Dev / Aging Speed

[wsucougs]

For those of you who have simmed a number of seasons, does the default Dev / Aging speed seem about right?

Or does it need to be tweaked?

I know in last years version the aging speed had to be decreased to get 30+ stars.

Thanks

[MrWideFrame]

I've noticed players seem to age a bit faster than I would like/expect. In the past what adjustments have you made?

[Eiskrap]

This is what we came up with a couple of years back.

If I could get the quick start to sim quick enough I would check for v15.

[hluraven]

I'm using the .250/1.000/.375/.900/67 from the linked thread in OOTP15 and it seems fine

[censurerat]

Originally Posted by hluraven

I'm using the .250/1.000/.375/.900/67 from the linked thread in OOTP15 and it seems fine

Do you know if these settings work good for a historical game with recalc off?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by wsucougs

For those of you who have simmed a number of seasons, does the default Dev / Aging speed seem about right?

Or does it need to be tweaked?

I know in last years version the aging speed had to be decreased to get 30+ stars.

Thanks

You can bet it will be within 10%-15% of 1 either way. I'd say you need 3-5 seasons to know for sure.

[hluraven]

Originally Posted by censurerat

Do you know if these settings work good for a historical game with recalc off?

No idea, that's with the modern start

[SirMichaelJordan]

Last year I used the default but I recently felt like I didn't have enough young stars and older players got worst a little too early.

So now I am using:

Batter aging- .900
Batter dev- 1.100
Pitcher aging- .900
Pitcher dev - 1.100

I need to sim atleast 10 years before I make another adjustment but 15 sim much slower than last year's game

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Eiskrap

This is what we came up with a couple of years back.

If I could get the quick start to sim quick enough I would check for v15.

Markus adjusts the defaults pretty frequently based on rl data. The defaults should be much better than modded settings from several years ago. Those are likely to be entirely inapplicable to the current version of OOTP.

[hfield007]

I found those numbers in that thread were good in OOTP 13... but by 14 Markus had the default changed and those numbers produced way too many 20 year career stars and 40 year old dominant players.

In 14 i used .940 age and 1.05 dev to some good success. Haven't toyed with 15.

[The Wolf]

As usual, we will just have to wait until somebody does the research and lets us know what the correct numbers are.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

As usual, we will just have to wait until somebody does the research and lets us know what the correct numbers are.

Markus already does the research to get correct numbers

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by censurerat

Do you know if these settings work good for a historical game with recalc off?

Are you using Spritze/Gambo's OOTP 14 DB where players come in during their pro debut, and random minor leaguers/Japanese/Negro leaguers come in?

Or default DB?

If the former I can tell you that .900 for batter development is NOT low enough for early baseball, as Joe Tinker is already playing for the Orphans and I lower the incoming players even more than Spritze has them.

.950 is NOT low enough for pitchers as I have Mordecai Brown and Addie Joss already in AA and they are two years away, but will be up next season more than likely

I am going with .800 and .850 on development now

I have my pitcher aging at .900 and batter aging at .825

But then again, it depends on era

Back then, players would stay in the minors until their mid 40's, they needed a job
Nowadays, they retire at 35, mostly due to getting a coaching job or that they made enough money

and LUKAS, I know Markus does a lot of work in this regard, but he does it for MODERN baseball and that gets thrown out when doing historical sims

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

markus already does the research to get correct numbers

lol

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

lol

That you don't agree with the data doesn't make it any less accurate.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Carlton

and LUKAS, I know Markus does a lot of work in this regard, but he does it for MODERN baseball and that gets thrown out when doing historical sims

Yeah, that's almost certainly true.

[jaysdailydose]

Well, I tested this massively in 14. I too used to use the .250/1.000/.375/.900 that were the "accepted" base settings for a while.

I did at least 4 different 50 year plus sims last year, and most quality careers were stretching out 24-25 years. I wound up settling around .850/1.000/.850/1.000.

[censurerat]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Are you using Spritze/Gambo's OOTP 14 DB where players come in during their pro debut, and random minor leaguers/Japanese/Negro leaguers come in?

Or default DB?

If the former I can tell you that .900 for batter development is NOT low enough for early baseball, as Joe Tinker is already playing for the Orphans and I lower the incoming players even more than Spritze has them.

.950 is NOT low enough for pitchers as I have Mordecai Brown and Addie Joss already in AA and they are two years away, but will be up next season more than likely

I am going with .800 and .850 on development now

I have my pitcher aging at .900 and batter aging at .825

But then again, it depends on era

Back then, players would stay in the minors until their mid 40's, they needed a job
Nowadays, they retire at 35, mostly due to getting a coaching job or that they made enough money

and LUKAS, I know Markus does a lot of work in this regard, but he does it for MODERN baseball and that gets thrown out when doing historical sims

Yes I'm using the spritze DB. I guess I'll follow your settings for a while and see how it turns out, hopefully someone will provide us with a complete recommended setting for all eras! At the moment I just feel the difficulty lowers pretty much when they are so well developed at a young age that within two years you can have a completely new lineup only with the help of the recent drafts.
Thanks a lot for your answer!

[PSUColonel]

I don't feel there is any reason to adjust the defaults.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

That you don't agree with the data doesn't make it any less accurate.

If I find the defaults not to yield what I consider to be reasonable results, which has been the case in every version so far, I reserve the right to change them.

It's my game, I'm going to play it my way