MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99

[Knight165]

YOU


.........




M.K.
Knight165

[slickkill77]

The bar only doesn't solve anything as I said above. It just masks the problem and you end up sorting by rating anyway. Why should we just hide the fact that some of the ratings are so out of whack? Then we would just be complaining that Stephen Strasburg's bar was full.

[dcmantommy72]

I love the work that goes into the ratings, but honestly prefer the re-rate mlb roster sets that people on this board create for us rather than the default roster set for my franchise.

I also believe that 20 players at 99 is too many, I love the way OOTP rates players, most attributes are on a 0-250 scale sometimes 300. Meaning almost always a guy like Strasburg can get even better over the years and as such his rating will go up.. According to these ratings in 5 years he will still be either 99 or lower. If Ted Williams was in the game, he would be a 99, The Sultan of Swat a 99, Rodger Clemens (1990) a 99 these players are all top notch but seeing that max level come so easily and quickly and numerously is bad for the game. I would love to see a more in depth system someday, maybe keep 1-100 but use a decimal like for a random example Pedroia would a 92.45ovr. Idk just my thought. Love it either way as LONG AS WE KEEP ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE AND INNOVATE THE SYSTEM and not get stuck being forced to stay within certain parameters year in year out...

I took 3/5 off as a holiday, and will treat it like one!

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by dcmantommy72

I love the work that goes into the ratings, but honestly prefer the re-rate mlb roster sets that people on this board create for us rather than the default roster set for my franchise. I also believe that 20 players at 99 is too many, I love the way OOTP rates players, most attributes are on a 0-250 scale sometimes 300. Meaning almost always a guy like Strasburg can get even better over the years and as such his rating will go up.. According to these ratings in 5 years he will still be either 99 or lower. If Ted Williams was in the game, he would be a 99, The Sultan of Swat a 99, Rodger Clemens (1990) a 99 these players are all top notch but seeing that max level come so easily and quickly and numerously is bad for the game. I would love to see a more in depth system someday, maybe keep 1-100 but use a decimal like for a random example Pedroia would a 92.45ovr. Idk just my thought. Love it either way as LONG AS WE KEEP ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE AND INNOVATE THE SYSTEM and not get stuck being forced to stay within certain parameters year in year out... I took 3/5 off as a holiday, and will treat it like one!

Just FYI...your player can be above 99....but 99 is the top # displayed.
It's up to you to see who is "better".

M.K.
Knight165

[slickkill77]

I think 2 things need to be done.
1. The ratings need to be stretched out more. Way too many 99's.
2. Potential needs to be scrapped or reworked. I think using the 20-80 scale that scouts use would be much more effective especially for the minor league players


And why can players be higher than a 99? I'm not questioning whether or not it can be done, I fully trust you there Knight, but I am questioning why is that even possible? Shouldn't 99 represent the best in the game. Guys that, while not perfect, they are damn near perfect. Wouldn't it make more sense to stretch the ratings out so that guys don't just stop at 99 because it's a limit the game imposes? As I said earlier 99 should be reserved for very very few players. And guys like Jose Altuve have no business being a 90. Realistically he should be mid 80's at best. But because the ratings are so inflated, he's 9 points away from being considered one of the best in the game. Which he is not.

You're probably going to say its just a number and if the stats bear out then why does it matter. While I agree with you that these numbers are purely cosmetic, for the most part, I'm sure it has some effect on the way gm's in the game sign people and hand out contracts because of the inflated ratings.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by slickkill77

I think 2 things need to be done. 1. The ratings need to be stretched out more. Way too many 99's. 2. Potential needs to be scrapped or reworked. I think using the 20-80 scale that scouts use would be much more effective especially for the minor league players And why can players be higher than a 99? I'm not questioning whether or not it can be done, I fully trust you there Knight, but I am questioning why is that even possible? Shouldn't 99 represent the best in the game. Guys that, while not perfect, they are damn near perfect. Wouldn't it make more sense to stretch the ratings out so that guys don't just stop at 99 because it's a limit the game imposes? As I said earlier 99 should be reserved for very very few players. And guys like Jose Altuve have no business being a 90. Realistically he should be mid 80's at best. But because the ratings are so inflated, he's 9 points away from being considered one of the best in the game. Which he is not. You're probably going to say its just a number and if the stats bear out then why does it matter. While I agree with you that these numbers are purely cosmetic, for the most part, I'm sure it has some effect on the way gm's in the game sign people and hand out contracts because of the inflated ratings.

slick...nothing against you....but this is EXACTLY why I have been against #'s from the start.
How can I argue something that isn't real? Nowhere outside a video game is this even used. It's preposterous...
..and you bring up Altuve.
What is a 90 in this game?
What is an 85? What is the actual difference?

...and going past a 99.....how can it be?
If a guy with 87/88....92/94.....and nothing at 99 except for say fielding is a 99(which it is in the game once you see it)....then obviously higher ratings will translate into an ACTUAL(not displayed) OVR above a 99.

While CPU GM's do see the OVR as a tool in trades/moves/signings etc....I believe they also see it on the true scale(in which the human player is forced to actually put some further investigation into(stats/etc)...so they see a player is 110 etc...

Why didn't they display past 99?...IDK

M.K.
Knight165

[CMH]

I'm gonna make a quick assumption and bring forward an idea.

Perhaps, outside of any limitations, there is no way to see past 99 because those players are the cream of the crop and the reality is we cannot factually argue which of those 99 rated players is better than the other.

So, in essence, the game ratings are being designed to reflect reality in that the argument behind Pujols vs Cabrera is an argument that would never see a winner. So they are 99s.

Now an idea. How would you guys feel if instead of showing us ratings, the game simply ranked players 1-1xxx?

I ask because it seems this is what people actually want but I don't think they truly understand the arguments that would be created by such a system.


Sent from my mobile device.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

One interesting tid bit I learned at CD was that the cpu looks at statistics as well for making trades. So ovl and potential are not only factors looked at.