[SittingDuck]

Hmm... I used the search function on this thread for 'AI Evaluation' and couldn't get any results.

Anyhow, I am curious as to the settings in the AI Evaluation for player value (from the NABA). I am assuming these are SkyDoggie's values, no? And what I am particularly interested in is what findings were made about using minimal settings for prior year stats, focusing the majority of value on ratings and also on current year-only stats?

I would be obliged...

[falkonisback]

Originally Posted by okcyankee

Our league is using a modified injury file because of all the test that were done. Here is a sample of our testing, mainly by our commish. Look here if interested.
Cooperstown Diamond Legends ~ View topic - OOTP9 Injury Frequency Study
This is FYI

Do you think I could get my hands on this edited injury text file? From there I could tweak it for instead of having instant career ending injuries, I could make the injuries last 18-24 months or something, but just in rare cases. Also, if you edited it for short term injuries to occur more often, will an injury prone player still have a bunch of these during the year?

[SittingDuck]

You made an interesting point. By creating injuries that last 18-24 months (assuming the program will induce that length - I don't know that it will) we can possibly create a work-around for injuries that in reality take 1.5 years to recover from, like the harsher shoulder or elbow injuries.

This would be good in that in OOTP, when a player has recovered from an injury, he is 'good-to-go' and loaded to bear. Of course, this doesn't occur for those previously mentioned injuries IRL - it takes rehab assignments and so forth to get up to snuff (working the cliches here). So keeping a player 'OUT' for an extended period would smartly simulate that unavailability at the majors level.

Me likes that.

Now to see if it even works thusly. What I'm afraid of is that all I'll see are injuries in the 13-month max range.

But it is something to try.

[falkonisback]

Originally Posted by SittingDuck

You made an interesting point. By creating injuries that last 18-24 months (assuming the program will induce that length - I don't know that it will) we can possibly create a work-around for injuries that in reality take 1.5 years to recover from, like the harsher shoulder or elbow injuries.

This would be good in that in OOTP, when a player has recovered from an injury, he is 'good-to-go' and loaded to bear. Of course, this doesn't occur for those previously mentioned injuries IRL - it takes rehab assignments and so forth to get up to snuff (working the cliches here). So keeping a player 'OUT' for an extended period would smartly simulate that unavailability at the majors level.

Me likes that.

Now to see if it even works thusly. What I'm afraid of is that all I'll see are injuries in the 13-month max range.

But it is something to try.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember seeing a couple of injuries that were longer than 13 months with just the default injury file. Albeit this was in 2007/8, but still, it should be the same file. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to do it, I would think that the game would just look at the injury length as just another number..but I could be wrong.

[ashantewarrier]

courtesy bump!

[CecilCooper]

Quick question for Sky Dog or anyone that has used his template...Are you using the default financials? 10 mil max cash?

How does that seem to work out for you? I believe I read a post from Sky Dog that said some teams have 100+ payroll and some are in the 40s. I guess that would be the type of thing I am looking for.

Thanks

[Matter2003]

Originally Posted by falkonisback

Do you think I could get my hands on this edited injury text file? From there I could tweak it for instead of having instant career ending injuries, I could make the injuries last 18-24 months or something, but just in rare cases. Also, if you edited it for short term injuries to occur more often, will an injury prone player still have a bunch of these during the year?

Interesting comparison, but has anyone done a comparison between OOTP and IRL injuries in both lengths and severeness? If not, how can one conclude that OOTP 7's Injury file is better than OOTP 9's?

[Matter2003]

I am starting an injury log for the past year and I can already tell there are a lot more of some injuries IRL than in OOTP...I will present my findings in another thread, but it will take quite a while to compile all of the info

[SkyDog]

Originally Posted by Matter2003

Interesting comparison, but has anyone done a comparison between OOTP and IRL injuries in both lengths and severeness? If not, how can one conclude that OOTP 7's Injury file is better than OOTP 9's?

One can conclude that it's better because it's more fun. Most people do not care to emulate real life perfectly in this facet of the game. *shurg*

[Schmidt Happens]

I'm looking to use this quickstart for my first OOTP setup and I'm not sure if I understand what has been affected with Skydog's QS. Has anything been changed with financials, coaches, drafts, or other aspects of the game that can be turned off? Does this quickstart address all of those settings also?

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Matter2003

I am starting an injury log for the past year and I can already tell there are a lot more of some injuries IRL than in OOTP...I will present my findings in another thread, but it will take quite a while to compile all of the info

Injuries were nerfed in OOTP 2006 (can't recall which patch) because people do not like to see their OOTP injury lists look like real MLB injury lists. If you want more realistic injuries, set injuries to the most frequent setting.

[SittingDuck]

Not a direct correlation between highest frequency level and RL. That is because using highest frequency will only net a TON of season-enders. It does not change the frequency of day-to-day and very short term injuries. This is what is so lacking in the game.

