02:20 PM - January 27, 2012 by tnixen
Playstation.Blog has posted some MLB 12 The Show franchise mode improvements.
|
|||||||||
|
News Post
02:20 PM - January 27, 2012 by tnixenPlaystation.Blog has posted some MLB 12 The Show franchise mode improvements.
MLB 12 The Show Videos
Member Comments
|
|||||||||||||
|
I saw that Selig just announced he's nearly certain they are in for '12.
The announcement is on March 1st, right?
Next year.
M.K.
Knight165
|
|||||||||||||
|
It would still be dynamic, just not a certainty.....more a "probability"
M.K.
Knight165
|
|||||||||||||
|
You have to think about what the difference between .350 and .360 (or .210 and .205) mean. For 500 at bats, it amounts to a difference of only 5 hits (or 3). Over a season, such a tiny difference can come from luck.. a few bloopers or lucky infield hits, etc. Should these affect player ability? I don't think so...
You also have to think about how to deal with playing opportunity differences... Park factors when a player changes teams in mid seasons... etc., etc.
It really isn't very easy to come up with a stats-driven system that acts stably under complicated situations.
|
|||||||||||||
|
I would actually prefer to throw out overall ratings anyways, and have the stats reflect on individual ratings, like high average vs LH boosting the CON vs LH.
# 105
loganmorrison1 @ 01/28/12 01:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sent from Hayden Panettiere's #1 fan
# 107
loganmorrison1 @ 01/28/12 01:38 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sent from Hayden Panettiere's #1 fan
*Raises right hand*
"Yellow card sir!"
Back on topic...
I love the new rebuilding/contender interface. So awesome.
I cannot wait to trade Ichiro from the M's and get some serious prospects. Hopefully Mike Trout!
"Yellow card sir!"
Back on topic...
I love the new rebuilding/contender interface. So awesome.
I cannot wait to trade Ichiro from the M's and get some serious prospects. Hopefully Mike Trout!
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 111
BatsareBugs @ 01/28/12 01:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
A COVERUP!!!
Call out the C.I.A. and Mi-5!
What I was saying is....what's the big deal?
Not....they are right.....and someone else is wrong.
You guys are friggin' nuts.
M.K.
Knight165
# 113
BatsareBugs @ 01/28/12 01:59 AM
I remember when Mike Gonzalez changed his name to Michael Gonzalez, the change wasn't reflected immediately. Tony Gwynn Jr. was still Tony Gwynn Jr. despite getting changed to just Tony Gwynn when he came to the Padres.
I know he's goes by Mike Stanton, but each time I see that I think of the reliever Mike Stanton.
I know he's goes by Mike Stanton, but each time I see that I think of the reliever Mike Stanton.
God, so much young talent in baseball right now... really gets me excited for the game.
|
|||||||||||||
|
tabarnes and I were speaking both amongst ourselves and with Aaron and Brett about this very thing. A bit to linear and predictable.(a "bit"
.....re YIKES!)We both put forth to them that we(the community) would like to see more true gems and busts....but also see much more of a varying degree of change in growth from year to year in player that are advancing/regressing, rather than the current +5 or 6(or whatever it is for that player) every year with only a slight chance of change off that(training).
M.K.
Knight165
# 116
BatsareBugs @ 01/28/12 02:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
I find it more practically and hopefully it can be implemented sometime down the line. If this was in for this year, it'd make it a lot easier to give certain players potential ratings (I'd bet it'd have to be editable too), like what I would've done with some Padre prospects:
Rymer Liriano 9D
Robbie Erlin 7A
Joe Wieland 7A
Casey Kelly 8C
Keyvius Sampson 8D
Joe Ross 8B
Austin Hedges 9D
Jedd Gyorko 8C
And so on... it'd help with guys like Robbie Erlin, who I've read from several sources saying his ceiling is a 3rd starter, but that being his floor to, to guys like Keyvius Sampson, who could be a potential front-line starter, but is likely to be a middle-of-the-rotation starter.
