A good aging speed?

BadluckinOOTP · 06-01-2006, 11:57 PM

1.000 apparently is much too slow as players routinely play into their forties, and are still very successful. But do I want to go under 1.000 or over to make aging faster?

Tiger Fan · 06-02-2006, 12:02 AM

You would want to raise the number above 1.00 if you wish for the players to age and lose their skills quicker.

It is on page 69 of the game guide.

http://ootpdevfiles.com/ootp/OOTPBas...-GameGuide.zip

Jeremy Weimer · 06-02-2006, 12:28 AM

Yeah, I made the mistake of putting it on .800 because I thought they'd start detioriating kinda fast and I wanted to see them play into their late 30's like in real life of this era. Then I realized even on 1.000 they were playing well into their 30's and 40's. So I promplty switched back to 1.000 and I'll probably start tinkering with it to get it down some (their playing ages).

Qrusher14242 · 06-02-2006, 03:00 PM

I had Hal Trosky play until he was 47. Of course, he didnt do much at all during the last 5 years or so.

06-01-2006, 11:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
BadluckinOOTP All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: OKC Posts: 1,413 Thanked 27x in 7 posts	A good aging speed? 1.000 apparently is much too slow as players routinely play into their forties, and are still very successful. But do I want to go under 1.000 or over to make aging faster? __________________

06-02-2006, 12:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
Tiger Fan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 5,443 Thanked 3x in 2 posts	You would want to raise the number above 1.00 if you wish for the players to age and lose their skills quicker. It is on page 69 of the game guide. http://ootpdevfiles.com/ootp/OOTPBas...-GameGuide.zip __________________ Cliff Markle HOB1 greatest pitcher 360-160, 9 Welch Awards, 11 WS titles My current dynasty - Fictional Breda Baseball League

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-02-2006, 12:28 AM	#3 (permalink)
Jeremy Weimer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Champlin, MN Posts: 3,372 Thanked 4x in 2 posts	Yeah, I made the mistake of putting it on .800 because I thought they'd start detioriating kinda fast and I wanted to see them play into their late 30's like in real life of this era. Then I realized even on 1.000 they were playing well into their 30's and 40's. So I promplty switched back to 1.000 and I'll probably start tinkering with it to get it down some (their playing ages).

06-02-2006, 03:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,118 Thanked 7x in 6 posts	I had Hal Trosky play until he was 47. Of course, he didnt do much at all during the last 5 years or so.