You can also broaden the scale you use so that you will see more of the nuance as they develop.

I get your point but, unless youre the Yankees or Dodger, if you dont develop prospects its going to be hard to compete lol.

I wonder if some of the dev issues I'm experiencing are related to historicals?

On a 20-80 scale, would you say that in three tests of the same season, that of 15 of the Top 25 prospects, followed in each of those 3 sims and one going up from 20-30/80, a few each seasons going form 20-25/x or 30-35/x and around half staying at their OVR rating is good?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by majesty95

On a 20-80 scale, would you say that in three tests of the same season, that of 15 of the Top 25 prospects, followed in each of those 3 sims and one going up from 20-30/80, a few each seasons going form 20-25/x or 30-35/x and around half staying at their OVR rating is good?

I'd say that you haven't provided enough information and the question is also oddly formed.

Why "15 of the Top 25 prospects"? How old are each of these prospects?

Also, more information about your league is needed. You mention historical but are asking about development. I assume no recalc? Are you using minor leagues? Is this a "real timeline" replay or Random Debut? Etc.

[Lukas Berger]

It's expected that players will move more slowly in overall ratings in 26 (and even to some extent in 25), especially if you are using the 20-80 scale (and especially 20-80 by 5). This does not mean they are not developing though. A lot of development can go on within each level of overall ratings.

That's because we've adjusted the scale over the last couple versions to be more and more realistic, and the real 20-80 scale is much more compressed than the kind of fake scale we'd used in the past. Basically, minor leaguers will normally come in at 20-40 or so.

You might not even see a guy gain overall as he progresses from rookie ball to AA. That does not mean he's not developing, this is just how the scale actually works in reality. A player would be expected to go from R level to AA level without his overall moving more than 5 or maybe 10 points. From AA to MLB they might move another 10-15.

For major leaguers, they will typically slot in heavily in the 40-60 range. Very few MLB guys will go above 60, those that do are genuine superstars. Again, this is mostly how the real 20-80 scale works, and things are much more in line with that now.

If you want to see a less realistic, less compressed scale, more like in previous versions, there are a couple things you can do.

One, change the scale to something other than 20-80, especially the 1-100 scale.

Two, change the comparison basis for the ratings so that all players compare to AAA or another league that has (slightly) less talent than MLB. (You don't want to pick too low a level here though, because then everyone at the MLB level will just be 80 overalls). Then you'll get a scale where you see more granular movement in the overall ratings than if you compare to MLB.

[rwd59]

If you are saying I should see more adjustments to ratings if using 1-100 scale, I have always used 1-100 scale and I don't see much development without huge adjustments to aging and development speed.

Also, is this forum ever going to go back to working properly? Can't click on anything without getting the site can't be reached error and having to refresh one or two times.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

That's because we've adjusted the scale over the last couple versions to be more and more realistic, and the real 20-80 scale is much more compressed than the kind of fake scale we'd used in the past. Basically, minor leaguers will normally come in at 20-40 or so.

So are you saying I should just promote them to the majors when they are around 40 or slightly above? Will they continue to improve in the majors?

[OutS|der]

For more understanding of how the 20-80 scouting "should" work

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/

"The concept that an 80 is just one or two big leaguers at each position is a traditional one while technically there could be a bunch of 7-win guys at any position. The “Top 1-2” notation for hitters is just to give an idea of typically how exclusive each group should be, realizing it isn’t always true.

Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s. Many fans get tripped up by this term, thinking there are 30 of each type or that every team has exactly one version of each; that’s an understandable misunderstanding. Scouts see tiers of pitchers and call them #1, #2, #3 starters and this is one of those things you only fully understand when someone takes the time to explain to you what they mean."

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by rwd59

So are you saying I should just promote them to the majors when they are around 40 or slightly above? Will they continue to improve in the majors?

40 "should" be bench level for position players, Swing/Spot SP for Starters and Middle RP for Relivers, basically worth around 1 WAR

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by rwd59

So are you saying I should just promote them to the majors when they are around 40 or slightly above? Will they continue to improve in the majors?

40 is generally the point where a player 'should' be able to handle playing in MLB. Now, as referenced in the post above, a 40 player you would not expect to be a star, or even a strong regular, but they can definitely be a bench player or a weak starter on some teams. EDIT: Though, just as in real life, it's not a guarantee a 40 level player will be able to handle MLB, some will, but maybe even more won't and might either need to be sent back down for more seasoning or will cap out at being 'AAAA' players.

Some will continue to improve in the majors, some will not. Just like in reality. But in and of itself, promoting a player to the majors will not stop them from developing further. Players can definitely develop while in the majors.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

For major leaguers, they will typically slot in heavily in the 40-60 range. Very few MLB guys will go above 60, those that do are genuine superstars. Again, this is mostly how the real 20-80 scale works, and things are much more in line with that now.

This is going to be a very difficult concept for a lot of people to grasp. In every game the goal has been to accumulate as much talent as possible, as many 80's as you can get. In Perfect Team the goal is to roster all perfect players.

The range for relievers is an even smaller range with the best ranked no higher than 60 and most falling 40-45.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

It's expected that players will move more slowly in overall ratings in 26 (and even to some extent in 25), especially if you are using the 20-80 scale (and especially 20-80 by 5). This does not mean they are not developing though. A lot of development can go on within each level of overall ratings.

That's because we've adjusted the scale over the last couple versions to be more and more realistic, and the real 20-80 scale is much more compressed than the kind of fake scale we'd used in the past. Basically, minor leaguers will normally come in at 20-40 or so.

You might not even see a guy gain overall as he progresses from rookie ball to AA. That does not mean he's not developing, this is just how the scale actually works in reality. A player would be expected to go from R level to AA level without his overall moving more than 5 or maybe 10 points. From AA to MLB they might move another 10-15.

For major leaguers, they will typically slot in heavily in the 40-60 range. Very few MLB guys will go above 60, those that do are genuine superstars. Again, this is mostly how the real 20-80 scale works, and things are much more in line with that now.

If you want to see a less realistic, less compressed scale, more like in previous versions, there are a couple things you can do.

One, change the scale to something other than 20-80, especially the 1-100 scale.

Two, change the comparison basis for the ratings so that all players compare to AAA or another league that has (slightly) less talent than MLB. (You don't want to pick too low a level here though, because then everyone at the MLB level will just be 80 overalls). Then you'll get a scale where you see more granular movement in the overall ratings than if you compare to MLB.

Ahh. I see and that makes sense. I appreciate the response. Its easy to get flustered between not seeing what you expect and others probably freaking out about the same for the same reason.

If its any consolation, I asked Grok as it helped me with my fan interest, loyalty, etc and it told me I need 2-4 seasons of sample to make a definitive assessment.

Would you say that by default on historical dev should work on default out of the box or are there any issues that present in historicals that create a need for adjustments?