Player Development Testing & Conclusion

[Eburaci]

I recently posted some player development testing and conclusions to the OOTP reddit, but wanted to share here. Instead of rehashing everything, I'll just add the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OOTP/commen...onclusions_in/

The basic premise is that if you start a new game with modern rosters in present day, the overall ratings of the league will quickly drop year-over-year and the distribution of different age groups will change as older players lose ratings even more quickly. The balance of ratings will shift too (e.g. pitchers become more similar in terms of ratings balance between starters and relievers).

I just wanted to share my findings and get feedback. It seems reasonable to me that even with the "realistic" ratings scale, you would want to maintain a similar level of overall ratings talent and age distribution in the league as the initial game rosters. The drop is quite dramatic, happens very quickly, and is easily verifiable too, so I assume this is a design choice.

[kidd_05_u2]

There was a lot of good work done this year to get the development and aging curves correct, so I don't think the problem is development speed or aging.

This sounds like another used tied to newly created players being given current ability ratings that are too low.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

There was a lot of good work done this year to get the development and aging curves correct, so I don't think the problem is development speed or aging.

This sounds like another used tied to newly created players being given current ability ratings that are too low.

You are kidding right? These boards were loaded with people complaining about development, including myself. I had to jack up development and lower aging to get any development at all. I was about to go back to 25 until Dr. Satan shared settings that I now use.

[kidd_05_u2]

These boards are always loaded with people who complain without testing anything (not talking about Eburaci of course). Even worse, the boards are always loaded with people who somehow choose to blindly trust the settings of any wacky user.

The development curve was addressed in April. There were a few issues with defense and pitcher stamina declining too early, but these were also resolved more than a month ago.

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eburaci

I recently posted some player development testing and conclusions to the OOTP reddit, but wanted to share here. Instead of rehashing everything, I'll just add the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OOTP/commen...onclusions_in/

The basic premise is that if you start a new game with modern rosters in present day, the overall ratings of the league will quickly drop year-over-year and the distribution of different age groups will change as older players lose ratings even more quickly. The balance of ratings will shift too (e.g. pitchers become more similar in terms of ratings balance between starters and relievers).

I just wanted to share my findings and get feedback. It seems reasonable to me that even with the "realistic" ratings scale, you would want to maintain a similar level of overall ratings talent and age distribution in the league as the initial game rosters. The drop is quite dramatic, happens very quickly, and is easily verifiable too, so I assume this is a design choice.

Thanks for putting in the work and presenting your findings, Eburaci.

To a certain percentage of us, something is clearly off with development in 26. And that really sucks because many of us put a lot of time and energy into setting up our universe with a certain expectation for logical player development that is not being met.

The way that these complaints have been handled by the Devs have been disappointing.

[jpeters1734]

This test is riddled with misconceptions, misperceptions, confirmation bias, insufficient sample sizes, and shifting conditions. Take it with a grain of salt.

In general, people need to stop jumping on the “OOTP is broken” bandwagon every time someone on Reddit posts some screenshots of a pretty spreadsheet.

[Rain King]

Yeah, while I appreciate anyone doing extensive testing on this stuff. I think we continually see how difficult it is to test something well and produce useful conclusions.

I also think the "Standard Game" is a bad control. The players in that set are not created or developed via the OOTP engine, they are manipulated to try to get realistic 2025 results. It is essentially a custom save. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the game to level out in future seasons exactly at the levels that set was created.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

These boards are always loaded with people who complain without testing anything (not talking about Eburaci of course). Even worse, the boards are always loaded with people who somehow choose to blindly trust the settings of any wacky user.

The development curve was addressed in April. There were a few issues with defense and pitcher stamina declining too early, but these were also resolved more than a month ago.

That was a uncalled for and smarta** comment. That "wacky" user was the person who finally gave me settings that made this version worth a crap to me. Also, you can say it was addressed in April but it was not relayed to the board what was being done until 6-5-25 by Lukas.

[whaleheader]

Suggestion...

Try exporting and testing the underlying ratings to see if the players' true talents (in the game) are falling, and/or if it's the scouting ratings that are falling.

[eas9898]

Wow, some of you you guys take it very personally when someone points out there is a problem with the game.

We're all here because we love the game and want to see it be the best it can be. It's actually a good thing that some people like Eburaci take the time to invest in showing where things are wrong, as this could help the developers work on the things that are needed.

Of course, this depends of the developers (and some of you here) having enough of an open mind to actually acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place.

Remember -- we're all on the same side here.

[Eburaci]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

This test is riddled with misconceptions, misperceptions, confirmation bias, insufficient sample sizes, and shifting conditions. Take it with a grain of salt.

