MLB The Show 16 Video - Franchise, Player Morale and Much More

[og236]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Jason Heyward (your "hypothetical" example)

I cracked the code Lol

I'll answer by saying he doesn't get the same contract in The Show as real life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

If WAR was calculated with defense and offense in mind and the game looked at that along with his ratings (scouting info if you will) his contract should be fairly representative to real life.

But I'd also like to see it go the other way with high OVR, but low WAR and see a player get a worse contract due to his production.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Quote: Originally Posted by og236

Jason Heyward (your "hypothetical" example) I cracked the code Lol I'll answer by saying he doesn't get the same contract in The Show as real life Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point I am making is even real baseball uses projections and "potential" as a basis for contracts.

I would like to see stats weighted a little more heavily in the Show for contracts. I've been asking for that for awhile, but last time I'm going to comment...

What I am afraid of is everyone calling out for stat based progression or "xp" stye progression which I feel is unrealistic. (Reason I have stopped playing football)

We are making the chicken before the egg argument. Stats do not drive a player to get physically better, it's skills that improve which result in better performance. This is built into the Show already to some degree. Look at how many players change potential.

Now if there were a confidence rating...then that would be ideal for stats to heavily influence since I do believe confidence contributes to the growth of an athlete.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

The point I am making is even real baseball uses projections and "potential" as a basis for contracts. I would like to see stats weighted a little more heavily in the Show for contracts. I've been asking for that for awhile, but last time I'm going to comment... What I am afraid of is everyone calling out for stat based progression or "xp" stye progression which I feel is unrealistic. (Reason I have stopped playing football) We are making the chicken before the egg argument. Stats do not drive a player to get physically better, it's skills that improve which result in better performance. This is built into the Show already to some degree. Look at how many players change potential. Now if there were a confidence rating...then that would be ideal for stats to heavily influence since I do believe confidence contributes to the growth of an athlete. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is making this argument really. It appears unrealistic that a player can progress while performing poorly and a player can regress while performing well. It is that appearance that is driving the whole "stats affect progression" argument.

Is it realistic that a player's power increases because he hit 25 home runs when his rating indicates he should have hit 10? No, But neither is having the game see that player as a 10 HR power threat. There needs to be a balance between what you are arguing for and what others are. And it all hinges on how the game's AI evaluates and uses players. Because the game looks at the ratings so heavily that is why people look at the ratings as not the players physical skills, but basically a scouting report. That is basically what the game is using them for when it makes evaluations. Like someone mentioned player skill and scouting (AI evaluation) need to be separate things. I think then everyone can have what they like.

[Russell_SCEA]

So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA

So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

So, Luis is taking notes??

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA

So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

That's what happens when you introduce new things and we get scared.

[Lovesports]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

I don't think that was what he was arguing exactly. I would want a combination of what tabarnes and lovesports are saying. A player's skill should remain fairly constant, but performance should also take a larger part in at least regression than it does now. In the Trout example I find it very reasonable that if a player has an extended period of low performance, than his ratings should be affected. ONLY because the game's AI uses the ratings so heavily in it's decision making and lovesports is referencing this. If Trout hits 10 HRs in his walk year, it would definitely affect his contract, but the game will still see him as a 99. Now if the game's AI used the performance of the player more heavily in decision making I don't think performance needs to be tied to progression at all. Just have little +/- for hot/cold streaks within a season. But, I do agree that performance should affect regression very heavily to prevent the undervaluing of players and how the game handles playing time and retirement. Now if the game does look at performance more heavily instead of just the ratings I think this discussion changes dramatically. You could have what both tabarnes and lovesports want. Trout performs poorly, but his skills remain fairly constant, but the AI does not value him on his 99 rating and instead values him on his performance more heavily.

I agree with this 100%.

In the beginning of every season, players get their video game "ratings" based on how they perform in real life the year before. This is fact. However, some attributes should stay constant. My only solution is to create a player attribute such as "performance" attribute which is only affected by the player performance and calculated into their overall. Example contact 70, power 50, speed 85, performance 90. This assures that the players playing attributes stay pretty much unaffected, however, their "performance" rating is what makes them a highly sought out player and their pay becomes higher. just an idea