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

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by NAFBUC

I could not agree more drew.........you were not bashing SCEA or saying I will not buy this years version. Valid points were made in a respectful manner. Everyone has 'priority features' they would like to see improved each year. This forum is for discussion which is why the 'play OOTP' if you want stat tracking is getting old.

Except his very first paragraph insinuates that SCEA was lying about being able to store stats(the PS3 variable).....instead of what is more likely....they changed the way stats were stored by rewriting the programming for that which does so.
Veiled as it might be....it's there.

Which is happening more and more and is also..."getting old".

Man....I'm losing interest in O.S......something I would never have thought would happen.



Onto the other subject at hand...
I don't think Brian was saying to RID the game of attributes...but hide them....and you would know a player was a good contact hitter without seeing his 85 by....his scouting report!

The actual attribute is still there to drive the game....you would just be able to not view it.

That's what I got from his posts.

M.K.
Knight165

[Drew127]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Except his very first paragraph insinuates that SCEA was lying about being able to store stats(the PS3 variable).....instead of what is more likely....they changed the way stats were stored by rewriting the programming for that which does so. Veiled as it might be....it's there.

I was advocating for more stats on the PS3 for years, and got very specifically shot down by SCEA, stating it was not technically possible on the PS3. It was completely dismissed, and the discussion was closed. It wasn't received in a way at all where I felt like there was room left to talk about it.

So naturally, years later, seeing it implemented on the PS3 left somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth. I can get on board with having other priorities, and I understand it. If that was outright said at the time, it'd be a lot easier to understand. But to be outright dismissed and hushed on something is not the way I would like to go about it.

We all have different things we want to see the in the game, and I actually gave a pretty clear and fair acknowledgement as to why I understand they aren't part of the game yet. That's not going to stop me from keeping them part of the discussion and pushing for them in future versions.

[tnixen]

MLB The Show 16 is looking like a fantastic update to the series. But the top 3 things Sony should have on their white board and work on for MLB The Show 17 is the following!

Presentation and Commentary
Player Models
Franchise Mode

Who's with me

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Drew127

I was advocating for more stats on the PS3 for years, and got very specifically shot down by SCEA, stating it was not technically possible on the PS3. It was completely dismissed, and the discussion was closed. It wasn't received in a way at all where I felt like there was room left to talk about it. So naturally, years later, seeing it implemented on the PS3 left somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth. I can get on board with having other priorities, and I understand it. If that was outright said at the time, it'd be a lot easier to understand. But to be outright dismissed and hushed on something is not the way I would like to go about it. We all have different things we want to see the in the game, and I actually gave a pretty clear and fair acknowledgement as to why I understand they aren't part of the game yet. That's not going to stop me from keeping them part of the discussion and pushing for them in future versions.

I was in no way posting about what you or anyone wanted/wants to see in the game.


M.K.
Knight165

[Drew127]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

I was in no way posting about what you or anyone wanted/wants to see in the game. M.K. Knight165

OK man. But you did paint a picture that I'm being unreasonable, and I wanted to address it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable by bringing up some things that didn't sit right with me.

Anyways, I've said my piece. Moving on.

[eric7064]

Quote: Originally Posted by tnixen

MLB The Show 16 is looking like a fantastic update to the series. But the top 3 things Sony should work on for MLB The Show 17 is the following! Presentation and Commentary Player Models Franchise Mode Who's with me

Agree 100%

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

That's where I tend to disagree. The variance is the whole, entire issue here. If 85 contact equated to a definite batting average, then it would be a boring game. That's not the case. That the 85 contact rating tells us a player is a good contact hitter relative to most others is not a problem or an unreasonable advantage, because this type of information is readily available simply by having even a passing knowledge of the real life players. With or without ratings, most baseball fans would know this. The derivation also goes both ways. If you are saying that *expected* results can be fairly accurately derived from in-game attributes, then the same can be said about reverse engineering the in-game attributes and them being fairly accurately derived from the *expected* (or actual) results. Maybe one approach is more interesting or seems more mysterious to some people, but it is basically the same approach where you are relying on quantitative data provided by the game that hints at the true abilities of a player in order to make decisions. The variance that links the rating to the result, whether in a sim or played game, and the interplay of different attributes/factors to muddy the waters (I don't even think the originator of the "it's a no brainer to pick the higher power rating but not necessarily the guy with the most HRs" theory would reduce the likelihood of a HR to a single rating), is the whole issue. The variance being large enough to give us a range of different outcomes marginalizes any advantage we gain from discovering, as mentioned in your stats mini-lecture, the "true" population mean for free. ...

