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
|
|||||||||||||
|
Look at what EA is earning annual from Fifa and Madden It's absolutely insane.
|
|||||||||||||
|
We can exactly know who are true .260 players in this game, just by looking at their attributes.
What real-life coaches are doing is still *estimation,* which is subject to uncertainty due to individual coach's ability to evaluate players. Real-life scouts/coaches/managers/GMs over/underestimate player values all the time. All kinds of weird managerial decisions and transactions happen, because people, even with proper expertise, just see things differently.
There is a crucial difference between coaches *evaluating* players and their attributes in real life vs. the game handing out their true, exact attributes. In The Show, we can (and should) always rely on attributes (instead of stats) if you are strictly abiding by the rule of chance.
To me, that is not realistic and removes a crucial element -- realistic player evaluation -- from what makes a franchise-like mode engaging.
If you think about it, having the attributes hidden and just seeing stats, especially in franchise mode, would add a huge amount of realism imo. Example would be if you were to sign a free agent who had a good stat year but ultimately is a low rated player you may would take the risk because of the stats shown. If you see that same player is rated a 55 then you're in no way going to sign him. You could really add to the risk aspect and flow of signing and managing players. It's a cool idea, I'm not sure how or if it could work. But it definitely makes you speculate
# 384
HustlinOwl @ 03/05/16 06:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
When is the last time you built a team up and failed? All of the dynasty threads I read people are always making the playoffs. That is fine I know people like that but I would like to fail occasionally and have things not work out. To me that is just as fun. When is the last time you traded for a player or signed a free agent and they pulled a BJ Upton in The Show? It just doesn't happen because you would never sign a guy with an awful rating who had a big statistics year or multiple ones, then have him return to playing to his ratings. The current way of playing you look at their ratings when making GM decisions and have access to perfect information of what you are getting, where in real life that is not the case and that is one of the elements which makes sports great.
I want to experience the dread and disappointment of signing a BJ Upton to my franchise and destroying the dreams of prosperity for my entire virtual fan base. I had to use that as my example it just fit perfect I hope you forgive me.
I figure this would be the best stream to ask but does anyone else want 100 players per team roster? 90 just seems...off. I know A games don't register stats (they should, even though we don't have the option to play their games) but it would give roster builders 300 more players. And it would keep all the FAs from retiring from "Poor Free Agent Market".
|
|||||||||||||
|
Someone should run a poll explaining the premise and get a feel from the community.
# 388
Denzel Washington @ 03/05/16 07:59 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 389
HustlinOwl @ 03/05/16 08:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Lmao really keep spinning
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|||||||||||||
|
We have a lot of people who go through multiple seasons but don't play every inning of every game of the season.
Can't keep up with the original point of the debate but his post wasn't spinning anything, it was quite frankly the truth.
# 391
HustlinOwl @ 03/05/16 08:19 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Wtf look at poll his post has nothing to do with completing a 162 game season??? Where was it ever implied playing all 162? You have a franchise mode that 500k play and yet majority do not complete
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
# 392
Denzel Washington @ 03/05/16 08:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
The post you quoted was accurate but I can't tell if that's who you're talking about.
The poll was about who plays every inning of every game, that's vastly different than who completes seasons. We have posters who every talk about playing one game out of a series to get through the seasons quicker.
Wow, I got behind reading this thread and feel like I just finished reading through War and Peace. Some of these posts are giant!
|
|||||||||||||
|
M.K.
Knight165
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 397
mlblover15 @ 03/05/16 09:25 PM
ok from what we know that DD and that other mode are the top two units in this game... they are the ones that make the game money due to cards and all that stuff that franchise doesn't really use.. and now to find out that the two NEW modes are DIRECTLY linked to DD is really not good news...
as someone said very early on in this tread... this is a huge franchise base site and we are still not getting the majority of the respect we deserve... deep dive into franchise my rear end... that was well anyway....
i really wish we could turn off morale in franchise mode...
also wish we coulld turn off card packs in franchise... or be able to put them in the market place... for those of us that are just wasting them when we play every day...
as someone said very early on in this tread... this is a huge franchise base site and we are still not getting the majority of the respect we deserve... deep dive into franchise my rear end... that was well anyway....
i really wish we could turn off morale in franchise mode...
also wish we coulld turn off card packs in franchise... or be able to put them in the market place... for those of us that are just wasting them when we play every day...
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
What I get from the stat based progression is this.
If a player has a 80 contact vs Rhp the game/team/organization/player expects that player to have a certain batting avg. lets say .290 against Rhp.
If the player hits that certain avg or close to it .280-.300, his rating remains the same. If he exceeds it and hits .310, it increases but not as much because the game expects him to hit Rhp well.
If the player hits below that certain avg based on his 80 contact vs Rhp and hits .260, the game is like "well you shouldn't be expected to hit like an 80, you should be lowered to a 75 contact vs Rhp.
Similarly if a player is rated 40 contact vs Rhp he is expected to hit around .220. If the player hits around .220 his rating is accurate and doesn't need to be altered. If he hits below .220 the game says your supposed to be bad, but not that bad, lower you 3-5 points.
If that player who is rated 40 contact vs Rhp hits well over his expected avg of .220 and hits let's say .250 the game is like well shoot we got your rating wrong, you obviously can hit Rhp so we'll raise your rating to a 50 and expect you to hit that avg now. But if you start sucking against Rhp again it'll go back to 40.
I don't see the problem here. It's not like if he's rated 40 and hits like a 40 should it'll drop even lower. As well as rated high and hits high. The real progression/regression aspect is when a player doesn't perform as expected, then expectations need to be changed, thus ratings change.
If a player has a 80 contact vs Rhp the game/team/organization/player expects that player to have a certain batting avg. lets say .290 against Rhp.
If the player hits that certain avg or close to it .280-.300, his rating remains the same. If he exceeds it and hits .310, it increases but not as much because the game expects him to hit Rhp well.
If the player hits below that certain avg based on his 80 contact vs Rhp and hits .260, the game is like "well you shouldn't be expected to hit like an 80, you should be lowered to a 75 contact vs Rhp.
Similarly if a player is rated 40 contact vs Rhp he is expected to hit around .220. If the player hits around .220 his rating is accurate and doesn't need to be altered. If he hits below .220 the game says your supposed to be bad, but not that bad, lower you 3-5 points.
If that player who is rated 40 contact vs Rhp hits well over his expected avg of .220 and hits let's say .250 the game is like well shoot we got your rating wrong, you obviously can hit Rhp so we'll raise your rating to a 50 and expect you to hit that avg now. But if you start sucking against Rhp again it'll go back to 40.
I don't see the problem here. It's not like if he's rated 40 and hits like a 40 should it'll drop even lower. As well as rated high and hits high. The real progression/regression aspect is when a player doesn't perform as expected, then expectations need to be changed, thus ratings change.
Post A Comment
Working...