MLB The Show 16 Video - Franchise, Player Morale and Much More

[Russell_SCEA]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

So, Luis is taking notes??

That's a big fat negative ghost rider.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I like the way the Show calculates ratings. In Heyward's case his 2015 stats would be 50%. .271/11/58 and .254/14/38 from 2014 and 2013 are 25% each.

Contact around 60, power mid 50's. He is an average corner outfielder at the plate although in Wrigley I expect his power numbers to be better.

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

I agree with this 100%. In the beginning of every season, players get their video game "ratings" based on how they perform in real life the year before. This is fact. However, some attributes should stay constant. My only solution is to create a player attribute such as "performance" attribute which is only affected by the player performance and calculated into their overall. Example contact 70, power 50, speed 85, performance 90. This assures that the players playing attributes stay pretty much unaffected, however, their "performance" rating is what makes them a highly sought out player and their pay becomes higher. just an idea

We're on the same page. I wouldn't have it as a rating though, I'd just want the AI make evaluations based on performance. If the game is getting new stats like WAR I think there is a lot to work with without having to introduce a new rating. The game is getting more and more robust each year so I think this will happen as more stats are tracked and new ones are introduced. They have teased that the 20-80 scale is in franchise for scouting so maybe the AI has been tweaked to do more of what you are saying.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

We've been down this road before. The problem with relying on performance for progression is the developers lose control of what the franchise looks like in future years. With year to year saves that becomes a major factor.

[tessl]

With coaches now being part of player morale I wonder if they will still work the same way as before by providing + or - to the team based upon each coach or manager's attributes.

[Lovesports]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You're mixing two different things though. tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression.... You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract. Two totally different things. But let's continue onto the last part of your post.... So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings? ....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward? Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do. VERY unrealistic IMO. M.K. Knight165

I'm not saying that he should hit rock bottom at all, but he certainly shouldn't be a 99 player who won't resign for any less than 25mil because of his rating. i do think that player contracts and trade value should be based on performance for sure even if you guys disagree that progression should. Let's pretend that the Show got rid of ratings altogether (not a bad idea) and kept them internal and not visible. How would you sign and trade for players? I'd say based on stats. So wouldn't it make more sense if performance carried more weight than it currently does? I remember hitting over .300 with 20 plus homers with a no name guy who was no more than a 60 overall and had a D potential. Guess what happened next year, he was still a 60 overall guy with a D potential that I resigned for like 400k. This would never happen in real life.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

I'm not saying that he should hit rock bottom at all, but he certainly shouldn't be a 99 player who won't resign for any less than 25mil because of his rating. i do think that player contracts and trade value should be based on performance for sure even if you guys disagree that progression should. Let's pretend that the Show got rid of ratings altogether (not a bad idea) and kept them internal and not visible. How would you sign and trade for players? I'd say based on stats. So wouldn't it make more sense if performance carried more weight than it currently does? I remember hitting over .300 with 20 plus homers with a no name guy who was no more than a 60 overall and had a D potential. Guess what happened next year, he was still a 60 overall guy with a D potential that I resigned for like 400k. This would never happen in real life.

Again....progression was the topic.

I would LOVE for players to be signed on a mix of performance(stats) as well as potential and even past performance(on the hope of a last gasp....or regaining of that previous spark...whatever)
I absolutely agree that contracts and FA/trades...etc should be MUCH more dependent on that.

Players progressing in rating based mainly on performance is problematic and not realistic IMO...

Not that I think the current progression/regression(at least '15 did give you a chance to have much more of a chance of a player playing above/below his ratings...making it much less "boring") is perfect or great....

...and I'd be all for hiding ratings.....I've actually posted that quite a few times.
The internet would explode though if that happened.
The Web Gen gotta have their OVR's!

M.K.
Knight165

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA

So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

Sorry for intruding.