|
||||
|
|
OOTP 21 - General Discussions Everything about the brand new version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB and the MLBPA. |
|
Thread Tools |
04-02-2020, 10:24 PM | #21 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 16,843
|
Maleus Dei used to mix his evals up during specific phases of the season. FWIW I borrowed the strategy for a bit, but never took the time to actually measure the impact of the results.
__________________
"Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________ Last edited by endgame; 04-02-2020 at 10:25 PM. |
04-02-2020, 10:34 PM | #22 |
Hall Of Famer
|
|
04-03-2020, 03:46 PM | #23 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Troy, Mo
Posts: 6,251
|
Quote:
I think next season I'm going with 25/50/20/5 or 20/50/25/5 |
|
04-12-2020, 05:19 PM | #24 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 514
|
Does it matter what ratings scale that you use? For example, if you use a 1-5 scale should you consider more emphasize on stats or does the AI see more granular rating even if you chose to round them or turn them off?
|
04-12-2020, 06:28 PM | #25 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,079
|
Not using ratings for AI evaluation is counter intuitive to me. If you're purely looking for the best performing AI, wouldn't using ratings at 100% make the most sense since that is what the game is using to generate the players' performance?
Well, I guess it depends if you are using scouting too since if the AI isn't using perfect information for the ratings it wouldn't be good to use that 100% for evaluation. I guess you may want to include some stats to make the AI evaluation look somewhat believable too if they aren't using scouting since they won't act like a player with bad stats is a superstar or visa versa, even if they know they are based on the ratings. I guess what I'm saying too is that the 'best' AI evaluation percentages are influenced by what you want to get out of them. |
04-25-2020, 04:26 AM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,728
Infractions: 0/2 (5)
|
I think I might try out 10/40/25/25 cause hey why not
|
04-25-2020, 04:51 AM | #27 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,313
|
Ive been running a sim of what I was planning for my one true save I plan on running for YEARS, and started testing it with 25/25/25/25, but idk if i like it. Maybe its because of my .8 1.2 aging and dev settings with 200 TCR and real life minors limits, but i saw some weird things like Eric Lauer getting called up and sent down to AAA every other day, a ton of young players playing a lot of AA, a lot of MLB, and 1 game in AAA (all in 2020), and just things along those lines.
I think for 2021 in my test and onwards ill try 0/50/25/25, .85 1.1 aging/dev, and 150 TCR. |
04-25-2020, 06:38 AM | #28 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,358
|
Stats only 0/67/22/11
|
04-25-2020, 11:45 PM | #29 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
|
Quote:
Teams will shuffle players around to make room. It's best to not set any active roster size below A ball. People even live by not settle an active limit for AAA. Age limit and service times are fine to use. Last edited by SirMichaelJordan; 04-25-2020 at 11:48 PM. |
|
04-29-2020, 07:37 AM | #31 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,920
|
Yes, I have played 100/0/0/0 but usually play 75/25/0/0. I play historical 1901- and I want to get a sense of how the players I have read about performed in real life and feel 100/0/0/0 gives you the best chance. There is enough randomness to make it interesting. Players still hit 30 points higher or lower than their real life stats. The only thing I did not like is seeing a player that started the season in a big slump that was batting leadoff still batting leadoff near season end. With 75/25/0/0 that player would likely be moved down in the lineup. To be a purest to get a sense of how the players actually.played I think 100/0/0/0 is the best option.
If I were playing fictional I would probably play 0/50/40/10. I do not understand why some would give equal weight to 2 years ago as they give to last year stats or this year stats. |
04-29-2020, 08:20 AM | #32 | |
Hall Of Famer
|
Quote:
wouldn't the default 65/20/10/5 accomplish the same? I am very curious as to why some many are now abandoning ratings as any major part of the AI evaluation makeup?? So many seem to be going with 0/x/x/x type evaluation these days. I was always under the impression you need scout value too be part of the equasion? |
|
04-29-2020, 09:55 AM | #33 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
If you think about it, if you use 100% rating (100/0/0/0) but using 3 year recalc double weight current year you are really using 25% next year, 50% current year and 25% last year real stats. But then you set something like 40/30/20/10 then you are really using only about 30 of his resulting rating for the year based on current year real stats. I am to old to figure out the math. It probably would work a lot better using 1 year recall if I was really into using OOTP game stats. Last edited by Reed; 04-29-2020 at 10:31 AM. |
|
04-29-2020, 11:27 AM | #34 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
|
Quote:
Also the evaluations are prorated. There need to be a certain amount of AB/IP for the full current year weight to be used for a player. Last edited by SirMichaelJordan; 04-29-2020 at 11:29 AM. |
|
04-29-2020, 11:51 AM | #35 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
Also, I am not trying to predict a players performance like a scout, I already know that since I play historical. Last edited by Reed; 04-29-2020 at 12:17 PM. |
|
04-29-2020, 12:20 PM | #36 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
|
Quote:
But unless you set 2 years ago to an extreme amount. It will always be the least weight given. The setting is just the baseline. Every GM and Manager in the game have their own evaluation weights based on the baseline you set. Last edited by SirMichaelJordan; 04-29-2020 at 12:23 PM. |
|
05-01-2020, 09:42 PM | #37 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 98
|
This topic is always one of the most frustrating to watch, because there's so much we don't know about, we have a feeling minor tweaks is hardly noticable (difference between 65 and 60 for ratings wouldn't be noticable), yet we get a lot of "gut feelings" and confirmation bias without any actual data on it other than "well I use that and it works great for me". On top of that, it seems we're all trying to accomplish different goals. It's a discussion that'll forever be in a loop here.
(Edit from the future: This comment was a bit snarky, could've put this better instead of being unproductive) Last edited by ThePride87; 05-04-2020 at 11:46 PM. Reason: was being an ass earlier |
05-02-2020, 07:52 AM | #38 | |
Minors (Rookie Ball)
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
I'll revamp my AI eval #s for an MLB + wider real world QS save I've been working on. After reviewing everything so far in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that 25/40/25/10 is as good a place to start as any. Findings to come within the next week+. |
|
05-03-2020, 10:12 AM | #39 |
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 141
|
I use 100/0/0/0 for my NCAA league, because there just aren't enough stats in a short season and players develop so quickly that stats from previous years are useless. However, the settings seem to confuse the scouting calculations and I get Power Potentials in the 180s (in the 20-80 scale) and Stuff Potentials in the 150s. If anyone has found a good setup for NCAA (development rate, aging rate, min/max ages, scouting mix), I would love to try it.
|
05-03-2020, 10:31 AM | #40 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|