I thing that bugs me about computer baseball games...

[Cornelius McGillicuddy]

Dumb question but how do you turn ratings off for the human player?

EDIT - Never mind, just looked, none displayed. I never noticed that before.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by rich12545

Dumb question but how do you turn ratings off for the human player?

EDIT - Never mind, just looked, none displayed. I never noticed that before.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/documentation/ootp10/index.php?page=global_setup

The ratings scales will let you hide them altogether.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

If you set the AI to evaluate players based on 0% ratings, 67% this year's stats, 22% last year's stats, and 11% the year before that's stats when you are playing stats-only you will be pleasantly surprised at the results.

If you set the AI(67% this year) this way dont you get a lot of BS contract extensions early in the year? It seems I am always changing this to a lower number in April/May otherwise players are signing extensions way too cheaply.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by spitfire

If you use that distribution, how well does the computer do early in a season before there are many "this year's stats" to go on? Do you advocate changing the allocations at given points of the season, and if so what is your preferred method?

I sim for two seasons first so the AI has two years of data to work with. It works fine for me.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

If you set the AI(67% this year) this way dont you get a lot of BS contract extensions early in the year? It seems I am always changing this to a lower number in April/May otherwise players are signing extensions way too cheaply.

I don't play with finances on (I'm a purist), so do whatever you need to do.

[Malleus Dei]

I should mention that the AI GM's will make some mistakes about players using this system, but you will find yourself making just as many mistakes on a per team basis as they do.

[cbbl]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

If you set the AI to evaluate players based on 0% ratings, 67% this year's stats, 22% last year's stats, and 11% the year before that's stats when you are playing stats-only you will be pleasantly surprised at the results.

I play with scouts and ratings (20-80), but I have found, relative to the AI, that skewing the evaluation indicators towards stats brings a better result. I'm currently at 28/58/12/2.

I was skewed towards ratings, but found that my team's manager, who I allow to set lineups (I play as GM only) would bench players based on ratings gains and drops regardless of how they were performing -- so last year's starting 1Bman who was hitting .300 so far this year got put on the bench because his ratings fell below his back-ups (who is hitting below .250).

Now, if fundamentals fall, fine, but I say that should manifest itself at the plate (or on the mound) first THEN make the change. Making the change based on ratings alone is like having a crystal ball (the OP's point) and I hate that the AI does it.

So far I haven't yet seen substantial improvement by the AI with the 28/58/12/2. I could try moving ratings to 0. In order to get the AI to respond better to stats, is that enough -- or do I need to not play with them at all? (I dont' really want to play stats only).

[ctorg]

I do recall reading something - I think from Markus - saying that the game takes into account how far into a season you are when weighting stats. So if you're still in April, it won't weight your .450-hitting guy as a stud unless he was a stud the previous year.

[ctorg]

I've always been tempted to play with ratings off due to the enhanced challenge - I've done it a couple of times but never for a long-term league - but I always feel like it's a bit unrealistic. Teams do have scouts, after all. I'm thinking the best compromise is to view only potentials.

[robc]

Thanks for all the ideas about ratings and stats.

I think I may try a variation. It seems reasonably and realistic to have a small amount of information (maybe have ratings on a 1-5 scale). Specially for the ameteur draft. I don't think you can go all thats for that.

Do people think having ratings 1-5 would give away too much info? Wouldn't a team have some idea how a player is? Maybe using 1-5 and turning scouting on, but accurate. That was there is still some uncertainty about a player's ratings. Without scouting it may still give away too much info as you know a 5 rating is still great, just not how great.

[Jaxxvain]

Originally Posted by robc

Thanks for all the ideas about ratings and stats.

I think I may try a variation. It seems reasonably and realistic to have a small amount of information (maybe have ratings on a 1-5 scale). Specially for the ameteur draft. I don't think you can go all thats for that.

Do people think having ratings 1-5 would give away too much info? Wouldn't a team have some idea how a player is? Maybe using 1-5 and turning scouting on, but accurate. That was there is still some uncertainty about a player's ratings. Without scouting it may still give away too much info as you know a 5 rating is still great, just not how great.

I think a lot of the guys who play with ratings off use the "feeder leagues", so instead of ratings to look at while drafting you have stats from their college or high school career.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Jaxxvain

I think a lot of the guys who play with ratings off use the "feeder leagues", so instead of ratings to look at while drafting you have stats from their college or high school career.

Ahh, ok. I have never used feeder leagues.

[reo]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Its something that is in Worldwide Soccer Manager where you dont get every rating of every player. Id like to see it in OOTP.

You might get 10 out of the possible 30 ratings on a particular player.

As a former researcher, this is wrong. I wish it was like that in both games.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by reo

As a former researcher, this is wrong. I wish it was like that in both games.

That makes no sense to me at all.

[reo]

Originally Posted by Killing Time

That makes no sense to me at all.

Well, WWSM doesn't have 20 hidden attributes and only show 10. The different is not that large. Cheers.

[highandoutside]

Originally Posted by robc

Thanks for all the ideas about ratings and stats.

I think I may try a variation. It seems reasonably and realistic to have a small amount of information (maybe have ratings on a 1-5 scale). Specially for the ameteur draft. I don't think you can go all thats for that.

Do people think having ratings 1-5 would give away too much info? Wouldn't a team have some idea how a player is? Maybe using 1-5 and turning scouting on, but accurate. That was there is still some uncertainty about a player's ratings. Without scouting it may still give away too much info as you know a 5 rating is still great, just not how great.

I play with the ratings off except defense, running attributes and personality. I use the 2-8 rating scale because I think this is what actual major league scouts use when evaluating talent. To my way of thinking, it does not give away too much information. Think about it, in real life you would have a general idea about certain attributes of your players. Indeed, one could argue that the most realistic way to play OOTP is to play with all the ratings on, but with the rating scale limited to 1-5 or 2-8.