05:01 PM - March 3, 2016 by Steve_OS
The MLB The Show 16 Twitch stream has begun, post your thoughts here!
For those that miss out, we will update this post with the archive, when it has completed.
UPDATE: Here is the archive.
MLB The Show 16 News Post
05:01 PM - March 3, 2016 by Steve_OSThe MLB The Show 16 Twitch stream has begun, post your thoughts here!
For those that miss out, we will update this post with the archive, when it has completed.
UPDATE: Here is the archive.
MLB The Show 16 Videos
Member Comments
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 322
Lovesports @ 03/04/16 06:03 PM
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.
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
|
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
I'll reserve judgment on the progression system until I get to test it a bit. I do have some faith in the developers that it won't get out of hand and I do like that it may be more "dynamic" this year.
I've always been against performance driving progression because the logic for that is flawed. Ideally, as some have alluded to, we'd have actual ratings and perceived ratings for players. I would certainly be in favor of having perceived ratings change based on performance (and scouting).
But like I said, I'll wait until I have the game in hand and everyone is testing it.
I've always been against performance driving progression because the logic for that is flawed. Ideally, as some have alluded to, we'd have actual ratings and perceived ratings for players. I would certainly be in favor of having perceived ratings change based on performance (and scouting).
But like I said, I'll wait until I have the game in hand and everyone is testing it.
All I want to know is if there will be rain outs in franchise mode?
|
|||||||||||||
|
Now that we have expanded stat tracking I have a loony idea. What if there was an option to hide the ratings altogether? I'd love to have that option so I had to scout players based on their statistics. We have all the info we need.. with progression tied to ratings it makes perfect sense. Viewing ratings just takes you out of the immersion but it's hard to avoid it since they are plastered everywhere in franchise and gameplay.
Imagine you are ready to pinch hit for the ptichers but instead of scrolling your bench for the highest contact vs lefty guy, you get information about your bench players AVG vs lefty career, AVG vs lefty season, last month AVG vs lefty. So you still need to know your guys. The highest BA vs lefty isn't necessarily the best guy to pick, perhaps he just happens to be hitting it hot this month or this season but really another guy on the bench is better at the moment. I want to be required to have a feel for my players not looking at some arbitrary ratings that give you the perfect choice 100% of the time. That doesn't feel like managing a baseball team.
Think of how much harder and realistic trading would become! Now when you trade you don't look at overalls or contact or power, you look at their statistics of how they are actually performing.. This leads to increased emergent, dynamic results. I am going to try some house rules this year of not looking at player ratings at any point and just statistics but as I said it is hard when they are everywhere and an option to hide them would be much appreciated.
Getting rid of perfect information truly makes it a Baseball experience and not a Videogame experience.. This would also include hiding the Potential rating of course another option I'd love! I don't want to know a guy has A potential I want to dig for that myself, there is no reason we need to have access to that in the draft or anywhere. Keep it all under the hood, I want to manage a baseball team not a bunch of numbers. As I saw someone else say they feel like robots not players. The morale was a big step forward with improving that and I feel this would be equally as big.
This is my ultimate request for franchise in every game. I know it would be a niche option and I doubt many people would ever use it but to me it would be the greatest single change for immersion. I bring it up because we now have full stat tracking. Just give an option when starting franchise to show or hide ratings defaulted to show. I know this is more of a hardcore feature that only the real knuckle heads like me would use I just think it would be a gamechanger. Hope the devs catch wind of this radical idea and see what they think, I think they said they are already planning for MLB 17 in a few weeks.
Imagine you are ready to pinch hit for the ptichers but instead of scrolling your bench for the highest contact vs lefty guy, you get information about your bench players AVG vs lefty career, AVG vs lefty season, last month AVG vs lefty. So you still need to know your guys. The highest BA vs lefty isn't necessarily the best guy to pick, perhaps he just happens to be hitting it hot this month or this season but really another guy on the bench is better at the moment. I want to be required to have a feel for my players not looking at some arbitrary ratings that give you the perfect choice 100% of the time. That doesn't feel like managing a baseball team.