My proposal for a percentage setup for injuries (much like the AI Evaluation percentages for player talent) is still, I think, the way to go. At least with ootp10.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by SittingDuck

Hmm... I used the search function on this thread for 'AI Evaluation' and couldn't get any results.

Anyhow, I am curious as to the settings in the AI Evaluation for player value (from the NABA). I am assuming these are SkyDoggie's values, no? And what I am particularly interested in is what findings were made about using minimal settings for prior year stats, focusing the majority of value on ratings and also on current year-only stats?

I would be obliged...

See posts 128 & 129:

Originally Posted by Mittal

Great work skydog and Ronco

Quick question though, what exactly do the AI weights (Towards ratings, current stats, previous stats etc) effect? Basically, does changing those affect the league totals/mess up my stats?

I'm wondering because I do like to have some weight on previous year and 2 year stats, because if a player had a monster season 2 years ago or last year, but stinks this year (And his ratings have dropped), in real life some teams still will keep putting him out there expecting a bounce back and so on.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

1. Changing them won't mess things up drastically. It will just cause the AI to use a few players longer than it probably should.
2. The problem with that is that it makes the game easier (if you're using ratings). I look more at ratings in making my roster/lineup decisions, because I know that performance follows ratings. If a guy who had an .850 OPS last year for me had a big ratings drop-off, I'm using someone else. I want the AI teams not to be at a competitive disadvantage due to sticking with guys that I never would stick with.

I'd say SD is right in his reasons. However, if you're going to base any of it on this year's stats, then I'd base more than just 1% on the previous stats. I could see going with 100% on ratings, but going with 65/33/1/1 doesn't make much sense to me. Players do have up and down years so if you're going to go by stats at all then I don't think all of your stat weight should be on the current year. Yes, it probably makes a lot of sense to put more on the current year than previous years, but that much? I can't remember what I used to go with, but if you want 65 on ratings, which sounds like a good idea, 65/20/10/5 sounds better to me than 65/33/1/1.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Yup. It should be right around 69% if you entered them correctly. If you happen to have a small league, a few burners in it could skew the overall average upward, of course.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but I think it was you who entered it wrong. See your initial post:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Stolen Base Success %: .969

That looks like 96.9%, not 69.

EDIT: Nevermind, see later posts.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It's a completely misplaced whine, given that PCMs are set to default in this league. Sounds like a guy with an axe to grind. The appropriate place would be in the support forum. *shurg*


Glad you're enjoying the league. Odd about the DH. I have it turned off...

That's post 149 (pg 8) minus your quotation in it which didn't get picked up in my quoting of your post.

I realize it might be a minor thing, but you might want to edit your post and quote ike like I think you meant to in the 1st part and then GG in the 2nd. It looks like you're calling GG a whiner when I don't think that's what you meant to do. I only got it after ike replied to it and I'm guessing others would be confused by it as well. Yes, a lot of people who are going to read this have probably already read it, but for those who haven't it might be nice to make it clear.

[CecilCooper]

Originally Posted by kq76

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but I think it was you who entered it wrong. See your initial post:



That looks like 96.9%, not 69.

Don't mean to speak for Sky Dog but...

The SB Success rate is a modifier with 1.00 as the default. Sky Dog is saying with that rate there is too many successful SBs and to tone it down a tad.

So .969 is calling for about a 3% reduction in the succession rate (If my math is right) which according to Sky Dogs post above it seems that he is aiming for a 69% success rate.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by CecilCooper

Don't mean to speak for Sky Dog but...

The SB Success rate is a modifier with 1.00 as the default. Sky Dog is saying with that rate there is too many successful SBs and to tone it down a tad.

So .969 is calling for about a 3% reduction in the succession rate (If my math is right) which according to Sky Dogs post above it seems that he is aiming for a 69% success rate.

Ah, yes. It probably is right. I now remember when I initially read the first post I thought it looked odd then realized it was probably like you said. But then when I came to that person's post later I forgot that and just remembered it looked wrong in the first place. Plus, 69 and 969 look like something might have been transposed.

Sorry 'bout that.

[SittingDuck]

Thanks for the ref, kq76.

[SittingDuck]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

1. Changing them won't mess things up drastically. It will just cause the AI to use a few players longer than it probably should.
2. The problem with that is that it makes the game easier (if you're using ratings). I look more at ratings in making my roster/lineup decisions, because I know that performance follows ratings. If a guy who had an .850 OPS last year for me had a big ratings drop-off, I'm using someone else. I want the AI teams not to be at a competitive disadvantage due to sticking with guys that I never would stick with.

Yeah, but you know what? I am more and more considering going with current ratings set to OFF (not seen). Just to avoid this...

[Isura]

I'm not able to create a game with this. I searched around a bit, and copying the files to the game folder didn't work either. I get a "can't load world file" error. Its a windows xp machine, and the other 2 quick starts work fine.