Issues With the Development Tab

MisterTidster · 05-13-2025, 12:17 PM

I play as a GM and simulate all games. Currently in the 2043 season, so I’m starting to notice some goofy patterns. Personally, I believe the developmental focus tab (the tab, not the lab) needs a complete overhaul. When controlled by the AI, it negatively affects player development in a way that ruins the overall feel of minor league development, and when run by a person it’s incredibly tedious to keep updated for an entire organization and farm system and it results in best choices that don’t feel like they’re in the spirit of the game.

Any category set below the center point gets double penalty compared to the bonuses awarded for the same amount assigned to a positive category.

When the AI handles choices, every player gets one or more categories that the AI puts negative and since negative penalties are double, every player on every team loses potential in multiple categories that makes it feel like players across the board aren’t progressing as they should and are very unbalanced or mediocre by the time they reach AAA ball. The AI also makes some very bad choices, like jamming up defense on every player or trying to turn great power hitting prospects into leadoff hitters destroying their potential. College players in a Developmental League get hosed… it’s incredibly common for a drafted college player to already be at “significant loss” in one or more categories before they join your system, which is limiting potential for college players in the draft pool.

When controlled by a human, the double penalties just means the optimal choice is usually to pick a “dump category”… developing a low speed guy that can’t play defense, but can hit is much better than a speedy defensive wizard that can’t hit… and it’s always optimal to set stamina as low as possible when developing relievers. Besides the time and tediousness it takes to do this for every player, it kind of breaks the immersion. If you set everything in the center to avoid losing potential in any category, then none of the players ever reach their potential and you get a bunch of 24-26 year olds that have 50 out of 70 in multiple categories. The arsenal choices for pitchers aren’t balanced at all. It punishes two pitch relievers, because with three+ pitch relievers you can punt a pitch to get a lot of development in the other two. For the two pitch relievers, if you set them equal or close to equal, the second pitch doesn’t really develop at all. It makes it significantly worse to draft a reliever with only two pitches or a starter with only three.

My suggestion would be to simplify the whole mechanic. Allow selection of up to three categories to set a focus on… choose less than three allows for greater chances of success for what you do select. Then allow up to three categories to risk decline to increase the chances of success for what you want to improve (0 categories risked would have no penalties, but lower chance of good outcomes and benefits of good outcomes; each category risked would increase the chances and benefits of the good outcomes).

Also, I think it would be good to have a “general” focus to toggle in three (maybe more) categories. For example you can set a focus to increase potential (greater benefits for any potential benefits gained from your development choices, but reducing the benefits of current rating increases, so you get that 21 year old two star player that maxes out at AA ball a chance to keep developing, or for you to try to get that “wild thing” pitcher with a very low control potential a better chance to make the show… or set it to focus or improving current ratings, but limiting gains to potential to help that 4 or 5 star draft pick move up more quickly, or set it to “conditioning” for veterans to slow the decline in certain categories and to slow down an injury plagued player’s journey to wrecked.

MisterTidster · 05-13-2025, 01:16 PM

For the TLDR crew. Since the development tab consequences are double the equal benefit of the benefits received from the equivalent positive amount assigned on the slider, the net affect when you aggregate it across all players in all leagues is an overall trend of declining potential for all players. It’s exacerbated by very poor choices made by the AI controlling all non-human controlled organizations and human run organizations that allow the AI to make these decisions.

ChrisG · 05-13-2025, 08:24 PM

I just play with it off personally. Way too much to keep track of. But that's the beauty of the game, it's as in the weeds as you want it to be.

MisterTidster · 05-13-2025, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisG

I just play with it off personally. Way too much to keep track of. But that's the beauty of the game, it's as in the weeds as you want it to be.

Is there a way to turn it off entirely? Or do you just leave it as AI managed?

twins_34 · 05-13-2025, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterTidster

Is there a way to turn it off entirely? Or do you just leave it as AI managed?

Yes, you can disable it. Under game settings > Players and Team and near the bottom, on the left, click on disable player development focus

MisterTidster · 05-13-2025, 10:23 PM

Thanks Twins!

