MLB 12 The Show Franchise Mode Improvements

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rag3vsW0rld

I remember seeing you bring this up a while back Knight and I think it'd be a fitting system. Some people feel like every player reaches their potential in the current system and that there aren't any A potential or B potential players that never reach it, but a system like this would certainly help with prospects.

Yep.

tabarnes and I were speaking both amongst ourselves and with Aaron and Brett about this very thing. A bit to linear and predictable.(a "bit" .....re YIKES!)

We both put forth to them that we(the community) would like to see more true gems and busts....but also see much more of a varying degree of change in growth from year to year in player that are advancing/regressing, rather than the current +5 or 6(or whatever it is for that player) every year with only a slight chance of change off that(training).

M.K.
Knight165

[BatsareBugs]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Yep. tabarnes and I were speaking both amongst ourselves and with Aaron and Brett about this very thing. A bit to linear and predictable.(a "bit" .....re YIKES!) We both put forth to them that we(the community) would like to see more true gems and busts....but also see much more of a varying degree of change in growth from year to year in player that are advancing/regressing, rather than the current +5 or 6(or whatever it is for that player) every year with only a slight chance of change off that(training). M.K. Knight165

True.

I find it more practically and hopefully it can be implemented sometime down the line. If this was in for this year, it'd make it a lot easier to give certain players potential ratings (I'd bet it'd have to be editable too), like what I would've done with some Padre prospects:

Rymer Liriano 9D
Robbie Erlin 7A
Joe Wieland 7A
Casey Kelly 8C
Keyvius Sampson 8D
Joe Ross 8B
Austin Hedges 9D
Jedd Gyorko 8C

And so on... it'd help with guys like Robbie Erlin, who I've read from several sources saying his ceiling is a 3rd starter, but that being his floor to, to guys like Keyvius Sampson, who could be a potential front-line starter, but is likely to be a middle-of-the-rotation starter.

[Eucharist79]

Thanks so much for this thread, it is very informative and I appreciate the open and honest communication that is clearly present on OS. I have two questions: Did SCEA properly adjust someone like Gabby Sanchez Hot/Cold Zones because last year his Hitters Zones vs. RHP/LHP were all Blue, and there are others players that need to be updated. (Not to many, maybe 30 or 40 players) My second question is did they fix the logic in SportCast Manager or did they leave this mode untouched for MLB 12:The Show? Thanks everyone for your kindness and patience

[Legionnaire]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

From what I gather.....potentials...and progression are getting a look at for '13()...so I'm itching to see what they come up with!

I'd like them to explore doing something different with it. I've never played a sports game that I thought nailed the concept of potential.

Sports games always seem to make players kind of suck early on ability-wise, but program it so a guy with higher potential is more likely to improve and stop sucking. The thing is, with the exception of certain skillsets or guys who are freakishly young, guys are really at their physical peak in those early years.

Most players don't develop because they got better physically. They develop as they learn how to turn it on and keep it on, instead of just flashing a glimpse of their raw tools and then going back into a funk. A 5-tool prospect has those tools already. It's not that they aren't physically able yet, it's that they aren't consistent. I think guys skills should be what they are. Their physical skills should indicate their actual raw abilities -- how fast he can run, how hard he can crush the ball, how quickly he reacts in the field, how accurately/hard he can throw. But make it so there's a rating in there (experience, potential, luck, consistency, whatever) that determines how consistently they actually play up to that ceiling.

A guy who only hits 10 homers a year, but they're all insanely huge ones, shouldn't have a low "power rating" because he only hits 10 a year. He should have a high power rating because he clearly has the muscle to put them into orbit -- he should just have something else in his ratings that explains why he falls short of his own ceiling so often.

[Legionnaire]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Yep. tabarnes and I were speaking both amongst ourselves and with Aaron and Brett about this very thing. A bit to linear and predictable.(a "bit" .....re YIKES!) We both put forth to them that we(the community) would like to see more true gems and busts....but also see much more of a varying degree of change in growth from year to year in player that are advancing/regressing, rather than the current +5 or 6(or whatever it is for that player) every year with only a slight chance of change off that(training). M.K. Knight165

It's a good idea. Gems and busts.

Especially with younger, prospect-types. As it is, the farm system can basically be put on auto-pilot without ever drawing your interest the way it should. But since we're talking about the lifeblood of a team, it should really have higher stakes.

