MLB 10 News Post

MLB '10: The Show - Player Potential Fix Coming in Next Roster Update

02:04 PM - March 2, 2010 by Russell_SCEA

If you think someone in the game has a less than desirable player potential post their name and current potential in the game here, thanks.

P.S. Just post their name, potential, and what you think it should be. That is all, please don't clutter the thread.

*Update: It's a bug and it will be fixed in the next roster update.

MLB '10: The Show screenshot gallery - Click to view

Game: MLB '10: The ShowReader Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3Votes for game: 66 - View All

MLB '10: The Show Videos

Member Comments

# 21 ocho cuatro @ 03/02/10 03:42 PM

I'd also like to see a change in how the "A potential" ratings are distributed through the generic prospects. I like to do completely custom rosters, so the first thing I did was go through the available generic A's to see how many I had to work with.

This is what I found:

* 142 total propects with A potential (seems like a lot)
* 123 are pitchers
* 19 are position players

And since we can't edit potential, there's no way to change this to a more even distribution of pitchers/position players.

I'd love to see this fixed with the first patch.

# 22 stormshadow1 @ 03/02/10 03:42 PM

I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player".

David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player.

Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

# 23 VitaminKG21 @ 03/02/10 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocho cuatro


	I'd also like to see a change in how the "A potential" ratings are distributed through the generic prospects. I like to do completely custom rosters, so the first thing I did was go through the available generic A's to see how many I had to work with. This is what I found: * 142 total propects with A potential (seems like a lot) * 123 are pitchers * 19 are position players And since we can't edit potential, there's no way to change this to a more even distribution of pitchers/position players. I'd love to see this fixed with the first patch.

Agreed. Once again there seems to be something in the way the ability ratings add up that make pitchers more "valuable" than position players and thus grant them higher potential ratings.

I have to say I'm slightly shocked that this kind of thing still happens, not just in this game, but seemingly every game I play (FIFA, NCAA Football, etc.)

# 24 bk7987 @ 03/02/10 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormshadow1


	I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player". David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player. Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

I've been trying to battle this for the whole thread. Yes, that makes sense. No, that's not how the game works.

If he has an "F" potential rating--which he does--he declines 10 points a year easily. I've simmed a couple season, and this is almost universally true for the names I posted on the first page of this thread.

# 25 VitaminKG21 @ 03/02/10 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormshadow1


	I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player". David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player. Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

+1

Unfortunately as stated, an 'F' rating means he will regress quickly.

# 26 the_steve @ 03/02/10 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdDegree5803


	some more odd-balls Jermaine Dye A potential Matt Stairs A potential Joe Mauer C potential

Something has to be wrong with the tables. Its like someone sorted the rating list and forgot to select all of the columns.

# 27 VitaminKG21 @ 03/02/10 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_steve


	Something has to be wrong with the tables. Its like someone sorted the rating list and forgot to select all of the columns.

Scary thing is, that could easily have happened.

# 28 stormshadow1 @ 03/02/10 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaminKG21


	+1 Unfortunately as stated, an 'F' rating means he will regress quickly.

This could really be a buster for me. With potential not being able to be edited, we would need a patch.

# 29 mhagf4 @ 03/02/10 03:59 PM

I'm guessing based on who started this thread, that this is a known issue that is going to be resolved. Any idea of when we should expect a fix on this? Can it be resolved with the next roster update? shouldn't be too hard to fix.

# 30 KJWILLIAMS1 @ 03/02/10 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdDegree5803


	Reds players i noticed... Chris Dickerson - D, should be a B at least Paul Janish - F, should be a C at least... Matt Maloney D, should be a B at least Wilkin Castillo D, should be a C (was last year) Justin Lehr D, should be a C Carlos Fisher D, should be a B or a C at least Danny Herrara D i think (game isn't in front of me) should be a A or B at least

I love the Reds, but I disagree with all these posted. None of these guys are any good. They are average/below average players at best. There are good Reds prospects that need to have the great potential ratings like: Francisco, Alonzo, Heisey, Chapman, Wood, Frazier, and Leake. Dont get these guys above more credit than they deserve. I watch every game being a Reds fan, but you have to be able to distinquish from what your favorites teams guys are talent wise vs. what your perception/wishes their talent was.