Think of how much harder and realistic trading would become! Now when you trade you don't look at overalls or contact or power, you look at their statistics of how they are actually performing.. This leads to increased emergent, dynamic results. I am going to try some house rules this year of not looking at player ratings at any point and just statistics but as I said it is hard when they are everywhere and an option to hide them would be much appreciated.
Getting rid of perfect information truly makes it a Baseball experience and not a Videogame experience.. This would also include hiding the Potential rating of course another option I'd love! I don't want to know a guy has A potential I want to dig for that myself, there is no reason we need to have access to that in the draft or anywhere. Keep it all under the hood, I want to manage a baseball team not a bunch of numbers. As I saw someone else say they feel like robots not players. The morale was a big step forward with improving that and I feel this would be equally as big.
This is my ultimate request for franchise in every game. I know it would be a niche option and I doubt many people would ever use it but to me it would be the greatest single change for immersion. I bring it up because we now have full stat tracking. Just give an option when starting franchise to show or hide ratings defaulted to show. I know this is more of a hardcore feature that only the real knuckle heads like me would use I just think it would be a gamechanger. Hope the devs catch wind of this radical idea and see what they think, I think they said they are already planning for MLB 17 in a few weeks.
My only disappointment is the lack of non-roster invitees but at this point I just don't really expect to see them get added. If I'm honest with myself, there are likely just far more players who just set their 25 man roster and sim right to Opening Day than there are people who spend any sort of time evaluating rosters and players in spring. I believe the devs even said one year that ST was never meant to be more than a chance to work on your timing/try new settings, difficulties, etc. in games where nothing is at stake.
At least it's an issue that can be worked around, if a bit tedious. You can remove guys from the lower end of your 40-man roster who aren't risks to be claimed by other teams and replace them with prospects or veteran minor leaguers that you want to check out. Then you just cycle those guys periodically before locking in your "real" 40-man roster and formally optioning players to keep it to 25. It involves manipulating your roster a bunch and you need to keep cycling them but it's at least it's something.
But the stuff they did add though sounds very, very promising. I can understand some of the skepticism of player morale but I like that this is going to add real stakes to the players' decisions. This might prevent teams from loading up on star players only to stash them on the bench, which I actually saw quite a bit of in future seasons. And as a big stat geek I'm so glad that career stats are in along with announcer recognition of stuff that happened in seasons before.
Can't wait for this to come out.
At least it's an issue that can be worked around, if a bit tedious. You can remove guys from the lower end of your 40-man roster who aren't risks to be claimed by other teams and replace them with prospects or veteran minor leaguers that you want to check out. Then you just cycle those guys periodically before locking in your "real" 40-man roster and formally optioning players to keep it to 25. It involves manipulating your roster a bunch and you need to keep cycling them but it's at least it's something.
But the stuff they did add though sounds very, very promising. I can understand some of the skepticism of player morale but I like that this is going to add real stakes to the players' decisions. This might prevent teams from loading up on star players only to stash them on the bench, which I actually saw quite a bit of in future seasons. And as a big stat geek I'm so glad that career stats are in along with announcer recognition of stuff that happened in seasons before.
Can't wait for this to come out.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
'15 went a long way with this...as it seemed to me that there was much more of a chance for a player to play "out of his ratings"....both good and bad.....
Sports games have become more of a number shuffling for who has 1 point more in XX category instead of actually looking at a players performance and acting on that and the reports your scouts/coaches would give you.
I realize that not everyone would want it this way and that's fine....but a simple front end option to "hide ratings"(except in the editor of course...so you could make changes if you want to) would be so nice IMO.
M.K.