You see it all the time in the minors. A guy who was a late draft pick and an unheralded farmhand comes from nowhere to post a big season. So then the next year, all eyes are on him to see if it's for real or a fluke.

I'd like to see a sort of "lottery" to determine some guys who play way above or way below themselves (who are in essence better or worse than you're able to see yet). And that big year or down year gets your attention, and then the next year is the deciding factor. If they struggle again, they lose their status as a hot prospect (losing potential and maybe some actual skills, since they're not as good as you originally thought). If they come up big again, they parlay their success into an increased status as a legitimate prospect. Every team's farm system has a few guys at any given time who they are watching intently to figure out if they're forcing their way into "prospect status" or if they're proving to be a bust.

I think it should be fairly common for minor league levels. And fairly rare for the MLB level. Down on the farm, it's common to see top prospects flame out or to see nobodies turn into legitimate prospects. At the MLB level, it's a lot harder for a guy to come from nowhere with attributes nobody thought he had in him.

[jvalverde88]

After reading that I have only one thing to say:

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by Legionnaire

I'd like them to explore doing something different with it. I've never played a sports game that I thought nailed the concept of potential. Sports games always seem to make players kind of suck early on ability-wise, but program it so a guy with higher potential is more likely to improve and stop sucking. The thing is, with the exception of certain skillsets or guys who are freakishly young, guys are really at their physical peak in those early years. Most players don't develop because they got better physically. They develop as they learn how to turn it on and keep it on, instead of just flashing a glimpse of their raw tools and then going back into a funk. A 5-tool prospect has those tools already. It's not that they aren't physically able yet, it's that they aren't consistent. I think guys skills should be what they are. Their physical skills should indicate their actual raw abilities -- how fast he can run, how hard he can crush the ball, how quickly he reacts in the field, how accurately/hard he can throw. But make it so there's a rating in there (experience, potential, luck, consistency, whatever) that determines how consistently they actually play up to that ceiling. A guy who only hits 10 homers a year, but they're all insanely huge ones, shouldn't have a low "power rating" because he only hits 10 a year. He should have a high power rating because he clearly has the muscle to put them into orbit -- he should just have something else in his ratings that explains why he falls short of his own ceiling so often.

This is an interesting post, and I also think there should be a distinction between innate abilities and "nurtured" skills in some way... The former includes speed/arm strength, the latter perhaps includes discipline, for example...

The current and prevalent system of assigning one number for a skill is very convenient. The potential system the Show currently uses (which I'm still not awfully familiar since I just started with a serious franchise mode...) and the one Knight suggested is fine if your goal is to set a (hidden) ceiling for ability and the chance that a particular player reaches that level, how long it takes to get there, etc. However it might have problem recreating a player with very high innate ability but who is yet to exhibit it consistently.

But it should also be noted that in the example of 10 HR player above, it's not just the Power attribute that comes into the formula... if that player hasn't developed Vision, Discipline, and some other relevant skills to go along with his Power rating, he probably wouldn't hit the amount of HRs that his Power rating would allow him when he fully develops other attributes... so some aspect of consistency can be replicated that way. Having said that, the issue with Power rating as a primary determinant for HR hitting ability would probably still stand, given how the game may be using the attribute.

As in the quoted post, introducing some sort of "consistency" attribute to fluctuate a particular rating is one idea, so that Power rating for highly consistent player gives him close to his Power rating at its ceil value every at-bat (or pitch), but for very inconsistent player, his Power rating for an at-bat ends up usually somewhere lower than that ceil rating. However, this consistency idea also has problem in that we really don't know this is how things work. If you actually fluctuate Power rating by some auxiliary rating like consistency, you are actually messing with the player's ability to generate power directly. But I presume, in real life, player's ability to have power swing shouldn't fluctuate like that... so you may be creating another issue trying to fix another.

I agree that Power attribute for a player probably shouldn't grow so much during a player's career. But in order to replicate the lack of consistency early in one's baseball career, it might actually make more sense to look at how other attributes come into play in fully realizing the potential that those innate ability attributes like Power and Speed suggest.

[Pared]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Really? I can only shake my head. I find it a boring aspect of any game to discuss....and quite frankly, couldn't care less on how they look as long as they are there and work! Oh....no numbers. M.K. Knight165

Oh c'mon Knight! This is such rubbish - you were just as excited as a kid in a candy store once the "boring" stuff was brought in! Don't play me like that!

And rightfully so - look at all the responses to the changes in franchise.



And this is nothing. There's a solid vision for the future and it's only going to get better.