Can I develop any outfielder into a centerfielder, or does running speed factor into it?

[Rain King]

The edge case shouldn't make the rule.

This is essentially advocating for an additional mode of play.

The problem with allowing players to get trained at other positions while also using Recalc is that you have players that need certain ratings to replicate their historical value that might also lend them to be prime candidates for the AI to train up at more valuable positions.

Do you want Nolan Arenado and Brooks Robinson to become shortstops in your replay, for example? I don't think most people do.

There is this attitude of wanting to "have it all" for edge case play modes without a care for how most people will want to play the game. The developers have to consider everyone.

Also, remember that until recent versions, Recalc wiped out ALL learned fielding experience each year. It seems to me the current functionality is a pretty good compromise.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The edge case shouldn't make the rule.

This is essentially advocating for an additional mode of play.

The problem with allowing players to get trained at other positions while also using Recalc is that you have players that need certain ratings to replicate their historical value that might also lend them to be prime candidates for the AI to train up at more valuable positions.

Do you want Nolan Arenado and Brooks Robinson to become shortstops in your replay, for example? I don't think most people do.

There is this attitude of wanting to "have it all" for edge case play modes without a care for how most people will want to play the game. The developers have to consider everyone.

Also, remember that until recent versions, Recalc wiped out ALL learned fielding experience each year. It seems to me the current functionality is a pretty good compromise.

Probably impossible to do, but it would be neat if the game could flag certain players throughout history as unmovable. Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith are two that come to mind. Maybe allow the unmovable tag to disappear when the player reaches the twilight of their career. Guessing something like that would be pretty hard to program though.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Probably impossible to do, but it would be neat if the game could flag certain players throughout history as unmovable. Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith are two that come to mind. Maybe allow the unmovable tag to disappear when the player reaches the twilight of their career. Guessing something like that would be pretty hard to program though.

Knowing who is un-movable and who isn't is always a challenge. A-Rod only played SS IRL, until he didn't.

I mean, we could always cheat and look at their real career to determine how well they can learn a position. But then it also seems a little unfair that I can train a 22-year-old A-Rod to play 3B, but I can't train him to play 2B. Or that I can't train a 22-year old Jeter because real Jeter didn't want to move.

As Rain King's point, the problem with everything is that we could talk to 20 people who want to play a historical (or random debut) mode, and we'd probably get 50 answers of styles of play that they would like, when players can or can't be trained, which pieces carry over, when ratings can or can't change, etc... We can't please everyone, so we just have to try our best to set up a system that works for most.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Knowing who is un-movable and who isn't is always a challenge. A-Rod only played SS IRL, until he didn't.

I mean, we could always cheat and look at their real career to determine how well they can learn a position. But then it also seems a little unfair that I can train a 22-year-old A-Rod to play 3B, but I can't train him to play 2B. Or that I can't train a 22-year old Jeter because real Jeter didn't want to move.

As Rain King's point, the problem with everything is that we could talk to 20 people who want to play a historical (or random debut) mode, and we'd probably get 50 answers of styles of play that they would like, when players can or can't be trained, which pieces carry over, when ratings can or can't change, etc... We can't please everyone, so we just have to try our best to set up a system that works for most.

Makes sense. Can't imagine how hard it is to make everyone happy. In a recalc league, even though I use develpment, I would probably fall into the group that has zero interest in seeing Jeter learn to play 3B or 2B. In fact, to start out his career I wouldn't want Rodriguez to be rated to play 3B. If I'm using 3 year recalc with fielding based on 3 years, that's what I want the game to follow.

If playing development only, I would be a lot more open to guys playing wherever the game takes them. Don't play development only often, but when I do, I always base a players fielding ratings on their entire career.

That being said, thanks for the improvements to historical fielding over the last couple versions of the game.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Recalc does not wipe out ratings at learned positions. And that is not what Matt's post is about as can be seen by reading the whole thread.

No, but using Recalc USED to wipe out any learned position that was not in the database. So the compromise was, sure, you can keep the learned positions, but you are going to learn them at a slower pace if you use recalc, and then if you use historical transactions, it will be even slower, and if you use other historical features, it will be slower.

The way I play historical, with development engine only, I can train new positions all day long at the normal pace it was before the change that Matt explained in his post.

Also, I just read that "WHOLE POST" and Matt said what he said, Want me to quote it for you? Cause I only said what he said

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

It depends on which historical mode you are using. The more restrictive (recalc on, or using historical lineups/transactions), we have reduced learning other positions.

If you're not using historical transactions, and just using development, then players will still learn other positions like before.

