Low Adaptability?

[indiansfan]

So in 20, a lot of my guys have "low adaptability". This is a new one and it isn't listed in the personality traits. Anyone have any more info on it?

[Lane]

I was gonna post a link to the manual and chastise you for not looking there first, but it doesn't seem to be in the manual, so...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[bschr682]

I've been playing 20 solo for a little bit and this is purely a guess. Adaptability is one of the personality traits. Every player has a preferred position and lineup spot. That part has been in the game for awhile. A player will demand to be starting or a bench bat. A hitter will demand to be in the middle of the order or top of order. Or a pitcher will demand to be in the rotation or be listed as the closer. etc. Im thinking adaptability is the personality trait that will determined just how ticked off a guy will be when you don't listen to those demands.

so if my guess is correct and you have a ton of low adaptability guys, well I hope you find a way to meet all those demands or your clubhouse is gonna get ugly...

[indiansfan]

Can someone with the authority move this thread to the right forum, just realized I put it in the wrong chatter.

[Lane]

Can someone with the authority move this thread to the right forum, just realized I put it in the wrong chatter.

[Ted]

I've been playing 20 solo for a little bit and this is purely a guess. Adaptability is one of the personality traits. Every player has a preferred position and lineup spot. That part has been in the game for awhile. A player will demand to be starting or a bench bat. A hitter will demand to be in the middle of the order or top of order. Or a pitcher will demand to be in the rotation or be listed as the closer. etc. Im thinking adaptability is the personality trait that will determined just how ticked off a guy will be when you don't listen to those demands.

so if my guess is correct and you have a ton of low adaptability guys, well I hope you find a way to meet all those demands or your clubhouse is gonna get ugly...

If this is really a thing, OOTP just got dumber. Why do the devs insist on adding things that aren't in any way quantifiable in real life to the game. There is absolutely no way to measure this in real life, which means there is no model that accurately implements it. First I have to have a "prankster" to keep my clubhouse right, now this. We'e all already overpaying for "captains." Clubhouse chemistry seems to matter way too much. 1/5th of the players wont sign with me because they don't like my manager. FFS.

Meanwhile, no framing data (even though the game apparently uses it). No historical split data. No meaningful changes to the player models. Scouts still suck. As soon as there's a competitor to OOTP, I'm gone.

[recte44]

It’s been in the game for several versions. Calm down.

[Ted]

It’s been in the game for several versions. Calm down.

No. Why was it not reported externally before. Why now? Who even wants this?

Here's the thing Recte. OOTP has been a great game. The direction they have been taking for several years now, in my mind, has been crap. All bells and whistles. All poorly implemented. No substance. When I find about about more dumb crap, I'm going to bitch about it. If you want to say I should be bitching on the forums and not here, you've got a point. But that's about it. I should be doing that. I'm whining in the wrong spot. I get that. But i get to have my opinion.

[ae37jr]

It’s been in the game for several versions. Calm down.

No. Why was it not reported externally before. Why now? Who even wants this?

Cause they needed to put something on the "new features" list since this version seems identical to 19.

[sjshaw]

If you search the term at OOTP you will see a lot of similar reactions to those in this thread.

And of course it's not in the manual. OOTP's manual is parody at this point.

[RonCo]

OOTP has several personality traits that are not revealed. Had had them for several versions. I agree they should all be visible, and argue for it every version. You can see what those traits are in the player editor, but, of course, we're can't see them in an online file.

[ae37jr]

I found this chart below on the OOTP forum. Not sure if it is accurate or not, but it appears legit. It not only shows the hidden personalities but also the criteria needed for each personality class. Interesting.

[Ted]

OOTP has several personality traits that are not revealed. Had had them for several versions. I agree they should all be visible, and argue for it every version. You can see what those traits are in the player editor, but, of course, we're can't see them in an online file.

Most of them shouldn't even exist. There are no ways to measure whether most of them even exist with any real effect in real life. Every study I have even seen (and there aren't many) has never been able to find any detectable effect of any personality characteristic. The only things that ARE true, is that players who were viewed in one light (leader/bad apple/etc) have often been seen completely differently in the very next city they play in, and that winnings teams have "good clubhouse chemistry" and losing teams have "bad chemistry". These things can completely reverse if the team changes its fortunes. Both those findings support and idea that player "personalities" don't matter. Talent does.

These are beat writer narratives. I'm sure work ethic, etc matter, but no one even knows how much. Some things, like greed and loyalty, are even more nuts. We don't even know which players are what in real life with those. Let alone if it actually matters.

So what we have are arbitrary made up models of things that may or may not exist that seem to be becoming increasingly important. Some of these attributes aren't even visible, most of them are not well described in the manual, and some aren't described at all.

[RonCo]

I can't disagree with anything you say, and in the old days I probably did a rant like this. I admit I've come to like the aspect of personalities, though. So, shrug. Argue away. I like the game play well enough, and just wish they would show us more so we can actually bake in our own ideas of things. Everyone's mileage can vary here, though.

However, it's probably wrong to say these things are "increasingly important." They've been in the game for a long time.

I don't really have much energy for complaining every time they finally reveal more of what's actually happening.

[RonCo]

Every study I have even seen (and there aren't many) has never been able to find any detectable effect of any personality characteristic.

