First Candidate For MLB 13 The Show Cover is Bryce Harper, More Details Revealed

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by ffyfe7

One issue I had with MLB 12 was the trade logic, is that something that is being addressed so we won't see massively lopsided trades (e.g. 3 'A' prospects for a 'C' rated 31 year old utility player)? I had to use 30-team control and it made simming multiple seasons a real chore as you had to constantly check trade offers to make sure they were somewhat realistic. Nothing will ever be perfect but last year was atrocious in my honest opinion.

You mean less atrocious like the latest D-Backs/Reds/Indians trade?!

M.K.
Knight165

[DodgerFanatic2K3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You mean less atrocious like the latest D-Backs/Reds/Indians trade?! M.K. Knight165

After seeing the trades that have gone down in baseball the last 4 months I will never think of another trade in the game as being "unrealistic"

[ThrowBack]

Any chance we get a coach/scout editor this year?

[zippy2212]

Quote: Originally Posted by ThrowBack

Any chance we get a coach/scout editor this year?

I hope with what sounds like extra emphasis on scouts and coaches this year, that this is in.

[dlk90514]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Just from seeing how SCEA operates....I can tell you that the franchise mode "overhaul" will be in stages. First....there was no way they would rip everything apart and go whole hog in one fell swoop. This is a good thing though IMO. It allows us more input from year to year to recommend and request features to help shape the franchise mode. AaronSCEA and LuisSCEA(and NickSCEA, who has some really great ideas as well) have an excellent vision for how they would like franchise mode to run. Secondly....even this first phase of changes .....is open for fine tuning from what I gather from the devs....which I think is because it's not all done at once and it gives a better chance for the team to see what works and what needs adjusting a little easier.(rather than having to deal with EVERYTHING at once). Finally.....It's good to see the passion that the community has for the game and thankfully, the dev team sees it to and listens to us! M.K. Knight165

I'm pretty sure that I have read this in the past Knight, but aren't you a fan of the GM getting fired/having goals to meet? I was just curious if this is something that we might see the team implemented again in the future. I always liked having that variable in the game.

[ThrowBack]

Quote: Originally Posted by zippy2212

I hope with what sounds like extra emphasis on scouts and coaches this year, that this is in.

I hope so. I would like to be able to edit Walt Weiss's cornrowed doppleganger next year.

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You mean less atrocious like the latest D-Backs/Reds/Indians trade?! M.K. Knight165

Quote: Originally Posted by DodgerFanatic2K3

After seeing the trades that have gone down in baseball the last 4 months I will never think of another trade in the game as being "unrealistic"

The trades that have happened in real life have been crazy, but I would not call them incomprehensible. I think the guy was more referring to how the CPU settles in terms of benefit, and offers trades that do not benefit them at all. For example, I got offered a trade last month where I got Brandon League, Miguel Olivo, and Brendan Ryan (a shortstop), in exchange for 1 single, average, shortstop prospect. Obviously I took it. If you simply take Ryan out of the trade, it looks a lot more realistic, since you can argue they need a shortstop for the future or something, but Ryan is a pretty young guy, and he's a shortstop, so literally they accomplished nothing at all. All they did was hurt themselves. That's where I think the most objective issue with the trade logic can be identified.

There definitely exists an objective separation between a poor trade, and a pointless trade. A poor trade I'd define as one where you trade something you don't need for something you want, but the values don't match. I can pay 3000 bucks for a toaster. That would be an extremely bad purchase. However, regardless of what I paid for it, it is by no means a pointless purchase. I had the 3000 to spend, and got something I value: a toaster.

A real-life example would be the Miami blockbuster trade. You can argue Miami got less than they could have, but at the end of the day, they traded what was of no value to them (failing, expensive superstars) and received something they valued highly (multiple prospects). We can argue all day about how "good" the trade is - that is, whether the benefits outweigh the cost - but I don't think it matters. At the end of the day, it matters only that there ARE benefits to the trade.

A pointless trade would me trading my toaster for another toaster of lesser quality, design, or whatever else. Or me trading my only toaster for a blender, when I already own a blender. I gave up something I value, in a toaster, and received something of no value, in the blender I don't need. These are the types of transactions I think people have the most problems with, and the type that I'd like to see diminished or protected against in future games.

To summarize: I think the issue in the trade logic is that the AI seems to only exclusively compare one side of the trade to the other. Is what I'm receiving greater than or equal to what I'm giving up? What the AI needs to evaluate more profusely, is comparing what you receive to what you already have, eg: making the trade vs making no trade at all.

[Falcon999]

After Harper now comes CC !!!

http://mlb.mlb.com/covervote/


sounds we'll have 3 candidates !!