# 117
Legionnaire @ 01/28/12 04:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sports games always seem to make players kind of suck early on ability-wise, but program it so a guy with higher potential is more likely to improve and stop sucking. The thing is, with the exception of certain skillsets or guys who are freakishly young, guys are really at their physical peak in those early years.
Most players don't develop because they got better physically. They develop as they learn how to turn it on and keep it on, instead of just flashing a glimpse of their raw tools and then going back into a funk. A 5-tool prospect has those tools already. It's not that they aren't physically able yet, it's that they aren't consistent. I think guys skills should be what they are. Their physical skills should indicate their actual raw abilities -- how fast he can run, how hard he can crush the ball, how quickly he reacts in the field, how accurately/hard he can throw. But make it so there's a rating in there (experience, potential, luck, consistency, whatever) that determines how consistently they actually play up to that ceiling.
A guy who only hits 10 homers a year, but they're all insanely huge ones, shouldn't have a low "power rating" because he only hits 10 a year. He should have a high power rating because he clearly has the muscle to put them into orbit -- he should just have something else in his ratings that explains why he falls short of his own ceiling so often.
# 118
Legionnaire @ 01/28/12 05:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Especially with younger, prospect-types. As it is, the farm system can basically be put on auto-pilot without ever drawing your interest the way it should. But since we're talking about the lifeblood of a team, it should really have higher stakes.
You see it all the time in the minors. A guy who was a late draft pick and an unheralded farmhand comes from nowhere to post a big season. So then the next year, all eyes are on him to see if it's for real or a fluke.
I'd like to see a sort of "lottery" to determine some guys who play way above or way below themselves (who are in essence better or worse than you're able to see yet). And that big year or down year gets your attention, and then the next year is the deciding factor. If they struggle again, they lose their status as a hot prospect (losing potential and maybe some actual skills, since they're not as good as you originally thought). If they come up big again, they parlay their success into an increased status as a legitimate prospect. Every team's farm system has a few guys at any given time who they are watching intently to figure out if they're forcing their way into "prospect status" or if they're proving to be a bust.
I think it should be fairly common for minor league levels. And fairly rare for the MLB level. Down on the farm, it's common to see top prospects flame out or to see nobodies turn into legitimate prospects. At the MLB level, it's a lot harder for a guy to come from nowhere with attributes nobody thought he had in him.
|
|||||||||||||
|
The current and prevalent system of assigning one number for a skill is very convenient. The potential system the Show currently uses (which I'm still not awfully familiar since I just started with a serious franchise mode...) and the one Knight suggested is fine if your goal is to set a (hidden) ceiling for ability and the chance that a particular player reaches that level, how long it takes to get there, etc. However it might have problem recreating a player with very high innate ability but who is yet to exhibit it consistently.
But it should also be noted that in the example of 10 HR player above, it's not just the Power attribute that comes into the formula... if that player hasn't developed Vision, Discipline, and some other relevant skills to go along with his Power rating, he probably wouldn't hit the amount of HRs that his Power rating would allow him when he fully develops other attributes... so some aspect of consistency can be replicated that way. Having said that, the issue with Power rating as a primary determinant for HR hitting ability would probably still stand, given how the game may be using the attribute.
As in the quoted post, introducing some sort of "consistency" attribute to fluctuate a particular rating is one idea, so that Power rating for highly consistent player gives him close to his Power rating at its ceil value every at-bat (or pitch), but for very inconsistent player, his Power rating for an at-bat ends up usually somewhere lower than that ceil rating. However, this consistency idea also has problem in that we really don't know this is how things work. If you actually fluctuate Power rating by some auxiliary rating like consistency, you are actually messing with the player's ability to generate power directly. But I presume, in real life, player's ability to have power swing shouldn't fluctuate like that... so you may be creating another issue trying to fix another.
I agree that Power attribute for a player probably shouldn't grow so much during a player's career. But in order to replicate the lack of consistency early in one's baseball career, it might actually make more sense to look at how other attributes come into play in fully realizing the potential that those innate ability attributes like Power and Speed suggest.
Post A Comment
Working...