Not specifically about baseball, but as a organization excellence professional for 10 years of my life, I've probably read (conservatively) 250 fairly extensive studies on the effect of personality and team dynamics on productivity and team results, and I'd disagree with the base idea that they have no effect. The issue is that there are a few examples of teams with horrible dynamics still being successful, and it's hard to fight anecdotes that support certain fun opinions (people love cantankerous clubhouses that win, and note them, but no one remembers how the vast majority of winning teams ever have a narrative of community, and everyone pulling their weight, and a different hero every night, and guys filling their roles, and...



Still, this is a discussion that has no real answer, so all we can really do is argue things that no one actually knows what is "real" and what isn't.

[Ted]

Every study I have even seen (and there aren't many) has never been able to find any detectable effect of any personality characteristic.

Not specifically about baseball, but as a organization excellence professional for 10 years of my life, I've probably read (conservatively) 250 fairly extensive studies on the effect of personality and team dynamics on productivity and team results, and I'd disagree with the base idea that they have no effect. The issue is that there are a few examples of teams with horrible dynamics still being successful, and it's hard to fight anecdotes that support certain fun opinions (people love cantankerous clubhouses that win, and note them, but no one remembers how the vast majority of winning teams ever have a narrative of community, and everyone pulling their weight, and a different hero every night, and guys filling their roles, and...



Still, this is a discussion that has no real answer, so all we can really do is argue things that no one actually knows what is "real" and what isn't.

I spoke poorly. Certainly team dynamics matter. My point was more that in baseball specifically, no one has been able to quantify which personality traits matter, what makes a "leader" in baseball, etc, or how much of an impact those things have compared to talent. There are specific studies that have tracked players thought of as good teammates, leaders, etc, and ones that have tracked "bad apples" when they move from one team to another and found that there is no statistically significant coordination to winning and losing. The data is limited. Perhaps something more rigorous would find an effect. I don't know.

But how do you even model that? Any model would, because these things can't really be quantified, be entirely arbitrary.

Again, "leaders" for "good clubhouses" went to other teams, and if those teams were bad, the clubhouse was bad. If those teams were good, the clubhouse was good and all the narratives are about how so and so made it that way. But that's correlation, not causation. I don't know about what you read. That's not my experience. What I can tell you about the baseball studies and the stuff I've read in how team dynamics affect the medical field, the case is much stronger that good team dynamics can only flourish in positive environments, and no amount of good team dynamics can make up for a bad environment. In baseball, the environment is winning and losing. While there may be some effect of individual personality traits, they are likely vastly overshadowed by the effect of winning and losing on atmosphere. For the developers of OOTP to be spending any significant time on this is, in my mind, a complete waste of resources when there are in fact things that we KNOW affect outcomes that they are either not implementing, or are implementing and not reporting to us.

There just seems to be better things to be spending time on.

[Ted]

Regarding you comments about how "no one remembers how the vast majority of winning teams ever have a narrative of community, and everyone pulling their weight, and a different hero every night, and guys filling their roles, and..."

1) Everyone remembers this if they've had a winning team. It's literally the cliche recap of every year end video created by the team.
2) This is descriptive of an effect, not a cause. If a team wins a crapton of games, everyone has to play a role. That's how baseball works. This is a media driven narrative.

The reality is that winning is fun. Having fun together breeds community. One player can't make you win in baseball, so if you win a lot, everyone has to step up and fill various roles.

In the reverse situation, losing sucks. Losing a lot together is frustrating, people start looking at each other. People get annoyed for lack of making plays, etc.

Which is a more believable situation? That these players who by virtue of being professional athletes are among the most driven and dedicated people in the world are so vastly different from each other that some of them are able to "lead" others to be better through motivational tactics and leadership? Or that humans are humans and act like humans do. Winning is fun. Losing is not. We like to be around people he have fun with and don't like to be around people we don't have fun with. We perform better when we are in a good mood and worse when we are in a bad mood.

[crobillard]

I like it. If I felt like the personality traits had a bigger impact on performance I would probably hate it, but I haven't seen any data to support that the personality traits were so weighted in game that they hurt a team's performance. Maybe I'm wrong though. I'm sure some of that stuff comes out in scouting though. I mean it's not like a team would come out and say they didn't sign a player because he was too greedy, but that's certainly something you may know about a player through personal dealings or maybe by talking through back channels. Either way, I think they implement the personality traits well and this is very low on the priority list of things I would want changed.

[Ted]

Anyway, I've gotten of track. The point was not to argue over whether these things matter, but whether or not they could be implemented in a game in a meaningful and accurate way that is understood by the player of the game. If not, then they shouldn't be done at all.

[Ted]

I like it. If I felt like the personality traits had a bigger impact on performance I would probably hate it, but I haven't seen any data to support that the personality traits were so weighted in game that they hurt a team's performance. Maybe I'm wrong though. I'm sure some of that stuff comes out in scouting though. I mean it's not like a team would come out and say they didn't sign a player because he was too greedy, but that's certainly something you may know about a player through personal dealings or maybe by talking through back channels. Either way, I think they implement the personality traits well and this is very low on the priority list of things I would want changed.

I think we actually agree here. It's super low on my priority too. That's kind of the point. This is so less important than actual baseball stuff they aren't implementing or reporting, so when I'm always having to deal with new stuff with this junk, it just feels like I'm playing "the sims" instead of baseball.

And let me ask you this question, if they aren't as you suggest, weighted enough to hurt (or help) a team's performance? Why have them at all? Why make an input that doesn't affect the output in any meaningful way?