In general, people need to stop jumping on the “OOTP is broken” bandwagon every time someone on Reddit posts some screenshots of a pretty spreadsheet.

I think it is fair to say that my testing is not precise, could use a larger sample size, and a better overall protocol. More or less, I am recording data as I play the game.

However, I have not claimed that OOTP is broken and I do believe my data is sufficient, verifiable, and repeatable for my basic thesis that: (1) absolute ability measured by ratings point drops from present day game starts; and (2) the talent-age distribution is changes dramatically and quickly.

I really love the game and just expected/hoped that the talent-age distribution level from the start of a new modern day game would persist better than it has. Your mileage may vary and that's okay too.

[DetroitStyle]

Just curious, but have you tried the beta?

Development/Aging balance:
*Slightly increased Stuff development
*Slight increase babip/avoid K development
*Slight slow avoid K aging
*Adjust control development (some faster, some slower)

I'm not on it, but anectodical evidence on my last few saves kind of reinforces OPs point. But I don't necessarily think young development is bad. More so player drop off after 30 is too extreme. I wonder if simply just change aging speed for pitchers and hitters to .9 or .95 would fix it.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

This sounds like another used tied to newly created players being given current ability ratings that are too low.

This is an issue I've seen in draft classes. I don't even mess with anyone over 20 anymore if I can avoid it. The ratings are too low compared to their potential. I can get a similar 18 year old who'll have more time to develop.

Of course, I say that without having any data from real life, but I would assume a 21 yr old college player would be closer to their potential than an 18 yr old HS player with similar potential.

[Baseballman2K5]

Originally Posted by rwd59

You are kidding right? These boards were loaded with people complaining about development, including myself. I had to jack up development and lower aging to get any development at all. I was about to go back to 25 until Dr. Satan shared settings that I now use.

Do you mind sharing the post of the settings Dr. Satan uses? I need to turn up development somehow

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Baseballman2K5

Do you mind sharing the post of the settings Dr. Satan uses? I need to turn up development somehow

Here you go. Quality of coaching, and dev money also play a role. Don't neglect minor league coaches. Get the best you can.

[Baseballman2K5]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

Here you go. Quality of coaching, and dev money also play a role. Don't neglect minor league coaches. Get the best you can.

Thank you. Is "disable development focus" turning off those dev sliders for each player?

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Baseballman2K5

Thank you. Is "disable development focus" turning off those dev sliders for each player?

Yes

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by Eburaci

I recently posted some player development testing and conclusions to the OOTP reddit, but wanted to share here. Instead of rehashing everything, I'll just add the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OOTP/commen...onclusions_in/

The basic premise is that if you start a new game with modern rosters in present day, the overall ratings of the league will quickly drop year-over-year and the distribution of different age groups will change as older players lose ratings even more quickly. The balance of ratings will shift too (e.g. pitchers become more similar in terms of ratings balance between starters and relievers).

I just wanted to share my findings and get feedback. It seems reasonable to me that even with the "realistic" ratings scale, you would want to maintain a similar level of overall ratings talent and age distribution in the league as the initial game rosters. The drop is quite dramatic, happens very quickly, and is easily verifiable too, so I assume this is a design choice.

I've done some testing with this as well with multiple 100+ season sims, and the drop off seems to be from the MLB roster set and draft class. Ratings dive in the late 2020's and into the 2030's until the fictional draft class players start taking over. After about 20-30 seaons, the overall ratings distribution is much better.

My definition of much better is a handful fo 70-80 guys, a dozen or so 60-69, and loads of 40-59.

The only real testing I've done is creating fictional leagues with the same settings, and simming a decade at a time, checking the ratings distribution, rinse and repeat for like 100 years. The ratings distro in the fictional leagues is pretty consistent over 100 years.

Not trashing the roster set, 100% appreciate all the work involved.

[phenom]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

These boards are always loaded with people who complain without testing anything (not talking about Eburaci of course). Even worse, the boards are always loaded with people who somehow choose to blindly trust the settings of any wacky user.

The development curve was addressed in April. There were a few issues with defense and pitcher stamina declining too early, but these were also resolved more than a month ago.

These boards are also loaded with people who won't give an ounce of aid unless you've supplied 149 years of detailed statistical analysis to the tenth decimal point with a 47-page slideshow and 16-page spreadsheet and 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was highlighting every anomaly encountered.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by phenom

These boards are also loaded with people who won't give an ounce of aid unless you've supplied 149 years of detailed statistical analysis to the tenth decimal point with a 47-page slideshow and 16-page spreadsheet and 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was highlighting every anomaly encountered.

Yeah, I don't think this is fair at all.

The vast majority of the time there is not nearly enough information provided when people ask for help, post weird results, or call the game "broken".

How is good help supposed to occur in those situations without requesting more details?