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

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

The problem I have with this argument and line of thinking is that an attribute rating of 73 (pick any number from 0-100 really) can result in a range of outcomes and the alternatives to ratings are not as concealing as some might think. This isn't a simple algebra problem where plugging in X rating gives you Y stat in a predictable fashion with no 'fog of war'. One can see with simming seasons that a player has a pretty wide range of outcomes despite having the same set of ratings entering into each sim. People are overly downplaying the variability built into the ratings --> results process. As for played games, I'd imagine that your user inputs and global settings are at least as important as the ratings of the players you use. And if we are looking at historical stats or at a scouting report that is basically saying the same thing as ratings (all of them answer the basic question: how good is this player?), how is that different really? If you have a choice between 40 HR guy and 35 HR guy and you need a homer, you pick the 40 HR guy much like you'd choose a 95 POW guy over a 90 POW guy. In both cases, the weighted dice roll is in your favor. In both cases, you are basing your decision on a number. In both cases, your decision still might not work out. And if you're making decisions on who to play based on scouting, you simply go with the guy with the most glowing report from your scout. No matter the system, there is not a way for the game (remember it's a game and we can't have real life uncertainty in there sorry to say) to completely hide its dealings from us. We'd either see the advantageous choice/player in numerical ratings (like we do now), or we'd see this same thing in stats--pick the guy with the better stats--(like what BrianU is proposing), or we'd see it in the language in scouting reports (as others have proposed), or we'd see it in some combination of the three. ...

The problem is not the variance in results (which everyone seems plenty in the game), but the way *expected* results can be rather accurately derived from in-game attributes, when those are the true drivers of the simulation engine (which they are in The Show). Inferring ability to perform in future from past performance (stats, memory, etc.) or by subjective impression (e.g., scouting) is entirely different from looking directly at the true ability.

For statisticians, those are basically the differences between sample mean (something like scouting), population mean (perhaps stats like WAR), vs "true" population mean (attributes).

Basically scouting and advanced stats like WAR are trying very hard, from different perspectives, to estimate what that "true" talent level is for a player. The game, on the other hand, is actually giving us THE truth.

And a whole a lot of people enjoy doing scouting and calculating WARs. No need to do so in a game that provides the truth upfront.

[BrianU]

I gave examples of how picking between a 40 HR guy and a 45 HR guy is not the same as picking between 75 Power and 74 Power. The result variance has zero to do with this. You literally get a bigger PCI and a better chance with the higher rated guy. That's absolute, it is wrong and illogical to pick the lower Power guy all else equal if you need a home run. I don't see the argument. I'm done replying because I already made my point successfully about why the 40 HR guy might be a better choice. His current Power vs L rating (The only thing that matters) could be higher than the 45 HR guy. Because he may have less ABs, gotten 30 of his HRs more recently by coming into the game hot leading to a higher Current Power rating while the 45 HR guy started the season hot and has been cooling off leading to a lower Current Power rating.

You would not pick the player with the better avg or HR or steals because those numbers do not directly correlate to performance they are just guidelines. Whereas current rating that we see now directly relates. The baserunner on second is my perfect example. There is absolutely never a scenario when picking a 66 speed guy over a 67 speed guy makes sense. There is no variance in getting from 2nd base to home on a hit to the outfield. The 67 speed player gives you the best chance. Now if you don't have access to their Speed rating you have to decide based on what you know from playing with them and from their statistics. You are ignoring the difference between being able to see the players Current Ratings and their statistics. Statistics have a lag in them if you will, and are not absolutes like Current Ratings are. Two players batting .270 are not equal. Say you are playing in June, Player A got 30 of his hits in April while slumping the past 4 weeks while Player B started the season slow but got 30 of his hits in the last 4 weeks. Who do you go with when you need a walk off hit? Well even that information is not enough because you don't know what Contact ratings they started the season with. on top of the fact that ratings are dynamic month to month. So who has the higher Current Contact rating? You stop judging players on ratings and start judging them on what you know about them. And that is when you are one step closer to baseball nirvana.

There is so much more to think about when you aren't looking at a watered down numeric rating that makes the call for you. Static gameplay is boring and stale. The future is in emergent, dynamic gameplay. That is why traits are so big in other sports games. I think baseball is harder to bring traits into the gameplay but hiding the ratings to me is the answer. I love small ball, the minor decisions a manager has to make each game to steer his team toward victory. Shift or no shift, defensive sub or not, pinch hitter/pinch runner, play the infield in, etc.. I want to feel the weight of the decision for myself. Displaying ratings robs you of that experience. Maybe it's something you have to try before buying into I just don't see in my mind how this wouldn't be a positive thing. I'm not sure what you are arguing against because you would never have to play this way, but if you woke up one day and thought "You know what my whole life I've been playing videogame baseball instead of sim baseball today I want to do things different" You could turn on your sparkling PS4 and do just that.

