h** h*tt*rs 90% d*n* th*s *s g**ng q**ck
Fictional Rosters
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Re: Fictional ******s
I'm removing what I wrote here so that I don't confuse anyone. It had started to appear that the defensive and speed ratings were coming out too low. See the posts from TripleThreat and Knight as to why we should leave them as is.
I came to a hasty conclusion, after doing a quick check of a couple of rosters (Yankees and Redsox, mainly), that the ratings were too low. Well, I should clarify, otherwise someone will crack that of course the ratings seem low compared to Boston and New York. As I explain in another post, I was checking to see if there were any teams that would have as good of defense as the Yankees and Redsox and didn't see any. The problem is that the ratings were produced based on gameplay considerations.
We'll continue with the spreadsheet ratings.Last edited by raleigh mcclure; 04-01-2011, 08:19 PM.Comment
-
Re: Fictional ******s
The ratings are based off the amount of being above/below the average of the starting players at that position for ******'s 2010 ******.
So "average" should equal "average".
Let me look at the players and see what might have went awry, if anything.
When I was looking at the inputs, the data seemed to line up very well, especially for players that might play multiple positions ... for example a SS moving to 2B would be a very good 2B, a decent 2B moving to SS would be below average.
The "average" fielding rating (for most attributes) was right around 65 (******'s ******). So, I would need to know what is considered a bit "low".
The average speed for the 240 starting players in ******'s 2010 ****** was 55. That is what it is used as average these formulas as well. So, that this ****** and ******s ****** should play similarly.
My guess is that people have "75" in their mind as average, and are thinking that all of the players are going to be "wearing boxing gloves" (bad fielders) or running in sludge (slow). That's not going to be the case.
******s ******s and these ******s will have the same "average" and the same performance above/below average. I intentionally based my ******s/formulas off that set, for this specific reason.Last edited by TripleThreat1973; 04-01-2011, 04:40 PM.GATEWAY TO GREATNESS: 2010 CARDINALS FRANCHISE
http://www.digitalsportscene.com/for...dinals-17.htmlComment
-
Re: Fictional ******s
My guess is that if the ratings are increased above what ****** has as average, that the defenders will all be "super" like what we sometimes see with OF in this game and the only way to get balls down the line or grounders through the infield will be to crank up the solid hits slider to a ridiculous degree.
Increasing defense is likely to cause a serious reduction in offense.
These ******s should have the same balance as ******'s ******. The players should be the same distance from "average" as they should be.
I'll repost ******'s averages by position, so people can use it as a reference while entering ratings.
But any changes are likely to have detrimental effects on other aspects of the game.GATEWAY TO GREATNESS: 2010 CARDINALS FRANCHISE
http://www.digitalsportscene.com/for...dinals-17.htmlComment
-
Re: Fictional ******s
My guess is that if the ratings are increased above what ****** has as average, that the defenders will all be "super" like what we sometimes see with OF in this game and the only way to get balls down the line or grounders through the infield will be to crank up the solid hits slider to a ridiculous degree.
Increasing defense is likely to cause a serious reduction in offense.
These ******s should have the same balance as ******'s ******. The players should be the same distance from "average" as they should be.
I'll repost ******'s averages by position, so people can use it as a reference while entering ratings.
But any changes are likely to have detrimental effects on other aspects of the game.
Yes.....
Just my .02......I would caution on the side of lower for a lot of players and make very few Ozzie's!
M.K.
******165All gave some. Some gave all. 343Comment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
Fair enough. When Mr. Random made his observation, I first checked just a handful of MLB teams on the default roster (the Orioles, Redsox, and Yankees were the first I saw). The starters for the Redsox and Yankees have defensive ratings around 80 or 90 with a few exceptions. When I scrolled through the spreadsheet, it looked like that wouldn't be the case for any of the teams. I wonder if there is a big disparity between the MLBPA starters and everyone else in the league so that "average" would skew the ratings too low for starters on solid defensive teams.
I didn't do an exhaustive search. Plus, your recommendations in terms of gameplay are well taken.
So: ignore my last post. Let's go with the spreadsheet ratings and see how it plays. If people think the defense is sloppy, they can bump up the ratings of the starters for some of the players or some of the teams.
Knight, if you happen to see this, could you tell me about how long the import process takes as you assemble the master roster from the players that people send you? The spreadsheet for the batters that TripleThreat posted has about 900 players with another 900 or so to come with the Pitcher spreadsheet. So, I'm just trying to get a sense for what's ahead of me.
Thanks everyone.Comment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
On the Master Roster, I've finished writing over the MLBPA players, including the Free Agent list (all 140 of them). I'm going to begin editing the FA's, but was going to only edit 40 total, position players and pitchers, for the roster. The rest I wrote over with generic players from either the default roster or the first roster update.
