The Brewster

Yeah, and using coaches in online leagues is annoying...

agrudez wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:15 pm

Ted wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:01 pm

This is a consistent complaint of mine in regards to OOTP. There's too much black box.

I might be in the minority, but I kind of enjoy that different people have different opinions about different things in OOTP - which is a byproduct of its "black boxiness". I love that when I hunt for trades of prospects I am looking for "bumpers" while someone else is looking for guys with good intangibles and still someone else is looking at injury history trends. If we knew infallibly every equation in the code then we'd all be able to make spreadsheets that essentially emulate the code and then we'd never be in disagreement at all.

I don't need to know every detail Kyle. But rather than, "OOTP uses PAP" which means nothing or anything, or a lot, or very little. It could say," we're using a PAP^3 model" (if that's what they are doing) as well as "We're going with the belief that young pitchers are more injury vulnerable and it's related to workload". I don't need exact specific numbers, just specific guild-lines. The manual doesn't even tell you which coach ratings are used for which type of coach. They could tell you what an assistant GM's tendencies do if you are in control as a GM. IF the answer is nothing, then that's fine. Let me know that. They could tell you if your manager retains "some influence" (the yellow indicator) that your strategy settings will be mitigated by around X percent. I'm not asking for all the mystery to be gone, just to have some small idea of what actually matters. Currently, the only way to figure this out is to create test leagues, isolate one variable, and sim 1000 games or so. For injuries, you'd be looking at 10000 games or more. That's just stupid. No one is ever going to figure that out on their own. As far as development, how freaking hard would it be to give some sort of math that compiled bumps and lumps in an organization (perhaps with proximity to injury or not as an option) and spit out a "how well your development is doing" number. This wouldn't have to take away all the mystery of coaching and development budgets, but there'd at least be a number you could try to influence via various strategies. Currently none of us have any idea really how we are developing players. I'm not even asking for it to be perfect. Just something. Markus has said they are using catcher framing. Then they need to give us framing outs above average. Or something. Anything. Not doing so is just lazy. How the F are we supposed to know which catchers are good at it? Just guess?

Ted wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:31 pm

agrudez wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:15 pm

Ted wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:01 pm

This is a consistent complaint of mine in regards to OOTP. There's too much black box.

I might be in the minority, but I kind of enjoy that different people have different opinions about different things in OOTP - which is a byproduct of its "black boxiness". I love that when I hunt for trades of prospects I am looking for "bumpers" while someone else is looking for guys with good intangibles and still someone else is looking at injury history trends. If we knew infallibly every equation in the code then we'd all be able to make spreadsheets that essentially emulate the code and then we'd never be in disagreement at all.

I don't need to know every detail Kyle. But rather than, "OOTP uses PAP" which means nothing or anything, or a lot, or very little. It could say," we're using a PAP^3 model" (if that's what they are doing) as well as "We're going with the belief that young pitchers are more injury vulnerable and it's related to workload". I don't need exact specific numbers, just specific guild-lines. The manual doesn't even tell you which coach ratings are used for which type of coach. They could tell you what an assistant GM's tendencies do if you are in control as a GM. IF the answer is nothing, then that's fine. Let me know that. They could tell you if your manager retains "some influence" (the yellow indicator) that your strategy settings will be mitigated by around X percent. I'm not asking for all the mystery to be gone, just to have some small idea of what actually matters. Currently, the only way to figure this out is to create test leagues, isolate one variable, and sim 1000 games or so. For injuries, you'd be looking at 10000 games or more. That's just stupid. No one is ever going to figure that out on their own. As far as development, how freaking hard would it be to give some sort of math that compiled bumps and lumps in an organization (perhaps with proximity to injury or not as an option) and spit out a "how well your development is doing" number. This wouldn't have to take away all the mystery of coaching and development budgets, but there'd at least be a number you could try to influence via various strategies. Currently none of us have any idea really how we are developing players. I'm not even asking for it to be perfect. Just something. Markus has said they are using catcher framing. Then they need to give us framing outs above average. Or something. Anything. Not doing so is just lazy. How the F are we supposed to know which catchers are good at it? Just guess?

Catcher Ability Rating? I have completed a test of my own with actual data (I know....shocking) that show that Catcher Ability can make a difference in one's team's pitching performance. And, no, I'm not doing it again.