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
# 361
HustlinOwl @ 03/05/16 10:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ball-game.html
|
|||||||||||||
|
If you have a 60 overall guy hitting .332 with 40 hr you either have a guy who is pathetic defensively in which case he deserves his 60 overall rating or you are doing massive slider adjustments.
I my franchise on default sliders and manage mode I'm not seeing 60 overall guys doing what you are seeing. I'll reserve judgement until I've played the game but with the extremely limited draft pool each year I wonder what the franchise will look like in future years. One thing I'm sure of - if progression is based on stats they had better have the sim engine perfect or close to it.
# 363
Impetuous65 @ 03/05/16 11:24 AM
Good info, I just wish they would have played an inning or two with Player Morale changes and see how he's affected. I would have like to see Donaldson at bat or two happy, sad, or statisfied.
My ideal gameplay demonstration would be able too see a player
1. Show him out of position
2. Morale low
3. and in the bottom of the order
and then show him at his best.
I wish they would have demoed that so we could see how these gameplay elemnts co-exist with oneanother.
Franchise looks good too me, I like the additions and improvements. Managing your roster will be fun.
My ideal gameplay demonstration would be able too see a player
1. Show him out of position
2. Morale low
3. and in the bottom of the order
and then show him at his best.
I wish they would have demoed that so we could see how these gameplay elemnts co-exist with oneanother.
Franchise looks good too me, I like the additions and improvements. Managing your roster will be fun.
So, if I understand correctly, the enhanced stat tracking is now on the PS3. I find that to be interesting given that it was explained on multiple occasions that the PS3 was maxed out, and there was no space to add additional stat tracking. It was said, when people were calling for more stats on the PS3. It was explicitly stated that the PS3 was maxed out and more stat tracking was not possible.
I know I keep harping on stat tracking, but I don't care. There's so much work that remains to be done, even with the latest enhancements. Until we see stat tracking akin to what I can find on, say, ESPN.com, I will be wanting more.
By that I mean:
1. Sortable team stats
2. Player card with game log, breaking down stats from all games played in the current season (I would expect this to be reset each year in franchise, I don't expect this history to be maintained across seasons)
3. Filters for situational statistics (vs. specific team, home, road, vs. RHP, vs. LHP, by month, pre/post all star break)
4. Tracking awards won historically and having this information available on the player card (for individual awards) and having a "history" section in Franchise mode where you can see historical standings and award winners
5. Robust box scores akin to what you can find on any website (I don't expect this to be carried over across seasons)
I've said multiple times, there are no technical limitations to this, it is simply a matter of available dev resources and prioritization. I don't expect any of this to be prioritized, given the limited dev resources available and the end goal of maximizing sales.
To me, this is the main problem with console sports gaming. The target market is more ****** and will never care about this stuff. As long as the dev team remains prohibitively small, and maximum profit remains the end goal, these things will be moved down the list in a hurry.
I'd love to see a game with no agenda besides to make the most authentic, in-depth, true-to-life franchise mode experience as is humanly possible. But given the state of video games and the business, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
Instead we can expect more fluff and gimmicks with card collecting and game modes that provide an arcade/RPG-like experience.
I know I keep harping on stat tracking, but I don't care. There's so much work that remains to be done, even with the latest enhancements. Until we see stat tracking akin to what I can find on, say, ESPN.com, I will be wanting more.
By that I mean:
1. Sortable team stats
2. Player card with game log, breaking down stats from all games played in the current season (I would expect this to be reset each year in franchise, I don't expect this history to be maintained across seasons)
3. Filters for situational statistics (vs. specific team, home, road, vs. RHP, vs. LHP, by month, pre/post all star break)
4. Tracking awards won historically and having this information available on the player card (for individual awards) and having a "history" section in Franchise mode where you can see historical standings and award winners
5. Robust box scores akin to what you can find on any website (I don't expect this to be carried over across seasons)
I've said multiple times, there are no technical limitations to this, it is simply a matter of available dev resources and prioritization. I don't expect any of this to be prioritized, given the limited dev resources available and the end goal of maximizing sales.
To me, this is the main problem with console sports gaming. The target market is more ****** and will never care about this stuff. As long as the dev team remains prohibitively small, and maximum profit remains the end goal, these things will be moved down the list in a hurry.
I'd love to see a game with no agenda besides to make the most authentic, in-depth, true-to-life franchise mode experience as is humanly possible. But given the state of video games and the business, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
Instead we can expect more fluff and gimmicks with card collecting and game modes that provide an arcade/RPG-like experience.