I hope that's enough. I'll try to put all of the players I edit in the "Free Agent 1" list, though some might spill over into the "Free Agent 2" list. Does that seem like enough to everyone? The FA's are a bit more work since I have to move the players from the FA list to a team, edit them, then move them back. I hope it doesn't seem like whining, but I think we'll have more than enough players without a complete FA overhaul.Comment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
Fair enough. When Mr. Random made his observation, I first checked just a handful of MLB teams on the default roster (the Orioles, Redsox, and Yankees were the first I saw). The starters for the Redsox and Yankees have defensive ratings around 80 or 90 with a few exceptions. When I scrolled through the spreadsheet, it looked like that wouldn't be the case for any of the teams. I wonder if there is a big disparity between the MLBPA starters and everyone else in the league so that "average" would skew the ratings too low for starters on solid defensive teams.
I didn't do an exhaustive search. Plus, your recommendations in terms of gameplay are well taken.
So: ignore my last post. Let's go with the spreadsheet ratings and see how it plays. If people think the defense is sloppy, they can bump up the ratings of the starters for some of the players or some of the teams.
Knight, if you happen to see this, could you tell me about how long the import process takes as you assemble the master roster from the players that people send you? The spreadsheet for the batters that TripleThreat posted has about 900 players with another 900 or so to come with the Pitcher spreadsheet. So, I'm just trying to get a sense for what's ahead of me.
Thanks everyone.
Exporting...then importing. I would then move them to a flash drive....and make folders on your PC...and move them there. Delete them from your PS3 HDD....because the list gets...LOOOOOOONG otherwise.
Good luck!
M.K.
Knight165All gave some. Some gave all. 343Comment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
I intentionally made more players than we need. 40 man rosters will be 1200 players. That means there will be 600 or so spreadsheet players we do not use. I lister them by talent so that each person selects the best players for each team just by going in order
I thought about giving each team the same number of players at each position, but that would have taken a while and guys were ready to start editing.GATEWAY TO GREATNESS: 2010 CARDINALS FRANCHISE
http://www.digitalsportscene.com/for...dinals-17.htmlComment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
OK, quick message.
TripleThreat confirmed my suspicion that the CF speed ratings were low. By the way, this issue is separate from the earlier conversation about seemingly low fielding ratings. Most of the ratings are deliberately set where they are at. There was a specific problem with the CF speed ratings. TripleThreat can explain this better than I can, but the gist of the problem was that the formula he used for combining speed and range ratings from the OOTP roster apparently handled CF's differently than, say, second baseman.
So, keep generating players according to the spreadsheet and then I'll go in afterwards and boost the CF speed ratings before uploading the roster.
I don't know about you guys, but when anticipating editing many many players over the course of this project, I am very happy for such detailed spreadsheets. It helps me to narrow my focus to the few things that need my attention, such as faces and batting stances.
TripleThreat didn't exactly have to be talked into doing this, but he volunteered his time nonetheless, and he deserves our gratitude. As do all of you editors. This kind of project requires an abnormal dedication to a video game. I very much appreciate your effort.
Let's get these cranked out and start playing!Comment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
My original plan was to figure what the 5 most populat batting gloves, fielding gloves, bats, and spikes were and to come up with a similar pattern/colring for the game and assign them to players. I didn't do this due to time. Simply put I did not want to keep people waiting. If this is important I can do it at the end (for those interested), or each can do it however they want when the rosters are done.
Same thing for stances and deliveries. I will do pitching deleveries since I am finishing up the pitchers tonight (or early Sunday). We're getting ready to head to the diamonds for a few hours.
I would suggest using player jersey numbers as their batting stance (31=Gen31) or something like that. Anything will work provided we have variety without overuse.
For pitchers, I am using GB% or tendencies to assign one (or more) fastball types. High GB pitchers will throw 2-seam only, and extreme FB pitchers will be 4-seam only, with everyone else in between throwing 2 Fastball types. I will also assign, perhaps randomly the different CB and CC types and have corresponding velocity differences. Each guy will be different without following the exact pattern. In other words pitchers will have realistic differences in FB and CH velocity differences without everyone having the league average 14mph difference. Same with other pitches. Most pitchers will have similar controls (but not identical) for their pitches, as this is most realistic and control ratings will be based on actual MLB data.
The big difference in pitch quality will be break and velocity, also realistic. However there are pitchers that have large differences between their best and worst pitches, and it will show in the pitch ratings.
It will also be fairly common for quality relievers to have a dominant pitch, which is a general characteristic of closers.
The thing I am liking about these ratings is that they are very realistic. High GB pitchers will give up more H but fewer HR, wheras extreme flyball pitchers will give up fewer H and more HR. There are also both high K guys with low control and some that have good control ( and a couple that have both great 'stuff' and control, ala Lee and Felix. Many pitcher "types" which should make the gameplay interesting and limit redundancy.
There are not many teams that just feature all average starters, with the difference being in the number of good starters. So, just like MLB the big difference between strong and weak pitching teams is depth.
