It's back....The Annual Settings Thread

[bly08]

using default development settings, hard/neutral, and 40/30/20/10 in my first game.

[PSUColonel]

right now, I am finding the overall player ratings (stars or 20-80) to be extremely schitzoprenic and contradictory. Therefore I considered playing with 100 percent accurate ratings, but that would completely eliminate any need for a scout or scouting budget. Therefore, in order to try to combat this issue, I am going to try using very high accuracy. There will still be fog of war, but I think maybe things won't be so all over the map.

What I mean by this, is a scout or OSA very often seems to give out ratings such as:

contact: 50/50

Power : 40/45

Eye: 55/55

Overall : 70/75

This obviously makes no sense.

[PSUColonel]

A prime example:

[drhay53]

"A tremendous defensive package". "average to plus speed". Hitting ratings are not the only thing that goes into overall. IMO baserunning is overrated in the overall ratings, but what you're seeing is likely due to his defense.

[NoOne]

i'll let the AI pay that guy 75-overall money any day of the week and 5x on sunday... lol

i don't care how high the intangibles are, that's a decidedly below-avrage hitter. he's not even going to be average power because his contact sucks so bad -- again, with average power and contact is a "40"? that means avoid k and babip are really low - or at least one is devastatingly low to equate to 40/80 with 50/80 power.

if that isn't easily recognizeable and you don't win all the time in the game, this is one of the perceptions that should be adjusted to win more. this guy is a loser for what he would cost (assuming 75 overall would demand a top-quartile contract or more).... this guy is the poster-child why you need stats involved in player evaluation, lol. even though that isn't guranteed to help at any time, and may even exascerbate it in some situations.

that guy isn't worth the money he will demand in an incredibly obvious way.

[PSUColonel]

I am convinced this is a flaw and/or bug within OOTP. It seems to me that those of us who are using relative ratings are sort of getting the shaft a bit. It seems the ratings system is being designed to work better with the real ratings...the problem there however though...you'll have a guy with seemingly very solid ratings across the board, and then the evaluation says he's garbage. In this scenario, most all players have very decent ratings.

[Elysian Fields]

Originally Posted by drhay53

"A tremendous defensive package". "average to plus speed". Hitting ratings are not the only thing that goes into overall. IMO baserunning is overrated in the overall ratings, but what you're seeing is likely due to his defense.

This would be my answer too. I spend time editing players and when you raise their defensive numbers this is what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Elysian Fields

This would be my answer too. I spend time editing players and when you raise their defensive numbers this is what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may very well be the case....but it might be weighting a bit too much IMO. I'm not saying defense should be weighted on a substantial level...so please don't misinterpret what I mean...I just feel it might be a little over the top.

[PSUColonel]

Also...he's a LF

[Elysian Fields]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This may very well be the case....but it might be weighting a bit too much IMO. I'm not saying defense should be weighted on a substantial level...so please don't misinterpret what I mean...I just feel it might be a little over the top.

Yeah, could be. Although defensive war is high for exceptional defensive players like Kiermaier, Simmons, or Cain. It probably only matters where the AI leans defensive in ratings. It'll choose the light hitting defensive guy over a hitter at the same position.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elysian Fields]

And the base running will contribute to war as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TuckerDuckson]

Altherr's rating is due to him having a 75-80 defensive rating in LF.

He has average speed, average contact, average power; it's just his defensive rating really, the description may be a bug, but the description goes after the ratings if I'm not wrong.

[bly08]

Something I noticed with bumping up the dev. speed modifiers (1.125 for both in my case) is that prospects tend to develop too quickly for the AI teams to make room for them, and lots of top 50 prospects end up in rule 5 or on waivers. Not sure if this is a problem with the AI's prospect management or with development speed.

[PSUColonel]

I am back to using "very hard" as a trade setting...don't know if it's warranted though...sometimes I just feel hard gives you too many "easy clues" as to what the AI will accept, and in many of those cases, it's junk.

This now has me questioning what scouting accuracy I might consider. I have been using normal, but wonder if I should/could be using low or very low.


Many advocate changing AI evaluation when lowering accuracy, and while that seems logical I don't feel it is. I have been using 5/30/15/5...but have since changed my mind, and I really think the default 65/20/10/15 DOES ensure the most practical AI behavior.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Challenge Mode... all defaults.

If you don't mind my asking, what are the defaults within challenge mode? I have yet to try it.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

If you don't mind my asking, what are the defaults within challenge mode? I have yet to try it.

I have only played Challenge Mode with historical leagues, so I can tell you those. Some settings are locked, and some can be changed.

"All players are displayed relative to:" is unchecked (irrelevant since I only have one league). Overall ratings based on AI evaluation and all players instead of position are both unchecked also. These can be changed.

Scouting is locked to enabled, but accuracy can be changed. I use normal accuracy, which is the default.

Trading is locked to hard/neutral. The Player Evaluation AI settings are locked at 30/50/15/5.

Development settings can be changed. Recalc is disabled (locked out), so I use a TCR of 50 to have more accurate historical players. I use the default for aging/speed (1.00).

I import the financial and player modifiers each year based on history and don't change anything there.

If I missed something, please ask again.

Somewhat off-topic but I will throw it in anyway... I have found that the AI is most competitive in historical with the following settings:

Reserve rosters with no limit (no minors) so waivers are unavailable.
Reserve clause enabled so AI cannot fail to sign its star players.
No draft with historical rookies imported to debut teams.

The only thing the AI can do wrong now is go broke and release players for money reasons. Of course, you can still fleece the AI in trades but that can be conquered through self-control. The AI seems to be pretty fair when trading with each other, mostly 1 player for 1 or 2 players and the stars are rarely involved. Occasionally, you will see a star player traded for another.

[koohead]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The Player Evaluation AI settings are locked at 30/50/15/5.

Intriguing

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by koohead

Intriguing

My thoughts exactly.

[Andy]

I think it depends on the type of league, though. If you use the MLB Quickstart in Challenge Mode I’m pretty sure it’s locked in at the 65/20/10/5 or whatever. Like Orcin said, his numbers are for Historical.

[koohead]

Originally Posted by Andy

I think it depends on the type of league, though. If you use the MLB Quickstart in Challenge Mode I’m pretty sure it’s locked in at the 65/20/10/5 or whatever. Like Orcin said, his numbers are for Historical.

which raises another/bigger question of why the AI should evaluate talent differently just because of the era?