I think what you are missing here is the fact that attributes are THE numbers that express true ability of a player in this game. The fact that you still see variations in stats (e.g., every time you simulate a season), is purely due to sampling effect due to natural random variation; if you fix player attributes, keep repeating the simulation, and accumulate enough sample size, and do appropriate analysis, then you will actually find there are pretty clear and (somewhat simple) relations between attributes and the stats that the simulation engine produces.

And it is actually true that something like Contact = 65 is meant to produce a .260 hitter at the MLB level. I lost the exact mappings B Ma revealed long time ago, but there are relations like this for all attributes. Sure, you will actually see Contact = 65 hitter hitting .230 or even .290 in any given season, but that's not because the game internally modules his ability to hit for a .260 any given time... it's only because he got (un)lucky, and the sample size isn't big enough within a season for his stats to equilibrate to .260 closely.

In such a case, you should always make your plan using attributes over stats, because only thing stats tell us is how the player over/under-performed to that point in season, relative to his expected performance level (which attributes accurately describe).

To me, that really robs us of one of the most fascinating aspects of appreciating baseball... all those imaginative elements between stats and baseball action itself. I think baseball stats are interesting because, while they are extensive and have come a long way with sabermetrics, they are still mysterious in a lot of ways, and when you look at basic stats and how players perform, there are still many "why is this?" moments. (Not to mention baseball stats look aesthetically beautiful... but that's just me.)

Players highly touted by scouts have often failed... great minor-league stats often not translating to MLB performance... players mysteriously upping their game all of sudden and vice versa.

All these fun stuff happens largely because we don't have access to complete information of player ability in real life.

Unfortunately, console video games tend to reduce all that imaginative exercises to simple numbers like OVR and non-obscured attributes.

[BrianU]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

That's where I tend to disagree. The variance is the whole, entire issue here. If 85 contact equated to a definite batting average, then it would be a boring game. That's not the case. That the 85 contact rating tells us a player is a good contact hitter relative to most others is not a problem or an unreasonable advantage, because this type of information is readily available simply by having even a passing knowledge of the real life players. With or without ratings, most baseball fans would know this. The derivation also goes both ways. If you are saying that *expected* results can be fairly accurately derived from in-game attributes, then the same can be said about reverse engineering the in-game attributes and them being fairly accurately derived from the *expected* (or actual) results. Maybe one approach is more interesting or seems more mysterious to some people, but it is basically the same approach where you are relying on quantitative data provided by the game that hints at the true abilities of a player in order to make decisions. The variance that links the rating to the result, whether in a sim or played game, and the interplay of different attributes/factors to muddy the waters (I don't even think the originator of the "it's a no brainer to pick the higher power rating but not necessarily the guy with the most HRs" theory would reduce the likelihood of a HR to a single rating), is the whole issue. The variance being large enough to give us a range of different outcomes marginalizes any advantage we gain from discovering, as mentioned in your stats mini-lecture, the "true" population mean for free. I'm arguing that this ratings-less approach is not much different than what we already do with ratings. I still don't agree with you. Not that we have to agree or that either one of us needs to really care outside of having a respectful, high brow discussion for a change that has probably gone off topic by now... Whether you are looking at ratings or at the stats that were produced as a function of said ratings, you have basically the same level of predictive power. If you are arguing that the ratings are too deterministic as to what future outcomes will be (always choose a 98 OVR over a 97 OVR etc..) then I can just as easily argue that a 40 HR player will always be more successful than a 35 HR player in hitting a homer when you need it. If the single ratings are that strictly tied to results and outcomes, then you can't uncouple the 2 as you are trying to do here by saying using one approach to decide how to manage is fundamentally a different ballgame than the other. Your hypothetical 40-HR player would definitely have the higher POW attribute and you'd be enjoying the results of that massive PCI. Whether "what you know about the player" is 67 CON or that he hit .286 last season (which is based on said ratings) or that your scout says he's a plus contact hitter, you have similar predictive power about what will happen in his next AB.

The way the game works currently the rating you see in-game at the pinch hitter menu is the current Contact/Power rating. If you were to only be able to view his batting statistics, .avg vs lefty/righty HR vs lefty/righty those numbers do not translate 1:1 to his current Contact and Power ratings. It is absolutely not the same thing in any way. We are gonna go in circles until our pants fall down but it's cool I love talking about The Show and baseball.

