MLB The Show 16 Twitch Stream - Franchise Mode & Gameplay (Archive Available)

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

Well here's one Easter Egg I found...'Reggie Stocker' is listed as the Marlins' hitting coach.

Haha....nice.


M.K.
Knight165

[jb12780]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

This is a little thing....that is really big for me. I can finally throw away the notepad with the save date/time and my own description! M.K. Knight165

Agreed. Will be nice to tell the difference between 2 different 30 team control files.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

Well here's one Easter Egg I found...'Reggie Stocker' is listed as the Marlins' hitting coach.

That's brilliant!

[Jgainsey]

Nothing new for online franchise is pretty disappointing...

I know the numbers aren't there like they are for offline, but this was really the first year that the game was consistently playable online.

Maybe it would get a little more action if it wasn't a shell of the offline mode, and if players didn't have to jump through hoops and put up with all kinds of weird quirks to keep their online franchises going.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[OUSOONERS#1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Well....not exactly. MVP didn't make enough money for EA to outbid 2K for the license ....which was obviously a problem for 2K as they couldn't make enough money to keep the game afloat .... Which is the same as.....baseball games needed to make more money for the companies...which is why DD(although not my mode at all) is actually a blessing for baseball games..... The other part of your post...well...I was already laughing at this thread...so... M.K. Knight165

There is no way people play DD more then Franchise and RTTS.. The franchise in this game is so stale and they have said for the last three years there would be an overhaul and every year it's something that hardly gets touched .. Until another company comes along n makes a baseball game will we truely get a full fleshed out game year to year because this team has always catered to the casual gamer that will fork over money by buying there game and by buying packs and stubs .. I'm not saying I don't like the game or that I don't think this team is not great at what they do I jus think they sell out on the casual side of this game to much ..

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by JTommy67

Unless we're talking about a couple of fluke at-bats, increased skill (relative to the opposing pitcher/hitter) is a prerequisite for increased performance. Players most certainly do not simultaneously express both at once; one causes the other, and its the reason that players don't begin exponentially increasing their output. Babe Ruth hitting a home run does not cause him to hit another home run, and doesn't increase his power in any way. The performance on the field is an effect of his skill relative to the pitcher he is facing. This is fundamental cause-and-effect and has been, traditionally, the foundation of the rating, progression, and performance system. If users seek rewards for their performance, I would think winning more games would be it. The new relationship is problematic because it creates a circular system. Ratings affect performance, which in turn affect ratings, which then affect performance, etc...All else being equal, it would accelerate progression either upward or downward much like a snowball, for at least some players. Performing well with a less-skilled player would not be just a great season, it would be a move toward changing the very potential arc of the player. I do not see how the old system of progression is more labor intensive. I have no problem with this in the RTTS, but in franchise mode...no way. But I guess we'll see how this plays out.

You're missing the point. No one disagrees with you. But what does it matter? The circular/snowball analogy you use is a fallacy. A player that has progressed still has the same chance of regressing the next year. A player that has regressed still has the same chance of progressing the next year.

And no "potential arc" is being changed. The progression and regression are calculated based on the player's current potential. Bryce Harper gains a lot more points after a good year than Ruben Tejada. Bryce Harper loses a lot fewer points after a bad year than Ruben Tejada.

You are right in that real life Babe Ruth does not hit a home run because of another home run he hit, but at the end of the day three events have occurred: 1) he hit a home run, 2) he hit a second home run, 3) he has established himself as a better baseball player.

The order with which those events occur is basically what you are disputing here. That order is of no consequence.

As an aside, regarding your last bit, you misunderstood. The progression in previous games was already tied to performance, just on a smaller scale, via a different methodology. Players that overperformed consistently, realized an increase in potential. The "alternative" system I describe is the one you would presumably want. That is the one that is more labor intensive.

Getting back to the discussion, I challenge you to identify even one difference of consequence, between the following scenarios. The first is the one you are advocating. The second is the one currently produced by The Show '16.

1) Player A is expected to hit 25 HRs. Player A has a 5% chance of improving his abilities and becoming a better baseball player. Player A improves, and goes on to hit 30 HRs, when 25 were expected.

2) Player B is expected to hit 25 HRs. Player B has a 5% chance of overperforming and hitting 30 HRs instead. Player B hits 30 HRs, and realizes an improvement in his abilities

At the end of the season, both players posted seasons equally deviant from their expected norms, both players experienced the same improvements from their ratings, and both players stand the same chance of experiencing further progression or regression in the subsequent year.

Mathematically, functionally, and practically speaking, there is NO identifiable difference between your preference and the current system. You're getting hung up on the psychology and logistics of it all. I understand, because I too am very detail oriented, but I promise you, scientifically speaking, in a video game, it doesn't matter at all.

[ninertravel]

Quote: Originally Posted by JTommy67

Would be nice if year-to-year roster compatibility was established, but there's been no discussion on it, so apparently not this year.

Once again though it's gonna have the problems with fake players from retried players in the game again making it to much work to edit the players because no import player option

[eric7064]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jgainsey

Nothing new for online franchise is pretty disappointing... I know the numbers aren't there like they are for offline, but this was really the first year that the game was consistently playable online. Maybe it would get a little more action if it wasn't a shell of the offline mode, and if players didn't have to jump through hoops and put up with all kinds of weird quirks to keep their online franchises going. Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Agree . Like you said last year was really the first time it was playable.