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

[eric7064]

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

Some good stuff in there. Excuse me if this has already been answered but can we finally extend our players during the season in Franchise?

Not sure. I understand why people want in in. But realistically who in there walk year ever signs a deal mid season.

[MrOldboy]

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

Not sure. I understand why people want in in. But realistically who in there walk year ever signs a deal mid season.

Why would it be limited to walk year? What about arbitration players or free agents you signed to short 1-2 year deals. Managers are extended all the time in their final year as well.

Well as you can see It didn't effect Hernandez's rating nor will it effect Rizzo. But if there were a few things checked off he was unhappy about then yes. Here's another way to look at it. Let's say a guy like Bryant wins MVP, but he's still in Arb contract. And the team magically is horrible. Maybe that concern over the contract didn't matter bc the team was doing good. But now team is bad and hE would lke a big multi year deal.

First


And also regarding the bolded part. Of course that should come into play, but his ratings? I'd say that if Bryant was harder to sign in that scenario it would be cool to see in franchise, but not if now his skill ratings dropped. I DO want to see situations where an unhappy player is hard to sign or hopefully one day extend, but I DON'T want something like that to affect their skills which in turn affect gameplay and how the AI manages them.

[Lovesports]

I think as the series progresses you will find more of a balance with progression and lack of attaining it. I think the Show has done a pretty good job of having a roll of the dice with players jumping and falling in potential based on streaks and performance.

Most players never hit their potential in the Show.

Basing progression off statistics is a slippery slope. Look at last year. Statistics provided very little boost yet it negatively impacted pitcher progression. Pitchers continually got better as hitters got worst and stats continued to trend that way in future seasons. I believe the devs were going to look at that for this year.

I personally do not like having stats play a role in progression. If anything a good season may move the progression needle, think of guys that have bad years..should that cause the pendulum to shift in the negative direction?

Mike Trout has bad luck and hits .250...his ratings and potential drop. Stats are based off the ratings and hence every year he gets worst...is that really how we want it.

Players generally get worst because they lose the raw skills as they age. Some players hold on longer by getting "smarter."


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

[MrOldboy]

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

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

This is why I would want the AI to look at player performance much more than it does. The ratings impact everything from gameplay to simmed stats, but in the end performance is what teams put the most value on in real life. Now that WAR has been introduced I really hope that we can see more realistic evaluations by the game's AI and also some dumb moves that represent the bad decisions real world teams make. I think progression doesn't have to be tied heavily to performance, but regression should be. If a 37 year old player has a big year in my franchise I find it completely unrealistic that his ratings tank the next year because of his age. Then he goes unsigned, after putting up a .290/.350/.460 batting line? Every year in my franchise I have to go in and bump back up players like Arod or Ortiz as they drop so far they go unused. It's even more important for players on the fringe ratings wise. John Lackey is a very valuable pitcher still, but if his ratings drop even a tiny bit he moves into "crap" MLB pitcher according to The Show and should be in AAA or retire. If Lackey is rated a 75 and he pitches well I expect him to enter next year in the range of 74-76, not 67.

[Knight165]

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

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

You're mixing two different things though.
tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression....
You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract.
Two totally different things.

But let's continue onto the last part of your post....
So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings?

....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward?

Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do.

VERY unrealistic IMO.

M.K.
Knight165

[MrOldboy]

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

You're mixing two different things though.
tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression....
You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract.
Two totally different things.

But let's continue onto the last part of your post....
So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings?

....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward?

Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do.

VERY unrealistic IMO.

M.K.
Knight165

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.

[Jr.]

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

The idea of progression is always interesting to me. What are ratings in a video game, really? They're an interpretation of someone's performance. Trout is given a high rating because of his real life production. It would be great if the game gave a way to reflect this within franchise.

I would love to see the ratings changed to a scout based ratings system that we see, with the actual ratings hidden. This is how "attribute" ratings work in real life. Someone hits 30 HRs in a season, scouts give him a 75 power rating (or whatever) on an 80 scale. He doesn't hit 30 HRs because of his 75 rating... he has a 75 rating because he hit 30 HRs.

If there could be a way for guys in the game to be rated based on their production, that would alleviate any issues with low rated guys getting tiny contracts after productive seasons. Ratings would swing greatly early on in the career, then settle as a guy plays longer and the actual attributes come out.

This is my ideal situation and I think is a hybrid for those that want ratings completely hidden and work purely on production, and those that like the current system.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

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

.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

[og236]

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

.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]

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

.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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

So many back seat game designers in this thread

[WaitTilNextYear]

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

So many back seat game designers in this thread

So, Luis is taking notes??

[MrOldboy]

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

So many back seat game designers in this thread

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