Injuries Consensus

PSUColonel · 06-24-2016, 07:02 PM

I would prefer to use realistic modern day injury settings (high) but have not seen any hard consensus about what development and aging settings to use with the higher injury frequency. The 1.000 settings are fine I assume with the normal (OOTP classic) setting...but the more frequent injuries change the aging and development curves from what I can gather. I have certainly read instances of people changing the settings wildly, which I cannot and won't believe are accurate. They are way too far off from 1.000. I have read where 1.300 is advisable for development, which I can maybe see, but I've also read where aging would need to be set at .310, and that to me, is simply unbelievable.

Any input on this subject is welcome.

NoOne · 06-24-2016, 10:43 PM

i think things develop fine at 1.000... if your experience tells you it needs to speed up, tick up slowly and see what happens over the next ~ten years.

same with aging. if you consistently have 10+ 40year olds in your league, that's just not normal. (special Eras excluded, if any). i did decrease it by .025 to see what that resuts in... (.975 batting/pitchign aging - whatever increases longevity).

i could see testing out .025 to .050 boost and then slowly adjust from there until you are happy. don't worry about a consensus of unqualified group of people, lol. as you said, some of them advocate drastically adjusting some modifiers. even if i don't agree with what ootp researched, they show a consistent behaviour of tying things to something tangible in real life. this is not a logical argument, but i have faith that they likely did so for aging and developement, too. it is likely why i rarely deviate far when i do disagree (modern mlb power! omg wtf? Just Kidding).

Lockdog · 06-24-2016, 11:04 PM

With injury setting on high, you'll want player aging to be lower than usual. To start, I would run a test league with again at 0.310, development speed on 1.35, and talent change randomness at 170 with high injury frequency. After testing aging 0.310 with the other settings as mentioned, I agree it's too low but not too far off. Try another test, but with aging on .500, and go from there.

PSUColonel · 06-26-2016, 01:16 AM

After testing pretty much all day in multiple 30 year simulations, I think 1.000 is fine for both pitcher and batter development, and since I am using realistic injuries, I'm changing the aging on both pitchers and batters to .825.

06-24-2016, 07:02 PM	#1
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,143	Injuries Consensus I would prefer to use realistic modern day injury settings (high) but have not seen any hard consensus about what development and aging settings to use with the higher injury frequency. The 1.000 settings are fine I assume with the normal (OOTP classic) setting...but the more frequent injuries change the aging and development curves from what I can gather. I have certainly read instances of people changing the settings wildly, which I cannot and won't believe are accurate. They are way too far off from 1.000. I have read where 1.300 is advisable for development, which I can maybe see, but I've also read where aging would need to be set at .310, and that to me, is simply unbelievable. Any input on this subject is welcome.

06-24-2016, 10:43 PM	#2
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	i think things develop fine at 1.000... if your experience tells you it needs to speed up, tick up slowly and see what happens over the next ~ten years. same with aging. if you consistently have 10+ 40year olds in your league, that's just not normal. (special Eras excluded, if any). i did decrease it by .025 to see what that resuts in... (.975 batting/pitchign aging - whatever increases longevity). i could see testing out .025 to .050 boost and then slowly adjust from there until you are happy. don't worry about a consensus of unqualified group of people, lol. as you said, some of them advocate drastically adjusting some modifiers. even if i don't agree with what ootp researched, they show a consistent behaviour of tying things to something tangible in real life. this is not a logical argument, but i have faith that they likely did so for aging and developement, too. it is likely why i rarely deviate far when i do disagree (modern mlb power! omg wtf? Just Kidding). Last edited by NoOne; 06-24-2016 at 10:44 PM.

06-24-2016, 11:04 PM	#3
Lockdog Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 263	With injury setting on high, you'll want player aging to be lower than usual. To start, I would run a test league with again at 0.310, development speed on 1.35, and talent change randomness at 170 with high injury frequency. After testing aging 0.310 with the other settings as mentioned, I agree it's too low but not too far off. Try another test, but with aging on .500, and go from there.

06-26-2016, 01:16 AM	#4
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,143	After testing pretty much all day in multiple 30 year simulations, I think 1.000 is fine for both pitcher and batter development, and since I am using realistic injuries, I'm changing the aging on both pitchers and batters to .825.