Knight165
|
|||||||||||||
|
Having players fight for position battles toward the end of ST is always great to follow in real life.. It makes me wonder, one of the devs said the progression/attribute changes monthly, do you get that at the end of spring training? That would be huge to making spring training somewhat relevant and would bring in this element of position battles. If a guy has a hot spring maybe he played well enough to boost his ratings past his competition at second base. I am not sure if they do adjust after the month of March and I am leaning towards probably not but I would like for them to for the element it would bring to the game.
|
|||||||||||||
|
I am going to try this year in my franchise to avoid ratings as much as I can. I wish there was a filter in the statistics screen for Last 30 days as well as the Career and Season stats. It's getting to the point where avoiding ratings is feasible but I think that would really enable it. Also something NBA2k has which is awesome is in the player cards it shows the players recent performance. Like a game log of his stats in previous games all season. That would be great to have as well as an option to click each game to bring up the full box score for every game that season. While I am dreaming big I also wish we had player awards on player cards something I see a lot of people wish. I want the world and we are getting there I feel like they gave us 3/4ths of it this year I am more than pleased with what they've done I am just greedy!
|
|||||||||||||
|
An idea just popped into my head, but when you have manual injuries on aren't you able to delete injuries/take players off of the DL at any time? Hypothetically you could manually injure a bunch of star players that you don't need to see early in spring and put them on the 60 day DL to free up spots. Haven't tried doing that one but maybe it would work. It's fudging the roster rules but I don't really care as long as everything is back to normal with the real roster by Opening Day.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
I like the concept because it is an attempt to prevent people from loading up unrealistically with a bunch of stars. It sort of adds a human element to the game.
# 338
Lovesports @ 03/04/16 10:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Here are reasons for why player performance needs to be the primary factor.
1. Player A hits .332 with 40 homers and is currently rated as a 60 overall. In reality, the following year he is now viewed as a minimum 80 overall by scouts, coaches etc. What you are saying is that if he's not an A or B potential he should be a no more than a 63-65 overall the following year. This throws off player contracts, their FA worthiness, and their overall importance to the game. If I win The MVP award with a 60 overall player and next year his ratings don't reflect that, then he signs for barely over the league minimum and hits 8th in some crap team's lineup because he's still viewed as a 60 overall player.
# 339
WaitTilNextYear @ 03/04/16 10:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
For one, the scouting such that it is in this game right now for the draft is one of the weaker and less-fully fleshed out features in the franchise mode. The scouts don't have much (any?) personality other than a handful of numbers that aren't really well defined. Aside from this, scouting all of the players in the league on a regular basis would be such a tall task for 4 area scouts that you'd need a great expansion in the number of scouts...and you'd want more differentiation/personality in your scouts if they suddenly became much more critical to the player rating mechanic. I wouldn't want my entire knowledge of the MLB, or even a sizable chunk, to hinge on the limited scouting system that is currently in place. Now, if the scouting aspect were to get a lot of love and improve in the future, then I could see the draw to adding in a scouting component to ratings. Ditto for coaching, because the coaches are way too basic as just a source the same attribute boosts/nerfs no matter what player we're talking about.
Secondly, there is already "fog of war" in the current system. I believe you want something a little less cut and dried than looking at a rating number to make all roster decisions? But, even with "100% knowledge" of the ratings, some players will inevitably underperform and some will overperform. You will "like to hit" more with some players than others and some of this already feels quite unrelated to just the raw ratings. For example, sometimes I feel (placebo? perhaps) that I bat better with certain batting stance types than others due to having a larger/smaller strike zone and how the AI pitching attacks that specific player. So things like this, which are not based on ratings, can help drive my decisions on playing time and who gets key at bats. I also think you get a nice variety of outcomes in played and simmed games and it never really feels like because player X has contact rating of Y, player X must hit .260 or whatever.
And on some level, if you feel that just scrolling through for the highest CON vLHP is too boring, wouldn't scrolling for the highest Batting Average vLHP feel much the same? Wouldn't the process still be basically reduced to looking at a single number whether that's a rating or a stat? Wouldn't you still be "managing a bunch of numbers" one way or the other?
I realize that you guys are both advocating for an option to have this and I agree that having an option to hide ratings would be perfectly fine, but I'd only want it as an option and not the only way of doing things. And this POV is coming from a guy (or one of a handful of guys) who (1) enjoys playing a "stats only" set up in OOTP and (2) who's probably done more simming and testing the stats and ratings on recent MLBTS titles than anyone not working for SDS right now.
# 340
Lovesports @ 03/04/16 10:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Post A Comment
Working...