MLB '10: The Show - Player Potential Fix Coming in Next Roster Update

[bk7987]

Re: Player Potential

Players\ performance is very dynamic. It is not totally uncommon for a star player who has hit his ceiling to fall off a cliff and regress significantly in proceeding years.

I want a game that closely mirrors this unpredictability. Please don't change this.

The problem is, it IS predictable when potential ratings are this low.

You WILL see significant decline in almost every one of the players I posted in that list. That's not realistic.

[bengtc]

Re: Player Potential

Players\ performance is very dynamic. It is not totally uncommon for a star player who has hit his ceiling to fall off a cliff and regress significantly in proceeding years.

I want a game that closely mirrors this unpredictability. Please don't change this.

That usually doesn't happen to players in their mid 20's

[Mr. Franchise]

Re: Player Potential

Players\ performance is very dynamic. It is not totally uncommon for a star player who has hit his ceiling to fall off a cliff and regress significantly in proceeding years.

I want a game that closely mirrors this unpredictability. Please don't change this.

This. I don't like seeing Prince Fielder hitting 50 homers a year until he has 900+.

[NEOPARADIGM]

Re: Player Potential

Reading this thread it has become clear to me that I have no idea what the potential ratings mean. And reading this thread hasn't helped at all, either.

[VitaminKG21]

Re: Player Potential

This. I don't like seeing Prince Fielder hitting 50 homers a year until he has 900+.

For me, much like in the NCAA series, this needs to be even more dynamic and tied a little closer to performance. It's fine for Mauer to have a 'C' rating if all that means is he can only get so much better, because that's probably the case. But if he has another MVP season he should never come down in rating. Conversely if he has a so-so year past the age of 28 or 29, sure, he probably should drop a point or two.

The problem I have is when players who are both young and talented AND have good seasons drop in the ratings for no apparently good reason.

[xbravetoaster]

Re: Player Potential

I cant believe how bad they messed up the potential! Its serioulsy a big issue! especially since this game is suppose to be the most "realistic baseball game ever" right... I cant even start a franchise because of this. I simmed a season to see how what happenend to 100's of the players affected by the tards and scea....Justin verlander for instance lost 7 mph of his fastball at 28 yrs old....Please fix this issue fast, this game is worseless to me and lots of others until you do...

[PaperWork]

Re: Player Potential

For me, much like in the NCAA series, this needs to be even more dynamic and tied a little closer to performance. It's fine for Mauer to have a 'C' rating if all that means is he can only get so much better, because that's probably the case. But if he has another MVP season he should never come down in rating. Conversely if he has a so-so year past the age of 28 or 29, sure, he probably should drop a point or two.

The problem I have is when players who are both young and talented AND have good seasons drop in the ratings for no apparently good reason.

You're putting the cart before the horse though.

I never understood why people want to see stats dictate a player's overall rating.

A player is rated based on his 'talent'; if he under performs, it doesn't mean he lost his 'talent', if he over-performs it doesn't mean he's more talented. It just means he had a better year than his talent would suggest, or a worse year than his talent would suggest. This happens all the time.

I think players should progress/regress based on the well established age curve.

Players peak at ages 26-29 and then decline after that.

Stats/performance should never dictate a player's core ratings, unless he's very young, and his talent is improving as he matures in the league.

[callmetaternuts]

Re: Player Potential

For me, much like in the NCAA series, this needs to be even more dynamic and tied a little closer to performance. It's fine for Mauer to have a 'C' rating if all that means is he can only get so much better, because that's probably the case. But if he has another MVP season he should never come down in rating. Conversely if he has a so-so year past the age of 28 or 29, sure, he probably should drop a point or two.

The problem I have is when players who are both young and talented AND have good seasons drop in the ratings for no apparently good reason.

The key is to only drop a point or two in your example. I dont want Longo (Evan Longoria) to put up good numbers and drop 5 points. Can he improve 5-6 points every year? No way, he should be at the top of rankings already (close to it at least). He shouldnt start dropping off at his young age just because his potential is low (as the game says).