Guys everywhere do this far too often. I am not ripping you at all, but you have to take the approach of watching all guys and comparing them to the league around them. None of the guys you mentioned are rising stars or even rising. Come on now, the guys I mentioned above are the Reds "rising stars."

Thanks.

# 31 stormshadow1 @ 03/02/10 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bk7987


	I've been trying to battle this for the whole thread. Yes, that makes sense. No, that's not how the game works. If he has an "F" potential rating--which he does--he declines 10 points a year easily. I've simmed a couple season, and this is almost universally true for the names I posted on the first page of this thread.

Again, I think this needs a fixing. What the hell is the point of playing past 2-3 seasons? All the star players with an F rating in the game now will be crap by then.

Not only should they not be F's, but they decline at a fast rate when clearly they are superstars See Wright and Reyes.

# 32 vegaas @ 03/02/10 04:04 PM

I hope they give us some info on if this is an easy fix through a roster update. I just bought the game and all I play is franchise. Game is worthless to me at the moment.

# 33 KMS_RB_34 @ 03/02/10 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJWILLIAMS1


	I love the Reds, but I disagree with all these posted. None of these guys are any good. They are average/below average players at best. There are good Reds prospects that need to have the great potential ratings like: Francisco, Alonzo, Heisey, Chapman, Wood, Frazier, and Leake. Dont get these guys above more credit than they deserve. I watch every game being a Reds fan, but you have to be able to distinquish from what your favorites teams guys are talent wise vs. what your perception/wishes their talent was. Guys everywhere do this far too often. I am not ripping you at all, but you have to take the approach of watching all guys and comparing them to the league around them. None of the guys you mentioned are rising stars or even rising. Come on now, the guys I mentioned above are the Reds "rising stars." Thanks.

I disagree with you. Yes, the prospects you have mentioned do deserve to have high potential ratings (Frazier,Heisey,Alonso,Chapman). The players he mentioned aren't all A or B potential ratings but they have produced at the major league level, so there is no way their ratings should be F's or some D's.

Danny Herrera - age 25 - 61 innings pitched with a 3.06 ERA, should not be a D potential.

# 34 theotherguy619 @ 03/02/10 04:36 PM

Why don't we have the guys who are making the OS Rosters submit a list to the SCEA guys of what they think are the correct potentials. That way we don't have people submitting their bias potential ratings.

Roster guys: I don't mean to make more work for you, but I think it's a job best suited for you since you edit every other aspect of the roster.

# 35 19 @ 03/02/10 04:39 PM

Ugh... what a mess. Godspeed to all you roster makers out there.

# 36 Russell_SCEA @ 03/02/10 04:39 PM

Ok guys its a bug and it will be fixed on the next roster update

# 37 19 @ 03/02/10 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	Ok guys its a bug and it will be fixed on the next roster update

Thanks SCEA, on top of things like always.

New update next Monday I'm assuming?

# 38 volsman @ 03/02/10 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	Ok guys its a bug and it will be fixed on the next roster update

Any that will be? Sorry but i have not opened my game yet and plan to either take it back and pick up the other game or wait on an update if it is not to far off.

# 39 GoBucs09 @ 03/02/10 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	Ok guys its a bug and it will be fixed on the next roster update

Great news Russell! Thanks.

So do we need to keep providing Players and Potential/Correct Potential?

# 40 19 @ 03/02/10 04:44 PM

Will the large amount of generic A potential pitchers be corrected as well?

« Previous 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

More Links

MLB '10: The Show - Player Potential Fix Coming in Next Roster Update