Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Out of the Park Baseball 21 > OOTP 21 - General Discussions

OOTP 21 - General Discussions Everything about the brand new version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB and the MLBPA.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-02-2020, 10:24 PM   #21
endgame
Hall Of Famer
 
endgame's Avatar
 
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.
endgame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2020, 10:34 PM   #22
PSUColonel
Hall Of Famer
 
PSUColonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 12,978
Blog Entries: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan View Post
If you put more weight into last year and 2 years ago, the AI will not overact to an off year.
yes, which is a big reason I think 40/30/20/10 has been so popular over the years.
PSUColonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2020, 03:46 PM   #23
MizzouRah
Hall Of Famer
 
MizzouRah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Troy, Mo
Posts: 6,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel View Post
Yes, the reason the MLB set is set at 65/20/10/5 is basically to massage the AI into keeping things parellel to the actual MLB.

to me, 65 is likelly too high for ratings, as the AI just doesn't take actual performance enough into consideration when it comes to depth charts, contract negotiations etc.

Conversely, I also feel 30 is too low for ratings. Here the AI will at times waive or release good players who may not be performing well.

This is why I have always liked something closer tho the middle of the road.

40/30/20/10 is good

so is 50/30/15/5 or 55/25/15/5
I used 40/30/20/10 for many versions and after seeing an odd waiver wire player, the fictional default of 30/50/15/5 seems too high with regard to ratings weight.

I think next season I'm going with 25/50/20/5 or 20/50/25/5
MizzouRah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2020, 05:19 PM   #24
henry296
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?
henry296 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2020, 06:28 PM   #25
robc
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.
__________________
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
robc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2020, 04:26 AM   #26
jimmysthebestcop
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
jimmysthebestcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2020, 04:51 AM   #27
itsmb8
All Star Starter
 
itsmb8's Avatar
 
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.
itsmb8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2020, 06:38 AM   #28
Hrycaj
All Star Starter
 
Hrycaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,358
Stats only 0/67/22/11
__________________
Click on my signature to read about the great game of baseball in Normington.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/showthread.php?t=326812
Hrycaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2020, 11:45 PM   #29
SirMichaelJordan
Hall Of Famer
 
SirMichaelJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmb8 View Post
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.
This have more to do with your roster limits and not your AI eval settings.

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.
SirMichaelJordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2020, 10:45 PM   #30
PSUColonel
Hall Of Famer
 
PSUColonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 12,978
Blog Entries: 37
has anyone ever tried 100/0/0/0?
PSUColonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 07:37 AM   #31
Reed
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel View Post
has anyone ever tried 100/0/0/0?
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.
Reed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 08:20 AM   #32
PSUColonel
Hall Of Famer
 
PSUColonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 12,978
Blog Entries: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed View Post
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.


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?
PSUColonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 09:55 AM   #33
Reed
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel View Post
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?
I guess it would come close.to accomplishing the same thing but I would rather start the season with the aI focused on current rating without last year's game stats being involved. Players actual stats can very quiet a bit from year to year. I do play 3 year recalc double weighted so the ratings do take into account last season's and next year's real stats.
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.
Reed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 11:27 AM   #34
SirMichaelJordan
Hall Of Famer
 
SirMichaelJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed View Post
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.
Because scouts usually base a player performance off of 3 year splits.

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.
SirMichaelJordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 11:51 AM   #35
Reed
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan View Post
Because scouts usually base a player performance off of 3 year splits.

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.
Yes, but do scout give more weight to current performance over last year performance and more than 2 year ago performance???

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.
Reed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 12:20 PM   #36
SirMichaelJordan
Hall Of Famer
 
SirMichaelJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed View Post
Yes, but do scout give more weight to current performance over last year performance and more than 2 year ago performance???

Also, I am not trying to predict a players performance like a scout, I already know that since I play historical.
Who knows

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.
SirMichaelJordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2020, 09:42 PM   #37
ThePride87
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
ThePride87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2020, 07:52 AM   #38
AJFO
Minors (Rookie Ball)
 
AJFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePride87 View Post
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.
Suppose there's only one way to find out.

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+.
AJFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2020, 10:12 AM   #39
mjryan65
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.
mjryan65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2020, 10:31 AM   #40
SirMichaelJordan
Hall Of Famer
 
SirMichaelJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjryan65 View Post
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.
You should know that by default, if there isn’t enough stats, ratings will be weighted more even if ratings evaluation % are at 0.
SirMichaelJordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments