"starting to struggle" message

[canes21]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

This thread has had multiple people trying to help, but it just keeps getting further from the main point. Instead of helping us help him, we're all receiving questions that are "not meant to be insulting" and having our words stretched as much as possible.

tessl, you very well know what I mean when I say real life is random. If you don't, then I just don't know what to say. If you take the top 15 prospects from each year and we looked at their careers, some of them would be all-stars, some would be good players, some average, some below average, etc. The thing is, we don't exactly know why some guys with so much talent never take off. That is what is meant when we say random. Some guys put in the work just like the teammates, yet for some reason don't get better or even get worse and it's impossible to explain because so much information is missing. So in that sense, real life is random in all sports. No matter the effort put in, some guys just never progress for some reason.

You can continue to avoid every question we've asked and bring up your own questions that we ARE answering despite them not really helping the topic out, but it's going to further derail this topic and likely get it locked eventually. We've tried to help you out. You just keep avoiding the help and try not to insult us by asking ridiculous questions that are not helping the original question. What does me using the OSFM V2 Rosters have to do with Hara's progression? What does it even matter in regards to my LaStella story? It doesn't matter. Anyways, you can reply and try and help us help you because we've all somehow kept the patience and are still trying, or you can continue to drag this further off topic and I'll gladly join countryboy and avoid this topic.

[Jr.]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I'm flabbergasted as to why people continue to attempt to discuss anything with this guy.

I will say though, it's an entertaining read.

[countryboy]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I'm flabbergasted as to why people continue to attempt to discuss anything with this guy.

I will say though, it's an entertaining read.

For me, its the reason these forums are great, in that, people are willing to help fellow gamers out and resolve issues, clear up misunderstandings, bounce ideas off each other to make for a better game in the future, etc...

But you can't help someone who isn't seeking it.

[tessl]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Giving them an F and guaranteeing their failure wouldn't be implementing a "real life is random" thought process.

The thinking isn't with roster creation but trying to explain why the game working the way it does at least generates "okay" results in regards to the seemingly random success/failure of a bunch of equally talented prospects, top or otherwise (I say "seemingly" because I believe it's more missing or undefined reasons than true randomness).

Taking it to the roster aspect is changing the question. That's asking "how do you grade a prospect's potential when creating him for your roster?"

You're comparing a human making a prediction (that's what rosters ratings are, base projections/predictions on how the player might perform, rated within context of the game/roster's rating system - and, incidentally, it's what scouts do, and, like roster ratings, they can be "wrong" due to unknown-at-the-time information) to a computer algorithm deciding when to change and already existing rating and asking how realistic/fair/logical that algorithm is.

That's mixing up the question/topic of the discussion.

We agree ... sort of. The reason I bring up rosters is because there are people replying to this thread who use and in some cases create their own rosters who have been vocal advocates of changes in progression/regression as a way to correct what they see as problems with the game. The problem is those changes impact the rest of us who use who use the SECA rosters which the game intends people to use. The problems afflicting third party/aftermarket rosters are not problems I see with the SCEA rosters. I don't see a single A potential starting pitcher prospect who is closer than 2 years from MLB and the vast majority are 5 or 6 away if ever. That is why the roster discussion is relevant.

Here is what I would do with progression/regression of both attributes and potential.

• Send out the "starting to struggle" and "stock rising" based upon two sample sizes - March 30 to June 30 and July 1 to October 1. The current sample size which seems to be monthly is too small, especially for pitchers who may see their numbers skewed by a couple of bad appearances.

• Age relative to current level should be taken into account. Current potential should also be taken into account. If a rookie struggles that is understandable and normal. If a veteran struggles he should take a hit to his numbers. Likewise if an F potential player struggles that shouldn't be a big surprise. If an A potential player struggles that's a different story.

• In addition to the plus or minus to potential I would also impact attributes. Using my example of Hara, if he had struggled over a 3 month period based upon what is expected of him at his age then his potential should drop and attributes should stagnate and not increase for that period. If he performs as expected he progresses normally. If he exceeds expectations and gets the "stock is rising" message he gets a raise in potential and a bonus to attributes.

• If a player is injured for a significant amount of time he should take a drop in his durability rating relative to his current durability rating in addition to other attributes remaining stagnant. If his durability is already poor then it remains poor. Conversely if a player gets 500 at bats in a season, starting pitcher makes 30 starts, relief pitcher makes 50 appearances they get a boost in their durability relative to current durability rating.