Read that last line bro, if you do not use recalc, historical lineups, transactions, and only use the development engine, then players will learn positions "like before".

It has nothing to do with the dev lab being enabled or disabled. It has EVERYTHING to do with recalc being enabled.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The edge case shouldn't make the rule.

This is essentially advocating for an additional mode of play.

Actually its advocating for a return of what existed before. Historical modes expanded from 2 to 4 but wiped out one of those that existed before. And as the only prior mode that allowed historical play without historical lineups and transactions, lots of people played that way.

OOTP has retained prior functionality before, for example, the box that lets GM only users always be in control of depth charts and lineups. You're in a tough position arguing that something that was one of only two historical pre-sets for at least 14 years is suddenly wrong.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by twins_34

No, but using Recalc USED to wipe out any learned position that was not in the database.

Not true from OOTP 24 all the way back to at least OOTP 11.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by twins_34

The way I play historical, with development engine only, I can train new positions all day long at the normal pace it was before the change that Matt explained in his post.

Also, I just read that "WHOLE POST" and Matt said what he said, Want me to quote it for you? Cause I only said what he said

I said whole thread not whole post.

Actually the basic problem is is the Dev Lab will not train an OK CF to be a great LF. It instead will train him to be a bad 3B.

And your comment about "the way I play", well, you're not alone. We've heard this before from volunteers involved with the developers. Are the volunteers only advocates for how they play? Is anyone looking at the big picture?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by twins_34

Read that last line bro, if you do not use recalc, historical lineups, transactions, and only use the development engine, then players will learn positions "like before".

It has nothing to do with the dev lab being enabled or disabled. It has EVERYTHING to do with recalc being enabled.

It has to do with Dev Lab being the new way to train players but turning it off does not give us the old way back unless we turn off recalc. So we can either have the Dev Lab, which does not train players to play related positions, or we can have no training at all. How is that right?

There are several posts here explaining why people play with both recalc and dev. And this was one of two pre-sets for historical play for at least 14 years. How did we move up to four pre-sets and not keep one of the old ones? Perhaps because none of the volunteers play that way?

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Brad K

It has to do with Dev Lab being the new way to train players but turning it off does not give us the old way back unless we turn off recalc. So we can either have the Dev Lab, which does not train players to play related positions, or we can have no training at all. How is that right?

There are several posts here explaining why people play with both recalc and dev. And this was one of two pre-sets for historical play for at least 14 years. How did we move up to four pre-sets and not keep one of the old ones? Perhaps because none of the volunteers play that way?

I'm done with this. Even Matt told you what is causing what you are seeing, Also Rain King also even stated, and I trust him WAY more than you, that recalc use to remove all trained defense. Even Matt told me that when I asked him about it and I trust Matt WAY MORE than you as well!

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Yeah, it's not at all related to the dev lab, it's just a function of recalc, more or less. I mean, a few years ago we would wipe out all experience at positions that players didn't play in the recalc, so at least now you can keep some of them. But we don't train as fast on new ones, to at least keep some of the spirit of recalc alive.

So, end of discussion Brad.

[Brad K]

Following screen shots are from OOTP 23. I trained Clemente to play CF.

First is April 8 1968

Second is March 3 1969

No reset of the learned position to zero..

[Brad K]

First screenshot below is a import of Clemente for 1969. Note RF rating is same as in previous 1969 screen shot and no CF rating.

Second is from June 1970. Both position ratings decreased. It is due to the decrease in category skill ratings. Again, recalc did not reset learned position to zero.

Perhaps you've erroneously interpreted decreases due to decline in skill ratings as being due to recalc resetting learned positions.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Also, remember that until recent versions, Recalc wiped out ALL learned fielding experience each year. It seems to me the current functionality is a pretty good compromise.

Unfortunately, there are situations where recalc SHOULD wipe out all learned fielding experience... when a player drastically changes position.


We see this all of the time where the ratings of former OF and 3B are recalc'd so that they can only play 1B (because they are old and slow), but the game sees that 200 fielding experience at some other position and will still play them out of position because they are a good hitter.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Unfortunately, there are situations where recalc SHOULD wipe out all learned fielding experience... when a player drastically changes position.


We see this all of the time where the ratings of former OF and 3B are recalc'd so that they can only play 1B (because they are old and slow), but the game sees that 200 fielding experience at some other position and will still play them out of position because they are a good hitter.

That's not recalc wiping it out in the sense that's being alleged here. They are saying that it happens annually just because it's a learned position. My screenshots show otherwise.

However I totally agree with your point that aging players should lose their ratings at positions other than 1B. But adding whether they're learned or historical.