We are go for Stats-Only

[Cras]

And the trading point, that I totally agree with. I never used anything other than normal.

[Sven Draconian]

Originally Posted by Cras

For those of you using a Diet variation on stats play, how are you going about your AI Eval Settings?

You giving any weight at all to ratings? My thinking is this still should be left at zero since you have no clue what the current ratings are, and only a rough glimpse of potential.

In my experience, if the AI does not have a high enough % of evaluation based on ratings then it acts weird (especially with young prospects/guys who where injured ect... people without a good base of stats to use).

I believe my current settings are 40-30-25-15. I can also see the basis for using 40-25-25-20 or even 35-30-25-20. At one point I was playing around with adjusting it manually throughout the year, but I gave up on that.

[Cras]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

In my experience, if the AI does not have a high enough % of evaluation based on ratings then it acts weird (especially with young prospects/guys who where injured ect... people without a good base of stats to use).

I believe my current settings are 40-30-25-15. I can also see the basis for using 40-25-25-20 or even 35-30-25-20. At one point I was playing around with adjusting it manually throughout the year, but I gave up on that.

Yeah, I remember that thread of the adjusting eval during the year. Sounds like a nice idea, and probably leads to nice results, but...nope. That is too much work for my lazy self.

Young players coming up, that is a good point, but do you find yourself at a competitive disadvantage when the AI is using ratings as much as 40% which you can't see?

[The Wolf]

Apparently I have been completely misunderstood. Again. I really don't care how anyone chooses to okay their game. Do whatever you like, I'm good with it.

But if you have any ratings at all turned on, then don't say that you're playing stats-only. Describe what you are doing in detail, call it a hybrid, or call it whatever, but "stats-only" has a very specific meaning: only stats. No ratings.

It's a difficult way to play. But if you think the game is a bit too easy as is, I suggest that it very well might be in your best interest to at least try it.

But if you don't want to, that's cool too.

[Sven Draconian]

Originally Posted by Cras

Yeah, I remember that thread of the adjusting eval during the year. Sounds like a nice idea, and probably leads to nice results, but...nope. That is too much work for my lazy self.

Young players coming up, that is a good point, but do you find yourself at a competitive disadvantage when the AI is using ratings as much as 40% which you can't see?

Not at all. I actually think it's a nice way to gauge where a players ratings are without actually getting to see him. When you shop a guy or "ask the AI what will work" and they pop up some names that gives you a relative value. It also helps add a little challenge to the game

Truthfully, the way the AI promotes/demotes and platoons players they just do not get enough ABs for a pure stats based evaluation to work for the AI. When the player logs 400 ABs over 5 teams across 3 levels it's a problem.

[ashantewarrier]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

This is an absurd statement. A "real" general manager has the opportunity to go and see a player perform. He has a cadre of scouts who can go see a player perform. There is video and a well established system of scouting a player using the 20-80 system.

The vague scouting reports the game provides does not provide near the depth that a "real" GM has.

The most "realistic" in terms of scouting would be to have the 20-80 scale for overall/potential and 2-8 for each category as that is the system used by professional organizations. You can tweak the accuracy however you want.

If the goal is to make the game harder, play however you want. However, difficulty and realism are not the same thing. The whole alpha attitude of your posts is the only childish thing that has occurred in this thread.

Good points in regards to scouting. Professional organizations do have an established scouting system, rating players on a 20-80/2-8 scale. I use this rating myself system when playing the game and 1-5 for defensive fielding ratings. Using this system I don't see the specific rating for each player.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

Not at all. I actually think it's a nice way to gauge where a players ratings are without actually getting to see him. When you shop a guy or "ask the AI what will work" and they pop up some names that gives you a relative value. It also helps add a little challenge to the game

Truthfully, the way the AI promotes/demotes and platoons players they just do not get enough ABs for a pure stats based evaluation to work for the AI. When the player logs 400 ABs over 5 teams across 3 levels it's a problem.

Would switching from sabermetric to traditional help eliminate some of the platoons?

[The Wolf]

You still see platooning. The AI likes it.

[StyxNCa]

Wow Wolf, I leave for 5 minutes and you get everything fired up.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Wow Wolf, I leave for 5 minutes and you get everything fired up.

Styx, some people here can and will misinterpret anything.

[StyxNCa]

This is true. I've been guilty of that myself sometimes.