It should not be random. It should be based upon performance. I'm bending over backward not to offend anybody but I suspect the people who want random declines are using flawed rosters which have too many highly rated prospects. That is not the case with the April 7 SCEA live roster I'm using.

That would be my suggestion for progression/regression/potential.

[tessl]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Still avoiding.
I answered your question ....and Trout had that line.
Can you explain how he followed that with a worse season without a dip?

You're not interested in reality or real answers.
That's readily apparent

M.K.
Knight165

• Steve Trout should progress or regress based upon his performance. If he struggles over a significant sample size he should regress. He shouldn't randomly regress.

• Please go to the April 7 live roster update from SCEA and find me a list of generated A potential starting pitchers who are major league ready. The problem you are outlining simply does not exist with the actual rosters provided by SCEA. There are no MLB ready generated A potential pitching prospects. Most of them are many years away from being even marginal MLB pitchers.

[Knight165]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

• Steve Trout should progress or regress based upon his performance. If he struggles over a significant sample size he should regress. He shouldn't randomly regress.

• Please go to the April 7 live roster update from SCEA and find me a list of generated A potential starting pitchers who are major league ready. The problem you are outlining simply does not exist with the actual rosters provided by SCEA. There are no MLB ready generated A potential pitching prospects. Most of them are many years away from being even marginal MLB pitchers.

I can honestly say...you have no clue.(when it comes to what makes SCEA decide what changes need to or will be implemented.....we roster makers or "small vocal group" had very little to do with that design decision.....this was totally on the franchise devs)

.....and my question was not SHOULD he regress or progress....
He had a nearly identical stat line to your pitcher...and REGRESSED. It wasn't random...IT HAPPENED!
Yet YOU say he shouldn't have.
HOW DID HE HAVE A WORSE YEAR IN 1982 AFTER HAVING THAT YEAR IN 1981!?
For the love of God...answer ONE question.

M.K.
Knight165

[Knight165]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

...and just for ****s and giggles....I took the default roster.....simmed to Year 2 and 7 pitchers(not all A's...I don't see the significance there anyway) generated by SCEA are on the MLB roster on opening day.

So what?


...and what problem am I outlining?

My problem is that you think everything runs in a straight line with no deviation that isn't expected.

M.K.
Knight165

[nomo17k]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I don't really wish to chime in on the main back-and-forth for the thread itself and am sorry for my ignorance of the current situation, but I have a question. I haven't started my franchise for the year yet, so I am not deeply aware of how things have changed from past years.

How much is player progression driven by in-game performance? I'd assume the main driver is still "predetermined," meaning, the game has a generic template(s) of how most players should progress, but if performance affects potential, how much of performance actually accounts for the change?

I'm just trying to understand if the regression that the OP is seeing in the rookie is actually driven by his recent performance, or if it's actually caused by the "template" (i.e., it's just the possibly hidden progression curve).

[Jr.]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I don't really wish to chime in on the main back-and-forth for the thread itself and am sorry for my ignorance of the current situation, but I have a question. I haven't started my franchise for the year yet, so I am not deeply aware of how things have changed from past years.

How much is player progression driven by in-game performance? I'd assume the main driver is still "predetermined," meaning, the game has a generic template(s) of how most players should progress, but if performance affects potential, how much of performance actually accounts for the change?

I'm just trying to understand if the regression that the OP is seeing in the rookie is actually driven by his recent performance, or if it's actually caused by the "template" (i.e., it's just the possibly hidden progression curve).

Hard to say for sure. I'm 5 years into my franchise, and I've seen guys still progress despite less than stellar numbers, but I have also seen their potentials fluctuate.

Albert Almora, for instance, started as a B POT, increased to A POT after a good season in AA in 2014, stayed there for 2 years with good but not great AAA numbers, but is now back to B POT after a rough season at the MLB level and very poor stats after being demoted to AAA. He's sitting at 78 OVR, B POT (I haven't looked but I'm guessing it's around 88).

If I had to define the progression/regression system, I'd say that players will still progress as youngsters, with how fast/slow they progress assisted by their production; while a player's ceiling is determined by their production and less by any pre-determined path.

