No longer able to use a certain year as base year in Random Debut.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Whenever you can do it is fine pstrickert. I'm quite encouraged so far. Thank you very much.

Out of curiosity, action, what do you think will be different about beginning the league in 1882? (I'm running it right now, as a matter of fact.)

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

Out of curiosity, action, what do you think will be different about beginning the league in 1882? (I'm running it right now, as a matter of fact.)

Nothing really. It's just the earliest you can start with sixteen teams. I hate the 1881 expansion from eight to sixteen. It's reeeally rough on the incumbent teams, so I never start any earlier than 1882.

[David Watts]

If you have extra time and want to try another test.

Start a random in 1947 and allow the game to progress through the years using historical modifiers. Use strategy according to history as well. Maybe use 1 year recalc for this test. Oh and use 1901 as a minimum year to keep the pre 1900 guys out.


I assume that because random debut numbers are looking way less hot, straight historical must be looking really good?

[pstrickert]

OK. I feel somewhat conflicted about reporting results outside the beta forum. So, I'll keep things to a minimum. In this case, maybe y'all can help me understand if random debut is working as intended. I used 1984 for league stats and locked them in.


Random Debut: 1882-1941 (w/ action's recommended settings)
_____________________________________________

.400+ BA: 4x (3x by Ted Williams)
______________________________________________

1.1000 OPS: 14x (8x by Ted Williams)
______________________________________________

240+ Hits: 2x (top: 248)
______________________________________________

50+ HRs: 0x (top: 47)
______________________________________________

150+ RBI: 4x (top: 159)
______________________________________________

Most Wins: 52 (in 1886)
Most Losses: 40 (in 1886)
Most Hits (Career): 4428 (Shoeless Joe Jackson)

______________________________________________

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by David Watts

How many hitter have finished a season with a .360 or above average?

75x in RD 1984-2043
80x in RD 1882-1941

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

OK. I feel somewhat conflicted about reporting results outside the beta forum. So, I'll keep things to a minimum. In this case, maybe y'all can help me understand if random debut is working as intended. I used 1984 for league stats and locked them in.


Random Debut: 1882-1941 (w/ action's recommended settings)
_____________________________________________

.400+ BA: 4x (3x by Ted Williams)
______________________________________________

1.1000 OPS: 14x (8x by Ted Williams)
______________________________________________

240+ Hits: 2x (top: 248)
______________________________________________

50+ HRs: 0x (top: 47)
______________________________________________

150+ RBI: 4x (top: 159)
______________________________________________

Most Wins: 52 (in 1886)
Most Losses: 40 (in 1886)
Most Hits (Career): 4428 (Shoeless Joe Jackson)

______________________________________________

This stuff has me drooling. These results look exactly like what we've been hoping for. Wow!

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

75x in RD 1984-2043
80x in RD 1882-1941

Again, this has me very excited.


To answer your question. Based on what you've posted I think this is definitely how random is supposed to behave. That being said, I would love to see individual player careers, but I understand why you can't show them. Oh and if you take any heat for discussing this here, please let the guys know that if anything, you are moving at least one person towards purchasing. Up till your last posts I have been firmly in the wait till the World Series or later to buy camp. I may be wavering.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

75x in RD 1984-2043
80x in RD 1882-1941

These concern me a bit, as I've only had 17 such seasons so far in my 62-season OOTP16 dynasty (Shoeless Joe had 7 of them - BEAST!!!). Everything else looks tremendous from what I can see. I understand your aversion to sharing too much, given the NDA that you signed in blood, so I'll try not to ask too much so you don't get into trouble with the big dog.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Again, this has me very excited.


To answer your question. Based on what you've posted I think this is definitely how random is supposed to behave. That being said, I would love to see individual player careers, but I understand why you can't show them. Oh and if you take any heat for discussing this here, please let the guys know that if anything, you are moving at least one person towards purchasing. Up till your last posts I have been firmly in the wait till the World Series or later to buy camp. I may be wavering.

That might make two of us. I. Am. So. Weak.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Again, this has me very excited.


To answer your question. Based on what you've posted I think this is definitely how random is supposed to behave. That being said, I would love to see individual player careers, but I understand why you can't show them. Oh and if you take any heat for discussing this here, please let the guys know that if anything, you are moving at least one person towards purchasing. Up till your last posts I have been firmly in the wait till the World Series or later to buy camp. I may be wavering.

I don't mind letting you know whether or not I feel good (in general) about random debut league or historical league results during testing. I also know you guys have produced ample data to support your concerns with OOTP17/18. So, I hope it's OK to reward you with at least some info.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

These concern me a bit, as I've only had 17 such seasons so far in my 62-season OOTP16 dynasty (Shoeless Joe had 7 of them - BEAST!!!). Everything else looks tremendous from what I can see. I understand your aversion to sharing too much, given the NDA that you signed in blood, so I'll try not to ask too much so you don't get into trouble with the big dog.

Is this a concern? You tell me. I'm uninitiated when it comes to dealing with 19th century (and deadball era) baseball.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

Is this a concern? You tell me. I'm uninitiated when it comes to dealing with 19th century (and deadball era) baseball.

Well, that's why I use 1984 as a stats/strategy settings base for all seasons, so that I can avoid deadball and bazookaball eras, and kind of find a happy medium between the two. Nobody hit .360 in 1984 IRL (Gwynn was highest at .351), so it should be difficult (but not impossible) to do. Also, by using the strategy settings (which you didn't do, which is fine, because you've done a lot for me today ), you get closers getting a reasonable amount of saves throughout history, and starting pitchers don't win/lose a ridiculous amount of games. I don't know if you can still set strategy settings to 1984 permanently and uncheck the auto-adjust box or not without trashing financials though. So...There's that. Thank you for all you've done. I was firm on not buying this year, but that is definitely weakening if Markus can come through (yet again).