Other people bringing up that sometimes they do better with a lower Power or Contact guy then a higher one is completely not part of this topic. I said "All else being equal" and if you argue you do better with a lower rated player just because of some voodoo magic you are objectively wrong. You are falling victim to sample size. If you think of it as a science experiment the variable is the PCI which is higher as the ratings go up. That is the only variable, everything else is constant. Every player has the same bat speed. Their batting animations mean nothing we do not have real-time physics when it comes to placing the bat on the ball it is ALL ratings controlled, everything else is in your head. That is straight up voodoo. Your user input magically does not change because you are using A-Rod over Ike Davis. Your user skill is a constant no matter the batter you are using, his bat speed is the same, the only difference is ratings, so there is an absolute answer in who to pick to pinch hit in my scenario and the other choice is objectively incorrect.

I'm not ready to tap out yet because I think what I am proposing and others have seen as a cool idea would be forward thinking and groundbreaking in the sports game genre. That we have gotten to the point where we can usher in a new way to manage the game and make decisions as a GM.

Statistics based decisions have greater variability than rating based decisions, statistics DO NOT translate 1:1 to gameplay as Ratings do. Higher ratings = larger PCI = giving yourself a better chance of success. A player with higher batting statistics at a point in the season or his career = not enough information given to determine his PCI = creates a brand new dynamic which does not exist when Ratings are shown.

I keep bringing up examples and you sidestepping them so this is not a debate. Tell me how when you are playing in June that choosing between a player with .255 batting avgVL in the current season and a guy with .250 batting avgvL in the current season is the same as choosing a Current contactvL 75 player and a Current 70 contactvL player. CURRENT is the key word here, the game as it works today shows their CURRENT rating. The contact ratings are what they are, the information is handed to you without any need to interpret it. It removes an aspect of the game and waters it down. Not talking smack to the developers, this is is how every sports game is in the year 2016. But we have now reached the point in sports gaming where it can be different and in my opinion superior.

The batting average is much more complex because a player with .250 avgvL CAN have a higher CURRENT Contact rating then a player with a .255 avgvL. Of course you also have more bench players some who will have a .260 avgvL, .275avgvL, .280 avgvL. Of the five players who do you choose? It's as simple as the highest batting average?

Do you really believe Major League managers manage the game that way? Like they automatically choose the highest batting average to pinch hit with? You know they don't so why don't they? Because there is context within the batting average vs lefty that you must know. There is absolutely a scenario where the .260 avgvL has a higher CURRENT contactvL rating then the .280 avgVL and I've given the examples of how that is possible. The .275 avgvL hitter could be the highest CURRENT rating, the .280 avgVL could be the highest CURRENT rating.

You cannot tell from just the statistics alone and that is why if you are a total simulation player it is superior to play that way and more accurate to the spirit of baseball in real life, where answers are not black and white and managers don't always make 100% correct decisions as we do currently when we have the current ratings displayed to us and the interpretation of the players is removed from the process. I am saying that there is a hardcore more sim-like approach that can be taken and I am advocating that we be given this option in the future because it would be perfect at the present time and place that the greatness of this game has reached in terms of gameplay and stat tracking.

Just because I highlight an issue I have does not mean it should ruin the game for anyone. You have the ability to increase the realism factor by avoiding looking at ratings, it just is a bit of a challenge though I think it is worth it in what you gain from playing this way.

The statistics displayed ratings removed approach would be a complete gamechanger and the biggest change to move the game towards even more simulation baseball on top of the GREAT package the devs have put together the last however many years The Show has been around. It is an interesting discussion to have. Regardless of if anyone agrees with this idea or if it ever gets implemented as an option, I am going to try to play this way for myself this year where I make my decisions off statistics rather than ratings as much as I possibly can. I just desire an easier way given where I don't have to close my eyes at certain screens of gameplay/franchise mode to not be exposed to the raw player ratings. I can almost promise if this was a feature that you could enable in franchise that very few people would use it. Sort of the Online Franchise vs rest of the game debate. But the amount of effort required to add what I am proposing doesn't seem like it would be as major as overhauling Online Franchise, though I don't know how much time or effort it takes to redesign menu screens and gameplay screens and add a toggle option to the franchise creation menu. It just seems to me it would be worth it for what it would add to the experience. Maybe I'll start a kickstarter and send them the extra funds myself to implement my dream!