MisterTidster · 05-24-2025, 05:02 PM

Since playing the last 6-7 seasons with the development tab disabled and wanted to follow up with some additional thoughts…

It’s been a much better experience playing with it disabled rather than enabled. Besides not wasting a huge chunk of my game time tinkering with it to avoid bad AI choices, it seems to have helped the AI to be a little more competitive since they don’t have so many relievers tanking with stamina cranked up and movement and control being sacrificed (and other counterproductive choices). I’ve boosted the development lab up to 24 slots to compensate and that seems like an okay balance. There have been some issues with it off… Biggest problem has been pitchers not improving secondary pitches and never reaching their stuff potential, especially with two pitch relievers. Seems like those secondary pitches need the development tab adjusted in order to develop. You can use the secondary pitch improvement in the lab, but when it succeeds it’s usually either a 5 or <5 boost, which is an extremely slow way to develop, doesn’t seem as beneficial as improving movement or control, and is wasted if your scout overestimates the player you’re continually investing the lab slot in. I’d prefer a similar feature that the AI can manage reliably and isn’t as time consuming to keep updated.

My thoughts…

1) Simplify the feature so the AI can make better decisions that are less likely to have unintended consequences.
2) Take away (or greatly reduce) the severe consequences and make it more of a way to make modest adjustments rather than big changes.

I’d like to see something like this instead…

A) Four main focuses to set… Increased gains in a player’s potential with slowed down overall improvement (for those marginal 16 y/o international prospects), Increased overall improvement with reduced potential gains (for those college aged draft picks or guys who are in danger of not reaching their potential by their peak age), balancing overall and potential improvements, and reduction in decline (for aging veterans).
B) Rather than sliders where you sacrifice one stat to improve others, just give human managers (and the AI) options for the player to focus on for development. Maybe from a list of stats/pitches/etc that the baseball player would work on, a human manager (or AI) can select a primary, secondary, and tertiary focus for the player, with the greatest chances for improvement and smallest with tertiary. That way human managers can try to give a wild thing a chance over their minor league career at controlling that wicked fastball, or that speedster can have a chance a little more patient and to become a viable leadoff hitter. Veterans could slow down decline in certain categories, so that 38 y/o pitcher might not have the stuff he used to have, but still has the control to be a viable starter (which would be better than falling off a cliff), especially if he has a long term contract).

05-13-2025, 12:17 PM	#1
MisterTidster Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2018 Posts: 100	Issues With the Development Tab I play as a GM and simulate all games. Currently in the 2043 season, so I’m starting to notice some goofy patterns. Personally, I believe the developmental focus tab (the tab, not the lab) needs a complete overhaul. When controlled by the AI, it negatively affects player development in a way that ruins the overall feel of minor league development, and when run by a person it’s incredibly tedious to keep updated for an entire organization and farm system and it results in best choices that don’t feel like they’re in the spirit of the game. Any category set below the center point gets double penalty compared to the bonuses awarded for the same amount assigned to a positive category. When the AI handles choices, every player gets one or more categories that the AI puts negative and since negative penalties are double, every player on every team loses potential in multiple categories that makes it feel like players across the board aren’t progressing as they should and are very unbalanced or mediocre by the time they reach AAA ball. The AI also makes some very bad choices, like jamming up defense on every player or trying to turn great power hitting prospects into leadoff hitters destroying their potential. College players in a Developmental League get hosed… it’s incredibly common for a drafted college player to already be at “significant loss” in one or more categories before they join your system, which is limiting potential for college players in the draft pool. When controlled by a human, the double penalties just means the optimal choice is usually to pick a “dump category”… developing a low speed guy that can’t play defense, but can hit is much better than a speedy defensive wizard that can’t hit… and it’s always optimal to set stamina as low as possible when developing relievers. Besides the time and tediousness it takes to do this for every player, it kind of breaks the immersion. If you set everything in the center to avoid losing potential in any category, then none of the players ever reach their potential and you get a bunch of 24-26 year olds that have 50 out of 70 in multiple categories. The arsenal choices for pitchers aren’t balanced at all. It punishes two pitch relievers, because with three+ pitch relievers you can punt a pitch to get a lot of development in the other two. For the two pitch relievers, if you set them equal or close to equal, the second pitch doesn’t really develop at all. It makes it significantly worse to draft a reliever with only two pitches or a starter with only three. My suggestion would be to simplify the whole mechanic. Allow selection of up to three categories to set a focus on… choose less than three allows for greater chances of success for what you do select. Then allow up to three categories to risk decline to increase the chances of success for what you want to improve (0 categories risked would have no penalties, but lower chance of good outcomes and benefits of good outcomes; each category risked would increase the chances and benefits of the good outcomes). Also, I think it would be good to have a “general” focus to toggle in three (maybe more) categories. For example you can set a focus to increase potential (greater benefits for any potential benefits gained from your development choices, but reducing the benefits of current rating increases, so you get that 21 year old two star player that maxes out at AA ball a chance to keep developing, or for you to try to get that “wild thing” pitcher with a very low control potential a better chance to make the show… or set it to focus or improving current ratings, but limiting gains to potential to help that 4 or 5 star draft pick move up more quickly, or set it to “conditioning” for veterans to slow the decline in certain categories and to slow down an injury plagued player’s journey to wrecked. Last edited by MisterTidster; 05-13-2025 at 12:18 PM.