Not only does statistics based decisions make the game more realistic, but it also promotes the spirit of the game. When you are choosing a pinch hitter you get to do it the same way as a real life manager, through your knowledge of that player and your experiences with him. Your 'feel' for the player. You will become more attached to your players on your team and it will guide your decisions. Instead of currently where when you build a team you looking at their ratings and trade accordingly to bolster your team, you would have a total different experience to team building. GMs don't look at overalls.

I'm not wishing to be critical towards the devs in any way because the truth is no sports game has done this. Before The Show 16 it wouldn't have even been possible or enjoyable, but now that they implemented career stats and stat based progression it seems like a natural fit. And baseball is the perfect sport for this to do it with. It is actually possible for the first time in The Show to not have to look at the player's Ratings because we have all the information we need at our fingertips inside the game. I'd be honored to have this idea stolen from me for the future generations of The Show players to get to live my dream of total immersion. The only thing missing is sunflower seeds. Maybe Playstation VR will add a taste sensor add-on and I can die a happy man?

[TattooedEvil]

Quote: Originally Posted by BrianU

If you were playing for a million dollars and you had bases loaded with the pitcher up in a 3 run game, would you ever under any circumstance pinch hit with a 96 power guy over a 97 power guy all else equal? You would pick the 97 because it gives you the best chance. That is an absolute there is nothing required but looking at a number.

sorry but this is so false. Who's to say u hit better with the 97 power guy? There's literally some 60 contact guys that i'll hit .320 and 88 contact guys where i cant break .250. I've also only broke 40 HRs with one player (Brandon Belt) and had 90+ power guys where i cant hit 25+....theres just some guys u cant hit with so why would i want to hit with the 95con 90power guy when i hit better with a certain 70/55 guy? its all in who u hit well with.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by TattooedEvil

sorry but this is so false. Who's to say u hit better with the 97 power guy? There's literally some 60 contact guys that i'll hit .320 and 88 contact guys where i cant break .250. I've also only broke 40 HRs with one player (Brandon Belt) and had 90+ power guys where i cant hit 25+....theres just some guys u cant hit with so why would i want to hit with the 95con 90power guy when i hit better with a certain 70/55 guy? its all in who u hit well with.

BrianU's point on Power attribute stands under all-else-being-equal conditions...

If you are controlling the in-game player, there may be certain factors (even weird things like batting stance, how comfortable/pressed you feel with players you feel attachment to) that affect how well you hit with the guy, but that's basically on you, and you are being the factor. When the player is controlled by CPU, it mostly becomes about attributes.

This is even more so when games are simmed (where some of the attributes that provide more varied characters to players don't factor in, like individual pitch attributes).

[BeatArmy]

Just caught the archive and I have to ask: is performance progression broken again already?

A guy losing 10 pts of ability in a single year while being mid-20s (in a single category but still...) seems already a little imbalanced. Same with gaining 10pts in a category.

Remember when we were scolded for wanting to edit potential and were told that it would mess up the game in future years by causing unbalanced rosters? How is this different and how ironic is it that we now require editable potential just to keep it reasonably playable?

[geisterhome]

First I was kind of laughing about the children playing card games like dd and ut but now it seems like those modes are killing the old fashioned way of sports games I like...

Sent from my GEM-702L using Tapatalk

[Unlucky 13]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

BrianU's point on Power attribute stands under all-else-being-equal conditions... If you are controlling the in-game player, there may be certain factors (even weird things like batting stance, how comfortable/pressed you feel with players you feel attachment to) that affect how well you hit with the guy, but that's basically on you, and you are being the factor. When the player is controlled by CPU, it mostly becomes about attributes. This is even more so when games are simmed (where some of the attributes that provide more varied characters to players don't factor in, like individual pitch attributes).

I was going to make a very similar point. There have been plenty of times when I'm playing the game where player A may be rated lower than player B, but I consistantly hit better with player A. I'm pretty sure that batting stance effects it, as you said, and I think that for me, some of the player's atributes probably have a larger effect than others do, so the OVR isn't always the true indicator.

I've had franchises where a 75-80 OVR player ends up being the superstar MVP of my team and not the 90+ OVR guys. Another factor that I'm not sure I've discussed here before is my belief that in some cases, the CPU will pitch higher rated batters differently than lower rated ones. The lower rated batter ends up getting better pitches to hit, and ends up having the better season.

[NAFBUC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dolenz

It's interesting that you call the two most played modes, according to the developers, "side modes".

you know.......money on the side.....