MLB 12 The Show Franchise Mode Improvements

[rdub78]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Well...I've proposed(to Kolbe...so I'll resend it to Aaron) a system that would be something like this..... (it's "stolen" from Minor League Analyst....but I think it's perfect for gaming) Potential would be.... 10. Hall of Famer(VERY few would get this rating) 9. Elite Player 8. Solid regular 7. Average player 6. Platoon player 5. MLB reserve 4. Top Minor Leaguer 3. Average Minor Leaguer 2. Minor League Reserve 1. Roster Filler Then there would be a probability rating of that potential and how likely a player would be to reach it. This would drive his range of growth as well(better rating...better the likely jump) A. 90% chance of reaching potential B. 70% chance of reaching potential C. 50% chance of reaching potential D. 30% chance of reaching potential E. 10% chance of reaching potential There would also be a +/- to that letter to fill in between chances. This would make every aspect of player evaluation much more intriguing. At draft....Draft the 9C player....who might be the next Verlander....the next Hamilton or go with the 8A guy who is a "lock" to get to the MLB level and contribute solidly to your ballclub It could be dynamic.....and also be dependent on how good your scout is too see such a rating. So...I still think that progression should be programmed in ......but how that progression/regression is handed out should be dependent on some new criteria. M.K. Knight165

Wow this is an excellent idea!!!


I made a separate thread about this but it can probably be deleted.

I was just wondering if the expanded playoffs will be in. I am under the impression they will not be in the game this year correct?

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by rdub78

Wow this is an excellent idea!!! I made a separate thread about this but it can probably be deleted. I was just wondering if the expanded playoffs will be in. I am under the impression they will not be in the game this year correct?

No...
I saw that Selig just announced he's nearly certain they are in for '12.
The announcement is on March 1st, right?

Next year.

M.K.
Knight165

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by ty5oke

What I certainly wouldn't have it coded to drop 30 overall in 1 year. I'm thinking more of a +3 or +5. It would be nice to have an above average player like Adam Jones, rated 80 overall and... Scenario 1: Year 1: .350 40 HR 120 RBI (+ 3, 83 overall) Year 2: .360 45 HR 125 RBI (+5, 88 overall) Scenario 2: Year 1: .210 15 HR 80 RBI (-2, 78 overall) Year 2: .205 14 HR 75 RBI (-3, 75 overall) Scenario 1, we saw an above average player put together 2 great seasons and is now rated close to superstar status and in scenario 2, we see him regress due to 2 bad years in a row. I would have multiple factors with overall progression, the original thought was more for specific attributes. I also understand Knights point and can see how this could be difficult to implement. It would be the way I would try and program it though, I prefer my franchise to be more dynamic than static.

You see.....in these instances...I would prefer that a stat year like that two years running would give the player a potential or probability boost(thereby giving him the chance(because each potential and probability would have a range of possible point gains/losses...not one definitive number) at a higher echelon of progression points).
It would still be dynamic, just not a certainty.....more a "probability"

M.K.
Knight165

[rdub78]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

No... I saw that Selig just announced he's nearly certain they are in for '12. The announcement is on March 1st, right? Next year. M.K. Knight165

Yep March 1.

Yeah Selig is really pushing to get this started this season already.

Sucks, but theres really nothing that SCEA could really do this late in the game, they are kinda left hung out to dry.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by ty5oke

What I certainly wouldn't have it coded to drop 30 overall in 1 year. I'm thinking more of a +3 or +5. It would be nice to have an above average player like Adam Jones, rated 80 overall and... Scenario 1: Year 1: .350 40 HR 120 RBI (+ 3, 83 overall) Year 2: .360 45 HR 125 RBI (+5, 88 overall) Scenario 2: Year 1: .210 15 HR 80 RBI (-2, 78 overall) Year 2: .205 14 HR 75 RBI (-3, 75 overall) Scenario 1, we saw an above average player put together 2 great seasons and is now rated close to superstar status and in scenario 2, we see him regress due to 2 bad years in a row. I would have multiple factors with overall progression, the original thought was more for specific attributes. I also understand Knights point and can see how this could be difficult to implement. It would be the way I would try and program it though, I prefer my franchise to be more dynamic than static.

I don't want to leave an impression that I only exist to shoot down others' ideas, but it isn't very easy to handle baseball stats properly.

You have to think about what the difference between .350 and .360 (or .210 and .205) mean. For 500 at bats, it amounts to a difference of only 5 hits (or 3). Over a season, such a tiny difference can come from luck.. a few bloopers or lucky infield hits, etc. Should these affect player ability? I don't think so...

You also have to think about how to deal with playing opportunity differences... Park factors when a player changes teams in mid seasons... etc., etc.

It really isn't very easy to come up with a stats-driven system that acts stably under complicated situations.

[ty5oke]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

I don't want to leave an impression that I only exist to shoot down others' ideas, but it isn't very easy to handle baseball stats properly. You have to think about what the difference between .350 and .360 (or .210 and .205) mean. For 500 at bats, it amounts to a difference of only 5 hits (or 3). Over a season, such a tiny difference can come from luck.. a few bloopers or lucky infield hits, etc. Should these affect player ability? I don't think so... You also have to think about how to deal with playing opportunity differences... Park factors when a player changes teams in mid seasons... etc., etc. It really isn't very easy to come up with a stats-driven system that acts stably under complicated situations.

I agree, a lot of times as a programmer the hardest thing is to code something like this dynamically. The change would be so minute from .350 - .360 that you wouldn't even notice, the only time you would notice it would be when the player has multiple years of hitting .30 over what was expected. I like Knights idea of upping their possibility of reaching their potential. Without knowing the code and I can't say for sure but it feels like each player already has a predetermined path.

I would actually prefer to throw out overall ratings anyways, and have the stats reflect on individual ratings, like high average vs LH boosting the CON vs LH.

[loganmorrison1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

I'm a Mike. But on all the paperwork that I get from anywhere....it's Michael. My family calls me Michael. My friends and co-workers are lazy and call me Mike. His name is Michael Stanton. M.K. Knight165

I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. He's as much Michael Stanton as Issac Davis is Ike or Gabriel Hernandez is Gabby. I love SCEA and everything they do, but mistakes do happen, we don't need to cover-up for everything

[Marino]

Quote: Originally Posted by loganmorrison1

I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. He's as much Michael Stanton as Issac Davis is Ike or Gabriel Hernandez is Gabby. I love SCEA and everything they do, but mistakes do happen, we don't need to cover-up for everything

And i think its time for you to drop it, its not that big of a deal.

Sent from Hayden Panettiere's #1 fan