What I have done for pitches is come up with the "average" pitch based on MLB data and input from Knight, where a league average pitch is 65 control and 60 break. Then, the pitchers overall and pitch specific ratings (along with actual MLB pitch data) determine how many ratings points are +\- to the average pitch. Velocities are closely monitored so there won't be any Zach Greinke's from MVP that featured a 94mph fastball and the legendary and unhittable 65mph big breaking curveball. There just aren't any pitchers like that. Well not since El Duque retired.
There are some differences than MLB. For example there are 12 pitchers that throw ascrewball. In MLB there are not any RHPs that throw it. In these rosters there are a couple. Higher K pitchers will tend to throw a Circle Change which move away from same-handed batters, and high GB guys will tend to throw a regular change, which results in fewer Ks but more pulled GBs. Some pitchers will also throw a "slow curve", some a "hard slider" and some even a slow curve and a regular curve (curve and sweeping curve) to emulate guys that effectively throw the same pitch at different speeds.
All starters will throw at least 3 pitches. Late inning (low stamina) guys will throw 3 or less.GATEWAY TO GREATNESS: 2010 CARDINALS FRANCHISE
http://www.digitalsportscene.com/for...dinals-17.htmlComment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
My initial thought was also to do speed ratings "by position" to ensure that the most demanding positions result in the best speeds.
When using season stats or projections, I always use the James Speed Score and it rewards guys that play CF and Ss and docking C and 1B. For these rosters, due to time, I combined speed and range thinking it would do the same. It didn't. The game must use different code for CF than other OF positions. So once we are done, RM will go in and add a speed bonus to CF. Even though there are some non-speedsters that play CF (Rasmus, Rowand, etc) and some blazers that play the corner (Crawford), the overall trend in baseball is for the fastest OF to play CF, even though there is at least one Ichiro.
In these rosters there will still be some faster corner OF and some slower CF, but it will still follow the same general trend ... Just as I'm sure most 1Bs are power guys with a few that are not.
I don't remember what team it is, but one team has 6'4 220 24yo SS that just mashes and plays good D. Think ARod or Hanley. It's good that these guys exist in the roster, but it's even better that there's just one.GATEWAY TO GREATNESS: 2010 CARDINALS FRANCHISE
http://www.digitalsportscene.com/for...dinals-17.htmlComment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
I think I've found a problem with the potential grades. There look to be about twice as many "A" potential players as there should be. The B's and C's mostly check out. The problem here, of course, is that there is no way to edit potential grades. So once you've edited an "A" potential player, the only way to make him into a "B" or "C" is to start over again with the lower rated player.
I should have reviewed the spreadsheet more closely before I posted it. Anyways, I was hoping you guys might post here just to let me know how far along you are. I would hate to make anybody start over (assuming this doesn't sap the energy from the project altogether, what with the OSFM rosters available to play now). So, once we find out how many players have been edited, maybe we can find a way to swap them with players from teams that haven't been touched yet. The guys that are listed under certain teams on the spreadsheet don't necessarily "belong" to that team, so it might not be too hard to just make sure we have the right distribution of potential grades. If we don't, this roster will only be playable for a season or so before everyone is a stud commanding multi-million dollar contracts.
For now, I'd suggest postponing anymore editing until we find a solution. I'm sure you won't mind taking a break to play some franchise games for the weekend.
If people haven't gotten far at all, I can probably go through the spreadsheet manually and correct the potential grade distribution. Though I'm hoping TripleThreat will have an easier method.Comment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
Here's what must have happened. I read this ...
A's:
Total (for the AL): 150
Average (per team): 11
Range (per team): 5 to 11
It appears that you meant that there were 85 A potential pitchers and 65 A potential batters in the AL.
I would just make every other A potential batter a B and leave it at that.
It is just potential and not necessarily overall or current talent. The potential ratings are based of off potential and not current talent.
It should only make a major difference if someone plays 4+ seasons. Even then it might not.GATEWAY TO GREATNESS: 2010 CARDINALS FRANCHISE
http://www.digitalsportscene.com/for...dinals-17.htmlComment
-
Re: Fictional Rosters
From a PM TripleThreat sent me is another suggestion for the Potential grades confusion (assuming SCEA doesn't just let us edit potential grades in the mean time...):
Another option ...
In the final roster ...
(1) Edit 75 of the A-potential batters and make their ages 35-39, so they retire after a few seasons.
(2) Edit another 75 A-potential batters and make their ages 18-20, and lower their ratings to an "A ball" level so they progress and trickle into MLB at different times.
When I do go about it, I think we ought to change 3 "A" players per team into veterans on the way out, and then change another 2 "A" players (the ones that are already young) into single A prospects. That will give us the 150 we need. Making the prospects will also help increase the number of young prospects in our league. We can use Knight's spreadsheet when determining how much to drop their ratings relative to how many years younger we make them.
I didn't see anyone else post anything about their progress. How are things coming? I imagine the initial excitement wears off a bit. If anyone finds their interest waning, or finds themselves busier than they thought they might be, please let me know. It will be easier to figure out how to manage this thing if I know how everyone is doing. You can post or PM me.
Thanks much!Last edited by raleigh mcclure; 04-03-2011, 07:04 PM.Comment
Comment