Annoying "feature"

[vesuvius]

Severely bug anyone else that at the start of spring training, all your guys on the 40 man roster are placed in the major league squad, wiping our your minor league placements and lineups?

This should be an option, not a mandate.

[pbar25]

find an example of a player on a 40 man roster that is healthy, available, and not at spring training.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by pbar25

find an example of a player on a 40 man roster that is healthy, available, and not at spring training.

They could be at Spring Training but not on the MLB roster. I hope it also doesnt count as an option when they are added to the MLB roster.

[vesuvius]

Didn't say it wasn't realistic, just find such a forced action supremely annoying from a lineup standpoint.

[pbar25]

if realism is not a concern, then you could always disable the 40 man roster option. pretty sure that would get rid of it

[Mortimer]

the way I look at it is everyone on your 40 man roster can make the team, and you look at how they do and deside who makes the team and who goes back to the minors, then at this point you can set you linups for your minors if you do not have the minor coaches do it.

I usually do not touch any linups until right before the first game for the team, since they will change from injury, trades and performance. and spring training should be before the minors start and would not be an issue.

[jarmenia]

The purpose of the feature is to fix the loophole in wavers that many people exploited. In RL, any player on the 40 man roster uses an option year when they are sent down to the minors at the end of spring training no matter if they were in big league camp or not.

In past versions of OOTP, you didn't have to bring a player up during spring training and thus, wouldn't be charged an option at the end of spring training. This resulted in GM's being able to hold on to highly touted rookies for years just by keeping them in the minors on the 40 man roster.

[vesuvius]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

The purpose of the feature is to fix the loophole in wavers that many people exploited. In RL, any player on the 40 man roster uses an option year when they are sent down to the minors at the end of spring training no matter if they were in big league camp or not.

In past versions of OOTP, you didn't have to bring a player up during spring training and thus, wouldn't be charged an option at the end of spring training. This resulted in GM's being able to hold on to highly touted rookies for years just by keeping them in the minors on the 40 man roster.

Ahhhh, alright that makes alot more sense then.

Thanks for the explanation.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by vesuvius

Annoying "feature"

I thought you were going to say the "Search" feature...considering this exact same point has been made in three separate posts in the past three days.

[conception]

It's also important to note that IRL the 40 man roster is the active roster going into spring training. Therefore there is no official distinction between the two until you get to the regular season.

[SackAttack]

What pisses me off about this feature isn't as much the way it's implemented as that guys who are on my 40 man before spring training frequently look like top prospects, but the auto-callup nerfs them. I had a kid who on the day before spring training was projecting to 9/9 potentials for contact/gap, and on the first day of spring training, before even playing a game, dropped to 5/5.

It has happened with every prospect of significance who's been on the 40-man roster before spring training, either because of a September callup, or whatever.

In some cases, it's been whacking both potential and current.

James McDonald. Great ratings in 2009 when he got his cuppa joe. 4-0, 2.70 performance in September. Got an auto-callup for spring training the next year, and went from 7-7-7 the day before spring training to 6-6-4.

Xavier Paul, same deal. Rated 7-7-7 when he got a September '09 callup. Hit .370 with .424 OBP during his callup, got the spring training invite the next year, now rated 6-5-6.

There is not one legitimate reason for that unless every rookie is reporting to camp overweight, out of shape, whatever. He may not really be as good as his September performance, but for the scouts to determine that before one pitch is thrown in spring training is complete and utter bull****.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What pisses me off about this feature isn't as much the way it's implemented as that guys who are on my 40 man before spring training frequently look like top prospects, but the auto-callup nerfs them. I had a kid who on the day before spring training was projecting to 9/9 potentials for contact/gap, and on the first day of spring training, before even playing a game, dropped to 5/5.

It has happened with every prospect of significance who's been on the 40-man roster before spring training, either because of a September callup, or whatever.

In some cases, it's been whacking both potential and current.

James McDonald. Great ratings in 2009 when he got his cuppa joe. 4-0, 2.70 performance in September. Got an auto-callup for spring training the next year, and went from 7-7-7 the day before spring training to 6-6-4.

Xavier Paul, same deal. Rated 7-7-7 when he got a September '09 callup. Hit .370 with .424 OBP during his callup, got the spring training invite the next year, now rated 6-5-6.

There is not one legitimate reason for that unless every rookie is reporting to camp overweight, out of shape, whatever. He may not really be as good as his September performance, but for the scouts to determine that before one pitch is thrown in spring training is complete and utter bull****.

are you playing with scouts on? It could be the scouts are updating their reports on those players at that point in the season.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

are you playing with scouts on? It could be the scouts are updating their reports on those players at that point in the season.

Apparently they are, which is doubly retarded.

What changed between the time September ended and the day before spring training, when NO ****ING GAMES WERE PLAYED, to justify that?