[canes21]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

We agree ... sort of. The reason I bring up rosters is because there are people replying to this thread who use and in some cases create their own rosters who have been vocal advocates of changes in progression/regression as a way to correct what they see as problems with the game. The problem is those changes impact the rest of us who use who use the SECA rosters which the game intends people to use. The problems afflicting third party/aftermarket rosters are not problems I see with the SCEA rosters. I don't see a single A potential starting pitcher prospect who is closer than 2 years from MLB and the vast majority are 5 or 6 away if ever. That is why the roster discussion is relevant.

Here is what I would do with progression/regression of both attributes and potential.

• Send out the "starting to struggle" and "stock rising" based upon two sample sizes - March 30 to June 30 and July 1 to October 1. The current sample size which seems to be monthly is too small, especially for pitchers who may see their numbers skewed by a couple of bad appearances.

• Age relative to current level should be taken into account. Current potential should also be taken into account. If a rookie struggles that is understandable and normal. If a veteran struggles he should take a hit to his numbers. Likewise if an F potential player struggles that shouldn't be a big surprise. If an A potential player struggles that's a different story.

• In addition to the plus or minus to potential I would also impact attributes. Using my example of Hara, if he had struggled over a 3 month period based upon what is expected of him at his age then his potential should drop and attributes should stagnate and not increase for that period. If he performs as expected he progresses normally. If he exceeds expectations and gets the "stock is rising" message he gets a raise in potential and a bonus to attributes.

• If a player is injured for a significant amount of time he should take a drop in his durability rating relative to his current durability rating in addition to other attributes remaining stagnant. If his durability is already poor then it remains poor. Conversely if a player gets 500 at bats in a season, starting pitcher makes 30 starts, relief pitcher makes 50 appearances they get a boost in their durability relative to current durability rating.

It should not be random. It should be based upon performance. I'm bending over backward not to offend anybody but I suspect the people who want random declines are using flawed rosters which have too many highly rated prospects. That is not the case with the April 7 SCEA live roster I'm using.

That would be my suggestion for progression/regression/potential.

No one is saying it needs to be completely random. No one has stated that all the way. I have stated real life is random and I have already explained in detail what I exactly meant with that statement. Stop trying to say that's what we are all clamoring for because you are wrong on so many levels with that. I don't feel like explaining it all the way again because my post still exists and you can easily go back and read it IF you wanted. However, we just mean at times real life can seem random because players progress, regress, or just remain the same for reasons we're missing and will never know. That is why real life can seem random all of the time. If we knew all of the details, team building would be easy and players wouldn't ever be journeymen. That's not the case. So many players are recycled and so many players come in and fade out because real life lacks so many details that are needed to know what will happen. Real life is seemingly random and that's what we're getting at.

In the case of this game, we aren't asking for the game to roll the dice on every player. No one wants that. What we're trying to get through to you is that it shouldn't follow the same path every single time. If you gave 20 pitchers the same stats at the same age and experience, I would hate to see all 20 progress exactly the same. That's just unrealistic. You may want that, but that doesn't make it right. I'd like to see the majority of those pitchers progress, but I'd also like to see a couple get worse and a few stay the same through their career. That is realistic and that is exactly how this game is. You may not like it and wish for a more linear system, but real life is not linear. Sports are FAR FAR FAR from being linear and that's why The Show is not linear and I am grateful for that fact.

Also, I put in bold what I did because I find that pretty silly. People don't get more or less durable in real life by just playing their sport. I have always had bad ankles. I always thought it was because I wore low top cleats growing up. Turns out I had a condition called Tarsal Coalition which lead to my ankle soreness actually being ankle fractures and I ended up breaking my ankle finally in a baseball game when I was 17. I can still play sports and remain active after having surgery, but my ankles still are and always will be bad. I may be able to get 500 at bats like in your example, but that doesn't change the fact that my ankles are still screwed up. I just can take better care and get luckier and not have them break on me again at first base. I will always keep constant durability for the rest of my life. Technically it would decrease the older I get, but for the duration we are discussing in the conversation, durability isn't something that should increase and decrease at all by anymore than 3-5 points over an entire career. Players may learn new stretches, workouts that increase their durability a little bit, but overall your body doesn't get 3x as durable out of nowhere just because you haven't been injured in awhile, you just get lucky.