[bk7987]

Re: Player Potential

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

"A" quality players need an "A" potential rating to maintain that "A" talent.

If an "A" quality player like David Wright has an "F" potential rating, he will decline RAPIDLY until he becomes an "F" quality player.

That's how the game works. "A" players will still decline in their mid-30s just like last year.

[rondoman]

Re: Player Potential

Wow.

This game might have just went from a definite first day purchase to me just putting 09 back in.

Seriously, Verlander lost 7mph in one year? Ridiculous. To have an issue this major make it through to the final product is sad.

This could be a definite gamebreaker for me as well as the reported CPU trade logic/waiver logic issue. All I play is franchise and it looks like last years may be better.

Damn.

[rondoman]

Re: Player Potential

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

"A" quality players need an "A" potential rating to maintain that "A" talent.

If an "A" quality player like David Wright has an "F" potential rating, he will decline RAPIDLY until he becomes an "F" quality player.

That's how the game works. "A" players will still decline in their mid-30s just like last year.

If this is indeed the case then MLB 10 just got f'd. Wow.

[VitaminKG21]

Re: Player Potential

You're putting the cart before the horse though.

I never understood why people want to see stats dictate a player's overall rating.

A player is rated based on his 'talent'; if he under performs, it doesn't mean he lost his 'talent', if he over-performs it doesn't mean he's more talented. It just means he had a better year than his talent would suggest, or a worse year than his talent would suggest. This happens all the time.

I think players should progress/regress based on the well established age curve.

Players peak at ages 26-29 and then decline after that.

Stats/performance should never dictate a player's core ratings, unless he's very young, and his talent is improving as he matures in the league.

I'm not saying stats should dictate a players ratings, but they should have some effect. Whether it's in the form of a "confidence" rating or some other type of measure that keeps players in the 26-29 range from having great seasons then dropping multiple points, the stats should mean something in terms of development. At the very least a player who falls in a certain age range and had a good season should stay exactly the same.

The key is to only drop a point or two in your example. I dont want Longo (Evan Longoria) to put up good numbers and drop 5 points. Can he improve 5-6 points every year? No way, he should be at the top of rankings already (close to it at least). He shouldnt start dropping off at his young age just because his potential is low (as the game says).

Exactly. I understand that with Longoria or a guy like Lincecum that has won 2 Cy Young Awards already, there is little room to move up and who they are as players (ability-wise) is who they will most likely be for several more years given their ages and relative health.

But no way should either of those guys or players in their class start to see their abilities erode before they hit 30.

[ocho cuatro]

Re: Player Potential

I'd also like to see a change in how the "A potential" ratings are distributed through the generic prospects. I like to do completely custom rosters, so the first thing I did was go through the available generic A's to see how many I had to work with.

This is what I found:

* 142 total propects with A potential (seems like a lot)
* 123 are pitchers
* 19 are position players

And since we can't edit potential, there's no way to change this to a more even distribution of pitchers/position players.

I'd love to see this fixed with the first patch.

[stormshadow1]

Re: Player Potential

I look at at potential as "he has ability to be a better player".

David Wright, in the eyes of the devs' has prob. peaked, hence F. He will/can not be a better player.

Now, stating that "he will not get better", does not mean he should get worse by 10 points/yr. There prob should be a plateau where he stays at a little while, providing he play ok.

[VitaminKG21]

Re: Player Potential

I'd also like to see a change in how the "A potential" ratings are distributed through the generic prospects. I like to do completely custom rosters, so the first thing I did was go through the available generic A's to see how many I had to work with.

This is what I found:

* 142 total propects with A potential (seems like a lot)
* 123 are pitchers
* 19 are position players

And since we can't edit potential, there's no way to change this to a more even distribution of pitchers/position players.

I'd love to see this fixed with the first patch.

Agreed. Once again there seems to be something in the way the ability ratings add up that make pitchers more "valuable" than position players and thus grant them higher potential ratings.

I have to say I'm slightly shocked that this kind of thing still happens, not just in this game, but seemingly every game I play (FIFA, NCAA Football, etc.)