I could see updating the reports at the END of spring training. there'd be a theoretical body of work to base any changes on.

But to see this happen to three or four major - and by major I mean would have contributed on an everyday or every fifth day basis in that next season - prospects in three consecutive seasons is souring me on this game in a hurry.

Which really sucks. There's so much to like about this game that it is absolute bull**** that I should be afraid to put my top prospects on the 40-man for fear that they'll get nerfed by the spring training scout update.

[Mortimer]

they are not getting nerfed the scout is evauating them, it is possible if they are 25+ they will be losing ratings due to age.

most likely your scout had them over rated at first, then underrated after.

the scout can and most often is wrong, you should always base it on stats. the scout will give you an idea, but many times they are wrong.

if you turned off scouting they would not have change, but internally I doubt they changed any anyway

[Aytumious]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Apparently they are, which is doubly retarded.

What changed between the time September ended and the day before spring training, when NO ****ING GAMES WERE PLAYED, to justify that?

I could see updating the reports at the END of spring training. there'd be a theoretical body of work to base any changes on.

But to see this happen to three or four major - and by major I mean would have contributed on an everyday or every fifth day basis in that next season - prospects in three consecutive seasons is souring me on this game in a hurry.

Which really sucks. There's so much to like about this game that it is absolute bull**** that I should be afraid to put my top prospects on the 40-man for fear that they'll get nerfed by the spring training scout update.

They aren't getting nerfed. The issue you have is with the scouting system. If you went into the editor and looked at the actual ratings of the players both before and after this is happening, any changes would be extremely minor baring a major injury. The difference is in the eyes of the scouts only.

Although it feels unrealistic, you are most likely getting a more accurate read on the updated reports that you aren't happy with. Scouts tend to get a better read on players in the majors compared to when they are in the minors. In this case it seems very odd because no games have been played, but I think simply having a guy on the active roster leads to a different scouting evaluation than if he were in the minors somewhere.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mortimer

most likely your scout had them over rated at first, then underrated after.

Then the scouting system is seriously broken if, despite spending significantly more than the league average and having one of the top scouts in the league, a player's positive performance is enough for the scout to revise his projection from a glowing report to a dismissive "he doesn't even belong in your minor league system."

Especially if no games have been played between the player performing well and the ratings getting Nancy Kerrigan'ed.

[Aytumious]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Then the scouting system is seriously broken if, despite spending significantly more than the league average and having one of the top scouts in the league, a player's positive performance is enough for the scout to revise his projection from a glowing report to a dismissive "he doesn't even belong in your minor league system."

Especially if no games have been played between the player performing well and the ratings getting Nancy Kerrigan'ed.

You might want to get some screen shots and report this as a type of bug if its really that bad. If a guy is dropping from a legit stud prospect to a nobody simply because he was moved onto the active roster before spring training something is off.

Did you alter the AI evaluation weightings or are you using the defaults?

[hefalumps]

I don't know if OOTP does this anymore, but I remember previous versions (starting with OOTP 2006 I think) had scouts' ratings based on comparisons to other players at their level, i.e. AA, AAA, ML, etc. Any chance the ratings you were seeing last year were compared to AAA players and the ratings you're seeing now (before spring training) are compared to ML players now that he's on the active roster?

It may just be the star ratings that did the player comparisons, in which case you can completely ignore this post. But I couldn't remember if numeric ratings were also based on comparisons to other players at the player's current level. Does anyone know for sure?

[conception]

I've noted that the start of ST is when the most drastic scouting updates occur. I just consider it the product of an off-season re-evaluation. It is frustrating though when it comes out of nowhere but I've begun to expect that a lot of my players will have some kind of change.

The players that were being highly rated were obviously over-valued by your scout, which is intended to happen.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Aytumious

You might want to get some screen shots and report this as a type of bug if its really that bad. If a guy is dropping from a legit stud prospect to a nobody simply because he was moved onto the active roster before spring training something is off.

Did you alter the AI evaluation weightings or are you using the defaults?

Using defaults.

Originally Posted by hefalumps

I don't know if OOTP does this anymore, but I remember previous versions (starting with OOTP 2006 I think) had scouts' ratings based on comparisons to other players at their level, i.e. AA, AAA, ML, etc. Any chance the ratings you were seeing last year were compared to AAA players and the ratings you're seeing now (before spring training) are compared to ML players now that he's on the active roster?

It may just be the star ratings that did the player comparisons, in which case you can completely ignore this post. But I couldn't remember if numeric ratings were also based on comparisons to other players at the player's current level. Does anyone know for sure?

If the scout is evaluating players the day before spring training, he's doing it the day before the player gets moved onto the active roster, so the difference between AAA and MLB shouldn't matter - he was evaluated compared to AAA before the call-up that resulted in great performance, and compared to AAA before the call-up for spring-training that nerfed his ability.

In other words, either irrelevant or further broken retardedness.