-
All gave some. Some gave all. 343 -
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
How? If Strasburg was a 97 and had a slightly lower H/9 and slightly less movement on his 2-seam FB would he sim the same and perform the same in games? Just an example, but aren't the overalls based on the player's individual ratings? Or are they arbitrarily given to players?Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
They are not arbitrary...but they do not effect gameplay or simmed stats directly.
They are simply a cumulative # of all the ratings tied together.....
A player with a 80/80 contact and 85/85 power can be an 95 and so can a player who is 98/96 contact and 75/75 power....and so is a player who is 94/92 contact 98 speed and 97/95 fielding stats.
Also 99 is NOT the top rating...it's just the highest DISPLAYED rating. Players can be 110 or higher(not sure what the actual top is if a player is 99 across the board.)
M.K.
Knight165All gave some. Some gave all. 343Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
That was what I thought. The overall does not affect ratings, but it does represent the individual ratings. So Strasburg or someone else has a 99 for a reason, that reason being they have high ratings. Those ratings do affect sim and gameplay.
The top rating thing is an issue, I still think it should be scaled to the top rated player. Since Verlander might come out to be a 120 and Strasburg is just a 100, the player will never know this. I think they should know this somehow.Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
Overall ratings need to go, let's just have a 20-80 scale for hitting, fielding, power, speed, and arm for position players and stamina, control, individual pitch grades, etc. for pitchers.
On a more serious note, I don't find a problem with the ratings, it's just that if you did have a well-balanced pitcher or position player, let's say 70's across the board, they'll easily get close to that 99 or A+ rating without really having an outstanding tool. I recall I reached max overall in RTTS with none of my rating grades as a C, so yes, players can have ratings that push them above 99 that the game can't reflect. I don't see what's wrong with it, some players now are just as good as HOF'ers of the past, maybe not for their career.Last edited by BatsareBugs; 02-23-2013, 02:22 PM.Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
It's kind of like a class in college. How are we to differentiate from a student who really excels to a student who is pretty good if any reasonable effort results in an A.
Is Stephen Strasburg as good Justin Verlander? No.
What probably happened is they ran their algorithm and these guys didn't come in as 99s, but guys like Verlander and Braun probably came in as 110s, but since the ratings go only up to 99 they are lumped in with Strasburg and Carlos Gonzalez.
I have always felt statistically the Show has had an amazing stat engine, and I am 100% certain they didn't screw it up.
It just feels like Paula Abdul on American Idol loving everyone.
*What would be cool is if they didn't cap OVR and if someone's skill set is so complete that they come in at a 120 then they come in at 120.Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
I wish the scale was more (for the lack of a better term) consistent across attributes. If you look at Knight's charts, 70 contact projects out to ~.270, which would be a 5 on the 2-8 scale, aka ML average. Look at power though, 70 power projects out to ~30 HR's, which would be a 7, or plus-plus. Ideally I would like to move over to the 2-8 scale, unless the letter grades covered a wider range, maybe something like this:
A: 85-99
B: 70-84
C: 55-69
D: 40-54
That way, "average" would truly mean average, and hopefully the disparity between the best and the rest would increase... I hate that everything is bunched up at the top like a school grading system, not good for a sport with such a wide range of variability...Bakin' soda, I got bakin' sodaComment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
If scea has some players rated higher than 99 doesn't that make roster editing pointless when we can only go to 99?Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
You can think of this way......
Individual player attribute ratings (Contact, Vision, etc.) are true reflection of the player ability in the game.
OVR, on the other hand, is on a curve.... and SCEA *happens* to create a curve such that about 15 - 20 players are rated at very excellent (OVR 99). It makes sense more, if we think that the SCEA curve was meant to very roughly produce one OVR 99 player on a team. OVR, by definition here, only means that an OVR 99 player is probably the best player in a team. Hence you can expect about 30 players to have OVR 99 on that curve.
If SCEA instead created a curve for OVR to mean the best player on the whole baseball universe (think Babe Ruth) to be deserving of OVR 99, then that will be what that means.
It really means only that much.... like school grades, they only make sense relative to others, and what the curve means.Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
College grades have been inflated to cater to the students who insist on maintaining a decent GPAs solely for the purpose of moving on to the next phase of their lives (getting jobs, going to med schools, etc.). Higher education has become business....
Perhaps there are so many OVR 99 players in The Show to cater to the fragile egos of MLB players of recent years..... who knows MLBPA might be insisting that about 50% of all players to be rated at 99 OVR for MLB 14... and the SCEA shills in the forum defending the game saying SCEA cannot do anything about it because it's a contractual thing..... hahahaha.......
(that might actually propel the devs team to abandon number rating system ... okay I stop again....)Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
How about instead of complaining about how so many guys are 99's, when you get the game, the first thing you do is change the attributes...Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
Obviously they would have to allow for higher editing. Come on man.
Imagine someone runs a 4.20 40-yard dash and is therefore a 99 speed. What if in ten years guys are running 4.10 40s? Why not keep the same scale and they can now be 105 speeds.
The smartest people in comp science program these games, handling something like this they could do on a sheet of toilet paper.Last edited by pistolpete; 02-23-2013, 06:01 PM.Comment
-
Re: MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99
I'm actually curious who the hell came up with this 0 - 99 rating system that appears so prevalent among sports games in the past 10 - 20 years or so. The first game that I've played which uses this system was Front Page Sports Baseball.
Another old school manage-only type baseball game that I really enjoyed when I was a kid used letter grades (A, B, C, D, E ... that's it!) and it played very nice simulation baseball (for that generation).
In terms of programming, there really is no reason to keep numbers between 0 and 99 (although there is a reason that you might want to keep within 0 - 255... one byte to optimize memory usage).
I want to read a book titled "The History of Baseball Video Gaming" or something like that hahahaha.Comment
Comment