05-13-2025, 01:16 PM	#2
MisterTidster Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2018 Posts: 100	For the TLDR crew. Since the development tab consequences are double the equal benefit of the benefits received from the equivalent positive amount assigned on the slider, the net affect when you aggregate it across all players in all leagues is an overall trend of declining potential for all players. It’s exacerbated by very poor choices made by the AI controlling all non-human controlled organizations and human run organizations that allow the AI to make these decisions.

05-13-2025, 08:24 PM	#3
ChrisG Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 316	I just play with it off personally. Way too much to keep track of. But that's the beauty of the game, it's as in the weeds as you want it to be.

05-13-2025, 10:23 PM	#6
MisterTidster Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2018 Posts: 100	Thanks Twins!

05-24-2025, 05:02 PM	#7
MisterTidster Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2018 Posts: 100	Since playing the last 6-7 seasons with the development tab disabled and wanted to follow up with some additional thoughts… It’s been a much better experience playing with it disabled rather than enabled. Besides not wasting a huge chunk of my game time tinkering with it to avoid bad AI choices, it seems to have helped the AI to be a little more competitive since they don’t have so many relievers tanking with stamina cranked up and movement and control being sacrificed (and other counterproductive choices). I’ve boosted the development lab up to 24 slots to compensate and that seems like an okay balance. There have been some issues with it off… Biggest problem has been pitchers not improving secondary pitches and never reaching their stuff potential, especially with two pitch relievers. Seems like those secondary pitches need the development tab adjusted in order to develop. You can use the secondary pitch improvement in the lab, but when it succeeds it’s usually either a 5 or <5 boost, which is an extremely slow way to develop, doesn’t seem as beneficial as improving movement or control, and is wasted if your scout overestimates the player you’re continually investing the lab slot in. I’d prefer a similar feature that the AI can manage reliably and isn’t as time consuming to keep updated. My thoughts… 1) Simplify the feature so the AI can make better decisions that are less likely to have unintended consequences. 2) Take away (or greatly reduce) the severe consequences and make it more of a way to make modest adjustments rather than big changes. I’d like to see something like this instead… A) Four main focuses to set… Increased gains in a player’s potential with slowed down overall improvement (for those marginal 16 y/o international prospects), Increased overall improvement with reduced potential gains (for those college aged draft picks or guys who are in danger of not reaching their potential by their peak age), balancing overall and potential improvements, and reduction in decline (for aging veterans). B) Rather than sliders where you sacrifice one stat to improve others, just give human managers (and the AI) options for the player to focus on for development. Maybe from a list of stats/pitches/etc that the baseball player would work on, a human manager (or AI) can select a primary, secondary, and tertiary focus for the player, with the greatest chances for improvement and smallest with tertiary. That way human managers can try to give a wild thing a chance over their minor league career at controlling that wicked fastball, or that speedster can have a chance a little more patient and to become a viable leadoff hitter. Veterans could slow down decline in certain categories, so that 38 y/o pitcher might not have the stuff he used to have, but still has the control to be a viable starter (which would be better than falling off a cliff), especially if he has a long term contract).