Guys, look at Madden, or most of all FIFA, and tell me that The Shows franchise is getting ignored.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
# 367
TheWarmWind @ 03/05/16 11:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Also I don't think thousands of new animations, human ik, closed roof stadiums, player morale, precision input engine, presentation and stat tracking collaboration, enhanced progression and regression, improved path to balls, tweaked trade logic, tweaked player stamina and more are fluff additions, especially to franchise. The Show is about more than just the numbers. If that's all you care about, there is always OOTP.
|
|||||||||||||
|
That said, you seem to have missed my point. I'm not claiming that nothing was done to the game. I am acknowledging the significant work that remains to be done with stat tracking to get it to where it could be, and frankly, where I feel it needs to be for a sim-focused baseball game.
I'm certainly not complaining about the stat tracking additions for this year - much better than nothing. But it's an opportunity to point out how much more needs to be (and can be) done with it.
I don't think it's very constructive or reasonable to try and deny my opinion by pointing out all the other things that were done. Yes, lots was done. But more can be done, and I'm going to keep advocating for it.
# 369
TheWarmWind @ 03/05/16 12:03 PM
Drew, You're allowed your opinion on what is good or bad about the game, but dismissing the work outside of stats enhancements (including DD) as gimmicks is just not going to fly.
I hate DD (or any other mode online), but it's a well constructed and thought out mode, and it's here to stay, yes because it's profitable, but it's profitable because people love it. Yes, even hardcore baseball fans.
Also, claiming that SDS should just hire more people in order to get better stat tracking in the game is a flawed argument. The larger the company gets, the more diluted the vision gets. More inefficiencies crop up, and the need for a more centralized management system becomes greater. Soon enough, ALL that matters is profit, and the small voices in the company don't matter any more.
I am willing to bet A LOT that the ONLY reason why stats got a significant upgrade this year is BECAUSE SDS is such a small, passionate group, not in spite of it. They listened to the OS community and worked hard and delivered. One more hiring may bring us even more of that, but it also could take us one step further away.
I hate DD (or any other mode online), but it's a well constructed and thought out mode, and it's here to stay, yes because it's profitable, but it's profitable because people love it. Yes, even hardcore baseball fans.
Also, claiming that SDS should just hire more people in order to get better stat tracking in the game is a flawed argument. The larger the company gets, the more diluted the vision gets. More inefficiencies crop up, and the need for a more centralized management system becomes greater. Soon enough, ALL that matters is profit, and the small voices in the company don't matter any more.
I am willing to bet A LOT that the ONLY reason why stats got a significant upgrade this year is BECAUSE SDS is such a small, passionate group, not in spite of it. They listened to the OS community and worked hard and delivered. One more hiring may bring us even more of that, but it also could take us one step further away.
|
|||||||||||||
|
This forum is for discussion which is why the 'play OOTP' if you want stat tracking is getting old.
|
|||||||||||||
|
The way I view attributes is they are the game's way of making up for the inability to do what happens IRL. From the time these players are first scouted and even more so when they sign and put on a uniform in the low minors they are being watched and their abilities gauged by professional scouts, instructors and coaches. The coaches know how fast they are, what their reaction time, fielding ability, arm strength and other attributes are. There might be some surprises when they first put a drafted player in a uniform because the scouts sometimes miss on a guy but when the coaches and instructors get these guys they begin assessing their attributes. Most of them never make MLB precisely because the coaches in the system know their attributes aren't good enough.
In the show we don't have the ability to put them through base running drills, fielding drills, test their arm strength and agility, watch them in a batting cage, etc. The show as a game is good but that simply isn't possible. Therefore the game gives us their attributes. An organization would have to have a pretty worthless group of scouts, coaches and instructors not to have a good idea what the attributes of the players in their organization are.
I could see a system giving you only a general pie chart view of players attributes outside your own organization and requiring you to assign a scout to a player to reveal his more detailed attributes but for players within the organization I believe it would be unrealistic not to know their attributes.
# 372
WaitTilNextYear @ 03/05/16 12:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
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
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
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
Presentation and Commentary
Player Models
Franchise Mode
Who's with me
|
|||||||||||||
|
M.K.
Knight165
|
|||||||||||||
|
Anyways, I've said my piece. Moving on.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
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.
Post A Comment
Working...