MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

I actually like that they retire mid-contract if they are older and unproductive. Before you would see these guys get demoted to AAA or AA and they would stay there until their contract ended, thus being a financial burden for the team until then.

I don't know that carryover saves has limited the ability to expand franchise mode. Maybe it has, as I'm sure its a task putting in new features that work with existing franchises.

I know I'm going to be in the extreme minority here, but I would rather keep the franchise mode we have now and carryover saves than lose carryover saves. Carryover saves is still, in my humble opinion, the best franchise feature introduced.

The purpose of not allowing them to retire mid contract is so THEY would be a financial hardship. I am sure the Yankees and Angels would love to see Ellsbury and Pujols walks away from hundreds of millions, but will never happen. The risk you run when signing a long expensive deal.

My worry when they first introduced carryover would be that it would impact the progress. Changing financials, adding features etc probably would be a programming nightmare to not crash carryover. There must be a reason other game developers are not doing it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[countryboy]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

The purpose of not allowing them to retire mid contract is so THEY would be a financial hardship. I am sure the Yankees and Angels would love to see Ellsbury and Pujols walks away from hundreds of millions, but will never happen. The risk you run when signing a long expensive deal.

My worry when they first introduced carryover would be that it would impact the progress. Changing financials, adding features etc probably would be a programming nightmare to not crash carryover. There must be a reason other game developers are not doing it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I understand that, but between the two "evils" I feel that allowing players to walk away mid contract and relieve the team of the financial burden is better for the overall experience than that of making them pay a guy who is in AA $20M per year.

I'm not saying its right or perfect but for my experience its better than what we've had previously and will serve as a "fix" until they come up with a better solution.

My fix prior to this and still is, is for me to use money earned from sponsorships to trade for these guys and then release them and pay out their contract. Certainly not ideal, and now that guys will retire keeps me from having to trade a prospect that I purposely draft for such an occasion.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

My thought is that if someone wants to ignore salary ramifications they can turnoff financial restrictions.

It ruins the experience for hard core simmers. My comparison would be in nba2k and retiring a highly paid player because they are no longer productive and open cap space. Ruins the immersion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[countryboy]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

My thought is that if someone wants to ignore salary ramifications they can turnoff financial restrictions.

It ruins the experience for hard core simmers. My comparison would be in nba2k and retiring a highly paid player because they are no longer productive and open cap space. Ruins the immersion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

But I don't want to ignore salary ramifications, I just don't want guys making $20M per year sitting in the minors.

I consider myself a hard core simmer/franchise player and for me, what ruined the experience was having these guys in the minors. I'd much rather have them retire mid-contract and "break" realism by freeing their team of the financial burden versus that of sitting in the minors at 60 rating making $20M per season.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

But I don't want to ignore salary ramifications, I just don't want guys making $20M per year sitting in the minors.



I consider myself a hard core simmer/franchise player and for me, what ruined the experience was having these guys in the minors. I'd much rather have them retire mid-contract and "break" realism by freeing their team of the financial burden versus that of sitting in the minors at 60 rating making $20M per season.

The issue is that mlb rules are not being enforced. To send a player down needs a players approval. They should have players deny being sent down. Then those players would either ride the pine or the team has to release them and eat the money.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[countryboy]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

The issue is that mlb rules are not being enforced. To send a player down needs a players approval. They should have players deny being sent down. Then those players would either ride the pine or the team has to release them and eat the money.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Again...I never said it was right or it was perfect, just that for me, its better than what we had before.

[Caulfield]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

The issue is that mlb rules are not being enforced. To send a player down needs a players approval. They should have players deny being sent down. Then those players would either ride the pine or the team has to release them and eat the money.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The problem might be in the Show, some of these guys still have an option left that might not really supposed to have it?

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

The problem might be in the Show, some of these guys still have an option left that might not really supposed to have it?

They do. But even some have all their options used and pass them through waivers. Of course no one picks them up and they are assigned to minors. I would rather see them released.

I've seen teams sign players to big deals and then they retire and there is no penalty. Just like coaches if you fire them, although it says it will count against you, is credited back.

You could sign older players to 10 year deals and never have to worry about paying the bill.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[DickDalewood]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

What’s wrong with The Show can be summed up by this single picture of the game’s home screen...

[Speedy]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

I wouldn't say it's what is wrong...just that their focus is far more centered on DD and monetizing that mode versus franchise which would offer $0 after the POS.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[Caulfield]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

I wouldn't say it's what is wrong...just that their focus is far more centered on DD and monetizing that mode versus franchise which would offer $0 after the POS.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

yeah, I'm certainly no fan of DD but if its bringing in money to keep the ship afloat ...well I shudder to think there might not still be a Show without DD.
#necessaryevil

[Padgoi]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

I wouldn't say it's what is wrong...just that their focus is far more centered on DD and monetizing that mode versus franchise which would offer $0 after the POS.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

Understood, but does the ENTIRE GAME have to be focused on DD while basically ignoring every other aspect of the game?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[RogerDodger]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

yeah, I'm certainly no fan of DD but if its bringing in money to keep the ship afloat ...well I shudder to think there might not still be a Show without DD.
#necessaryevil

I'm not sure that DD is actually the difference between MLB The Show continuing to exist or not. I don't have any stats to back my assertion up but they make a lot of money every time they sell a copy of the game. True, they might budget now for the extra income they receive from DD that they previously wouldn't have had and without it they might have to cut back on what that additional budget was spent on but enough to kill the game altogether, I'd be shocked if that were the case.

I happen to think that card collecting modes don't have an infinite shelf life. The whole reason they introduced carry over saves for franchise mode was a rejection of the idea that you absolutely had to start fresh every year when a new game was released. DD mode is exactly that, a brand new start every season. All the content you paid for and acquired tirelessly working through challenge after challenge only has a finite life. I wonder how long it will be before users get tired of backing up and starting over every single year given that in many cases they've spent cash buying packs and cards.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

I don't play DD and most likely won't, but I don't know that I would essentially crucify SDS for focusing on it and making money off the microtransactions. I mean, its the norm in gaming these days. While we are all passionate about the sport of baseball and the Show as a game, to basically fault SDS for going where the money is, is quite unfair, especially when those same voices claim they don't want SDS to use the "excuse" of being a smaller development studio and should have money to expand. Well, whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the powers that be have determined that their current financial plan doesn't allow the expansion of the team, and for the idea to ever have a chance of passing board approval, more funds would need to be brought into the studio.

At the end of the day it's business and about money and maximizing profits. SDS, just like any other company on the planet, is going to do their best to put out a product/service and maximize their profits off said product/service.

And in my opinion, to say that what's wrong with the Show is Diamond Dynasty mode is a bit of a stretch. While franchise mode may not be as deep or have all the features/bells and whistles that I wish/hope for, its not as if its a non-functioning mode that I can't play and enjoy. Same with gameplay. '18's gameplay is, imo, the best of the series and easily the best sports game I've ever played, although again I don't play every game, at least not to the volume that I play the Show.

We all want things that aren't in the game, I get that. Some may be significantly overdue, that is up to a person's personal wishlist. But we all also want the Show and SDS to succeed so that they continue to put out the game and will hopefully one day meet our every expectation and include every feature on our lists. And for that to happen, I believe, Diamond Dynasty is going to have to exist.

[Bullit]

Re: MLB 19: Anybody else feel this is the make/break year?

One thing for sure, if the Amarillo Sod Poodles are not in the game, it will be a hard pass for me!!