MLB '10: The Show - Player Potential Fix Coming in Next Roster Update

[rondoman]

Wow.

This game might have just went from a definite first day purchase to me just putting 09 back in.

Seriously, Verlander lost 7mph in one year? Ridiculous. To have an issue this major make it through to the final product is sad.

This could be a definite gamebreaker for me as well as the reported CPU trade logic/waiver logic issue. All I play is franchise and it looks like last years may be better.

Damn.

[rondoman]

Quote: Originally Posted by bk7987

I'll try to put it as simply as possible: "A" quality players need an "A" potential rating to maintain that "A" talent. If an "A" quality player like David Wright has an "F" potential rating, he will decline RAPIDLY until he becomes an "F" quality player. That's how the game works. "A" players will still decline in their mid-30s just like last year.

If this is indeed the case then MLB 10 just got f'd. Wow.

[VitaminKG21]

Quote: Originally Posted by PaperWork

You're putting the cart before the horse though. I never understood why people want to see stats dictate a player's overall rating. A player is rated based on his 'talent'; if he under performs, it doesn't mean he lost his 'talent', if he over-performs it doesn't mean he's more talented. It just means he had a better year than his talent would suggest, or a worse year than his talent would suggest. This happens all the time. I think players should progress/regress based on the well established age curve. Players peak at ages 26-29 and then decline after that. Stats/performance should never dictate a player's core ratings, unless he's very young, and his talent is improving as he matures in the league.

I'm not saying stats should dictate a players ratings, but they should have some effect. Whether it's in the form of a "confidence" rating or some other type of measure that keeps players in the 26-29 range from having great seasons then dropping multiple points, the stats should mean something in terms of development. At the very least a player who falls in a certain age range and had a good season should stay exactly the same.

Quote: Originally Posted by callmetaternuts

The key is to only drop a point or two in your example. I dont want Longo (Evan Longoria) to put up good numbers and drop 5 points. Can he improve 5-6 points every year? No way, he should be at the top of rankings already (close to it at least). He shouldnt start dropping off at his young age just because his potential is low (as the game says).

Exactly. I understand that with Longoria or a guy like Lincecum that has won 2 Cy Young Awards already, there is little room to move up and who they are as players (ability-wise) is who they will most likely be for several more years given their ages and relative health.

But no way should either of those guys or players in their class start to see their abilities erode before they hit 30.

[ocho cuatro]

I'd also like to see a change in how the "A potential" ratings are distributed through the generic prospects. I like to do completely custom rosters, so the first thing I did was go through the available generic A's to see how many I had to work with.

This is what I found:

* 142 total propects with A potential (seems like a lot)
* 123 are pitchers
* 19 are position players

And since we can't edit potential, there's no way to change this to a more even distribution of pitchers/position players.

I'd love to see this fixed with the first patch.

[stormshadow1]

I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player".

David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player.

Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

[VitaminKG21]

Quote: Originally Posted by ocho cuatro

I'd also like to see a change in how the "A potential" ratings are distributed through the generic prospects. I like to do completely custom rosters, so the first thing I did was go through the available generic A's to see how many I had to work with. This is what I found: * 142 total propects with A potential (seems like a lot) * 123 are pitchers * 19 are position players And since we can't edit potential, there's no way to change this to a more even distribution of pitchers/position players. I'd love to see this fixed with the first patch.

Agreed. Once again there seems to be something in the way the ability ratings add up that make pitchers more "valuable" than position players and thus grant them higher potential ratings.

I have to say I'm slightly shocked that this kind of thing still happens, not just in this game, but seemingly every game I play (FIFA, NCAA Football, etc.)

[bk7987]

Quote: Originally Posted by stormshadow1

I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player". David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player. Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

I've been trying to battle this for the whole thread. Yes, that makes sense. No, that's not how the game works.

If he has an "F" potential rating--which he does--he declines 10 points a year easily. I've simmed a couple season, and this is almost universally true for the names I posted on the first page of this thread.

[VitaminKG21]

Quote: Originally Posted by stormshadow1

I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player". David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player. Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

+1

Unfortunately as stated, an 'F' rating means he will regress quickly.