[KBLover]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I don't really wish to chime in on the main back-and-forth for the thread itself and am sorry for my ignorance of the current situation, but I have a question. I haven't started my franchise for the year yet, so I am not deeply aware of how things have changed from past years.

How much is player progression driven by in-game performance? I'd assume the main driver is still "predetermined," meaning, the game has a generic template(s) of how most players should progress, but if performance affects potential, how much of performance actually accounts for the change?

I'm just trying to understand if the regression that the OP is seeing in the rookie is actually driven by his recent performance, or if it's actually caused by the "template" (i.e., it's just the possibly hidden progression curve).

I've only just begun year 2, but I see Jose Fernandez has some -1's on his pitch ratings (command, velocity, movement). I'm guessing he's crept over his POT (considering his OVR is 97, that seems likely as I don't think he's got a 99 POT).

To me, I see the progression/decline system like this:

If OVR > POT, then expect decline in some area(s). What areas those are seems to depend on coaching, age of the player, what you're training, and perhaps the templates/hidden factors you mention. Perhaps the difference is a factor. 96 OVR vs 93 POT would be different than 96 OVR vs 78 POT. Could also just be random. These factors probably impact speed of change as well.

If OVR < POT, then expect growth, though age is a big factor of course. However, this situation seems to add positive momentum that can be augmented or drowned out by other factors. Distance apart is a factor here, too. 76 OVR vs 80 POT would be different than 76 OVR vs 99 POT.

There seems to be some other factors? In my Marlins franchise, Stanton went from 88 to 90 OVR with no change (that I could see) from his ratings. He also dropped back to 89 during the FA period. He went to 90 on during Spring Training and started at 90 on Opening Day. He dropped to 89 a few days into the season (started on an awful slump), and now he recently went back to 90 (hitting HR at least, but still hitting just .222). All of this with no shown/visible changes to his ratings. He has 99 Power vs LHP, so maybe this is "over 100" and I can't see it? Kinda like how OOTP gives you the choice to hide "over Max" ratings and just display it as the max.


Progression/Decline of POT is tied to recent - as in about the few weeks to a month - performance (and perhaps ytd performance with recent having more weight or perhaps ytd for any changes once the season is over) putting a player "on watch", so to speak, for a pop or a drop in his POT rating. That's where those "stock is rising" or "having struggles" type emails come into play. They can change potential.

The reason I say "on watch" is because there is randomness in it. If the conditions are right, the player could get a boost or drop at any time as long as those conditions stay the same. Sometimes they could get multiple bumps. That happened to me in MLB13 with Taylor Guerrieri leapfrogging Matt Moore in potential and pushing up on David Price. It happened to me this year with Michael Feliz now 91 POT when he was around 80 or so. Both Guerrieri and Feliz "defied critics" continually with constantly exceptional performance. When I quit MLB13, Guerrieri literally never had a cold streak. Ever. Feliz was pretty much the same, though he DID have a cold streak when I challenged him at AAA. Fortunately, he didn't suffer, but now I'm challenging him at the Majors, so we'll see.

That's why I suggested to the OP early that as long as those 2 good recent starts are the beginning of a good performance trend for his Hara, chances are Hara's POT will climb again. That's assuming Hara can be consistent. If he falters, perhaps he'll have bad luck and get dropped every slump but slow to get "rewarded" for his gains. Maybe again that's where the template/hidden aspects you mention might come into play. Perhaps some players are prone to rise and some prone to fall.


An example of the randomness in my Marlins franchise (was reloading to try to get the pitcher I edited into Steven Wright to not retire for "poor FA market", which failed so I remade him using another pitcher and edited in any of the POT pops and drops I saw along the way)

Original run: Solano goes from 77 to 81 POT. No other changes. I believe this to be driven by recent performance. His season was "meh" but his September was "where the **** did that come from?!"

Changes from that original run on following occasions:

-Cishek goes from 87 to 91 POT. Either season (1.80 ERA) or recent (chances are his September was awesome)

-Angel Sanchez from 80 to 77 POT. Perhaps both season and recent performance (challenged him to pitch in the majors and he failed and then sucked in AAA once demoted)

-Kyle Jensen from 78 (I think, I know he was a C) to 81 POT. Same as Solano.

-Once or twice, no one changed at all.