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Well, that's why I use 1984 as a stats/strategy settings base for all seasons, so that I can avoid deadball and bazookaball eras, and kind of find a happy medium between the two. Nobody hit .360 in 1984 IRL (Gwynn was highest at .351), so it should be difficult (but not impossible) to do. Also, by using the strategy settings (which you didn't do, which is fine, because you've done a lot for me today ), you get closers getting a reasonable amount of saves throughout history, and starting pitchers don't win/lose a ridiculous amount of games. I don't know if you can still set strategy settings to 1984 permanently and uncheck the auto-adjust box or not without trashing financials though. So...There's that. Thank you for all you've done. I was firm on not buying this year, but that is definitely weakening if Markus can come through (yet again).

I disabled financials. So, I suppose I could uncheck the auto-adjust box. Wouldn't that preserve 1984 settings indefinitely?

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

I disabled financials. So, I suppose I could uncheck the auto-adjust box. Wouldn't that preserve 1984 settings indefinitely?

Yep. I like to align strategy settings and LTMs just for consistency's sake, and for the reasons I outlined above. It all makes it much easier to compare across eras.

I also play with 162 game schedules every year and an LCS round, but I won't ask you for that because that resets every year. Ugh. Pain in the butt.

[JaBurns]

I have already purchased 19 X2 because I am extremely weak! I would like to thank all of you for all the work you have put into “fixing” random debut. This is by far my favourite way to play this amazing simulation and I am getting more excited for 22 March 18. I am hoping to import my current random debut league into 19 but my question now is: “Would I be now be better off starting over in March?”

[Reed]

I’ve preordered 19 and the 1st thing I’m going to do is do a test league to see if stats are more comparable to 16 or 18. I’ll simulate 1901 through 1950, 1 year recalc, development engine off and the rest of the setting at default (no financials). I don’t do random. Basically I’ll check number of .400 player seasons. Hopefully it will be under 20 and not near 20.

David—on a couple other threads I see you talking about the problem of starting a historical year but having the problem of players that missed that year (for injury, war, etc.) because their real career stats will show up in league stats when they come back to the game. The only option is to delete the player or let the incorrect stats stay in the game. One way around this, and you probably already know this, is to play using neutralized stats because players don’t have missed seasons with neutralized stats. Just thought I would throw that out there. Neutralized stats is having it’s on issue right now though.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by JaBurns

I have already purchased 19 X2 because I am extremely weak! I would like to thank all of you for all the work you have put into “fixing” random debut. This is by far my favourite way to play this amazing simulation and I am getting more excited for 22 March 18. I am hoping to import my current random debut league into 19 but my question now is: “Would I be now be better off starting over in March?”

I usually start over because you never know what will happen from version to version. OOTP16 was great for this way of playing. OOTP17 and OOTP18? Not so much. Do a lot of testing to start with though before I trust a version to handle one of my dynasties.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Reed

I’ve preordered 19 and the 1st thing I’m going to do is do a test league to see if stats are more comparable to 16 or 18. I’ll simulate 1901 through 1950, 1 year recalc, development engine off and the rest of the setting at default (no financials). I don’t do random. Basically I’ll check number of .400 player seasons. Hopefully it will be under 20 and not near 20.

David—on a couple other threads I see you talking about the problem of starting a historical year but having the problem of players that missed that year (for injury, war, etc.) because their real career stats will show up in league stats when they come back to the game. The only option is to delete the player or let the incorrect stats stay in the game. One way around this, and you probably already know this, is to play using neutralized stats because players don’t have missed seasons with neutralized stats. Just thought I would throw that out there. Neutralized stats is having it’s on issue right now though.

You could also use Real Stats, with 3-year or even 5-year recalc, double weighted for current year or not. This will allow seasons other than the one in question to be considered for the purpose of assigning ratings. I would think that will stop the disappearing player phenomenon, but I'm not 100% sure on this.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

You could also use Real Stats, with 3-year or even 5-year recalc, double weighted for current year or not. This will allow seasons other than the one in question to be considered for the purpose of assigning ratings. I would think that will stop the disappearing player phenomenon, but I'm not 100% sure on this.

This is a different issue altogether. In the past (ootp16) the game had a bug that kept players from reappearing if they missed a season. This bug was a blessing in disguise, because it allowed you to start a historical league, erase all history and start with a clean slate. This was great for those of us that like to play historical with fictional setups. This bug was fixed for OOTP17. Erasing all history is still possible. But, if I start a league in 1921 and play that season, my leaderboard at the beginning of 1922 will be the Johnny Evers show. Evers did not play in 1921, but returns in 1922. When OOTP brings him back, he returns with 16 years worth of stats.

[JaBurns]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I usually start over because you never know what will happen from version to version. OOTP16 was great for this way of playing. OOTP17 and OOTP18? Not so much. Do a lot of testing to start with though before I trust a version to handle one of my dynasties.

I probably will start over but I will try to get my setup down in 18, then start and save my setup as a template. From there run a few test leagues to see what happens, then if need be fool around with settings and repeat; any suggestions for years required in test runs? Obviously more is better but what would a minimum?
Usually start in 1901but have been reading about 1871 and 1882 starts for leagues. What are the things to watch for with a 19th century start date?