|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 15, 2024 13:11:11 GMT -5
I suggest we play with 100% Scouting Accuracy this year (see snip):  |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 15, 2024 13:14:08 GMT -5
And straight 20-80, rather than increments of 5:  |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 15, 2024 13:16:41 GMT -5
Team pages look like this then. I think this will help with the ambiguity of having 10 players rated at 45 or something  |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals on Mar 15, 2024 14:53:08 GMT -5
0-100 scale would be better. Video game style.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 15, 2024 19:56:19 GMT -5
0-100 scale would be better. Video game style. Yes. Beat me to it. I get that 20-80 is what the real scouts use, but it just doesn't work for OOTP. Almost every player winds up in the 45-55 range, and there are wide gulfs of ability all scrunched into that area. 0-100 is a much more accurate representation of a player's actual ability. If we go scouting accuracy 100% (which is also a good idea), we should consider matching this to fit. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 15, 2024 23:15:39 GMT -5
I don't really care which scale we use. 20-80 is more familiar to me, but it's saying the same thing as 0-100 would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 16, 2024 3:26:15 GMT -5
I don't really care which scale we use. 20-80 is more familiar to me, but it's saying the same thing as 0-100 would. I played the cell phone OOTP Go! for years. Personally I find 0-100 a lot more accurate, because it allows player values to be spread equally over a full 100 curve. With 20-80, it feels like 90% of players are squashed within 1 standard deviation of 50. The counterargument is always, "Well, you should be able to evaluate players on your own without having to rely on the game to do it for you." Yes for sure, but we are all playing within the context of this game. So if I've got a young player who should be good, but OOTP is saddling him with the same "45" rating as some AAAA jobber, that has a big effect. Just my 2c. I'm new to PC OOTP like everyone else, but have played the cell phone version for years. |
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 16, 2024 7:18:26 GMT -5
The 20-80 system as dated and inaccurate. It really does not give you useful information. This may be why RL scouting is so bad with amateur and minor league players.
The 0-100 gives a little better representation when comparing comparable players which we need and want for in game analysis.
We are stepping away from a real sim and playing a video game, so we went to understand players better within this game system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 16, 2024 8:29:54 GMT -5
That's all fine with me. My main point is the accuracy and precision, not necessarily whether we use Celsius or Fahrenheit.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Mar 18, 2024 13:59:12 GMT -5
A couple of questions:
1) Can we unretire a player? I was planning on using Franchy Cordero as a bench bat, but he's retired in the game. He's not technically retired in real life, he's just playing this year in Korea. Is unretiring a player a thing you can do in the game? I don't think we should unretire people who are retired in real life, but if a guy is still playing somewhere, and it's possible to do so, I think we should.
2) Are we keeping the defensive growth on? My plan right now is to use Hunter Renfroe in left field. He's rated a good fielder in RF, overall 60, but he's rated a 9 in LF, with a potential of 68. I'm fine with letting him "learn" the position the way the game intends, but if he's going to be rated at 9 in left field all year, I need to make other plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 18, 2024 14:56:53 GMT -5
A couple of questions: 1) Can we unretire a player? I was planning on using Franchy Cordero as a bench bat, but he's retired in the game. He's not technically retired in real life, he's just playing this year in Korea. Is unretiring a player a thing you can do in the game? I don't think we should unretire people who are retired in real life, but if a guy is still playing somewhere, and it's possible to do so, I think we should. 2) Are we keeping the defensive growth on? My plan right now is to use Hunter Renfroe in left field. He's rated a good fielder in RF, overall 60, but he's rated a 9 in LF, with a potential of 68. I'm fine with letting him "learn" the position the way the game intends, but if he's going to be rated at 9 in left field all year, I need to make other plans. 2) We had it enabled last year, and I would be strongly against changing it. I would actually be in favor of adding spring training to quicken the learning curve, but don't feel strongly enough to push for it. The underlying skills do not change, it's just the player learning the position. So a 1B cannot ever be good at SS, but a SS can be a good 1B, just like real life. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 18, 2024 15:42:57 GMT -5
Fully in favor of leaving defensive growth on.
Also in favor of turning pants growth on, but I’m pretty sure that’s in advanced administrator settings.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Mar 18, 2024 15:52:17 GMT -5
I also am in favor of allowing their pants to grow. The new jerseys suck, and the pants are too small (and see-through). Let them grow!
In all seriousness, though, good. I agree that allowing defensive growth is a good thing. It's a little more realistic.
What about the unretiring of players who aren't actually retired in real life? Is that a big ask? Is it even possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Mar 18, 2024 16:06:51 GMT -5
I think if they are placed on a team, they can be used. I don't know if you have to go through any kind of process or not, just that retired players have been used in my other league if they are still under contract. Should be the same here.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 22, 2024 0:29:33 GMT -5
I agree that all of the changes should be made. I have no preference regarding the rating. All my guys are 45 no matter which scale is used. LOL
|
|
