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

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

It sounds like you can game the system by putting the star in a star slot in the permanent lineup screen and then prior to the game switching him a "non-star" position in the lineup. Juggling lineups rhp & lhp would probably be good enough to a least keep them neutral and not angry. It could be a problem with the pitching staff - I doubt there is more than one "ace" slot. What could be a problem is progression which appears to be somewhat mercurial.

This was my first thought when I heard/read it was only based on "permanent" lineup position. I know I personally do these types of last minute changes all the time already, because The Show insists on constantly changing my lineups, and I just get tired of fixing them.

I hope that doesn't mean I get incorrect penalties and benefits because the "permanent" lineup I use is not necessarily the one I play every day with.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Speedy

The features list doesn't specificy it's PS4 only so I believe it is.

That's cool. Didn't think it was possible on ps3.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[bigmike0077]

anyone got any answers or ideas in regards to this

The part im confused about is, when signing those generated players to contracts, even the ones in the minors to fill out rosters, how does that signing process work, is the morale tied into that aswell? Would a minor league prospect want top Tier coaching staff and Close to home? or do those not apply to them yet?

Also For carry over saves, do even then generated players now have a hometown after you do the carry over?

[Bondsfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

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

I guess Jon Dowd is still out there trying to get a hitting coach job somewhere...

[Lovesports]

I keep reading this over and over again. Ratings are a reflection of player performance, wether it's real life, video games, weekly updates etc. Not having performance progression is like me telling you, you're gonna be a 50 overall wether you hit .220 or .320. Wether you hit 40 homers or 6. You guys don't make any sense. Your argument of a guy hit .220 because he sucks and not he sucks because he hit .220. What are you talking about? Plain English, he sucks and his ratings reflect that. If he plays better next year, his ratings should reflect that too. Performance progression is ideal and I'm happy they finally realized it.

[dran1984]

Quote: Originally Posted by rabnothimself

I noticed the Phillies warm up caps are wrong when they were scrolling through the Phil's uniforms. They still had last years warm up caps in. I wonder if that's gonna get fixed or if it's final.

They already said that the new ST jerseys/caps won't be in because they released them too late. However, the Phillies new red alternate is in and it's basically the same as the new ST jersey. Same for a lot of teams this year.

The one think that is odd is the order of the jerseys in the video. It goes from home white to the next one being road warm-up. Maybe in this build they were still adding the jerseys.

[JoshC1977]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

I keep reading this over and over again. Ratings are a reflection of player performance, wether it's real life, video games, weekly updates etc. Not having performance progression is like me telling you, you're gonna be a 50 overall wether you hit .220 or .320. Wether you hit 40 homers or 6. You guys don't make any sense. Your argument of a guy hit .220 because he sucks and not he sucks because he hit .220. What are you talking about? Plain English, he sucks and his ratings reflect that. If he plays better next year, his ratings should reflect that too. Performance progression is ideal and I'm happy they finally realized it.

Whether or not people realize it, you are half right. Players have poor statistical seasons in any sport. So, yes, for that season, maybe their ratings should take a hit. However, a player's true talent typically does not fluctuate that much from year to year.

If you want to have statistically-based progression/regression, that's fine....but they should only be a modifier to the player's ratings. Say you have a 50 overall rated player. If he hits .320, maybe his "stat-based" modifier improves enough where his effective rating makes him closer to a 60 overall. It's actually quite rare for a player's tools to suddenly change one season to the next (exception being minor leaguers and some young major leaguers). If Trout has a bad year and hits .250, he shouldn't suddenly drop to a 60 overall because the likelihood that his tools have regressed that suddenly is very unlikely.

I have no problem factoring-in some statistical-progression/regression into the formula....but making it based solely on that is not realistic at all....you're just begging for long-term franchise instability.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

I keep reading this over and over again. Ratings are a reflection of player performance, wether it's real life, video games, weekly updates etc. Not having performance progression is like me telling you, you're gonna be a 50 overall wether you hit .220 or .320. Wether you hit 40 homers or 6. You guys don't make any sense. Your argument of a guy hit .220 because he sucks and not he sucks because he hit .220. What are you talking about? Plain English, he sucks and his ratings reflect that. If he plays better next year, his ratings should reflect that too. Performance progression is ideal and I'm happy they finally realized it.

This makes no sense.

Saying a player gets better because of past performance is absurd.
If what you are trying to say were true....it would be a direct line in one way or the other.....never varying.
Not that direct potential driven progression/regression was anything but that anyway....which was the biggest complaint about that....

There is no way a player hits .332 and then magically is "better" the following year. He hit .332 because he improved PREVIOUSLY to starting that season.(he might have hit .300 2 years previous and then .287 his last year before hitting .332......that doesn't happen in performance based progression)

The truest algorithm for player performance would be based on.....his potential....his work ethic...his coaching and....chance.
Players go through peaks and valleys....not direct arcs.....I could show you thousands of players whose careers had years of great highs followed directly by tremendous lows and then back up.
(I think SCEA actually upped the "random" factor to performance last year..and it was great IMO)
The system you are alluding to would never allow that.

From what I see .....that is NOT what SCEA has instituted(thankfully)....and while performance might be playing a larger role in driving a players attributes......from what Luis stated.....potential...training...coaching and current level will also have a hand.

I guess we play...and then comment on the new system!

M.K.
Knight165