Performance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

[DarthRambo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Threeebs

Listen, I am such a loser, for The Show's 13 iteration I used to do this at the end of every season and it would take hours. I had a system based on age and contractual obligation. Players in the middle of multi year deals that were regressing, I would reverse all regression at years end so the next season he could start all over again from his year's starting OVR that way teams weren't paying a guy 12 million to sit on their A roster. I'd continue to reverse his regression until the end of the contract. If he happened to sign with a team for a new deal I would then reverse the regression again but if he didn't sign I'd leave him alone to waste away on the free agency list until he retired. If a player was rated in the 90's and was relatively old and he started regressing in the second last year of his deal, I would leave his regression alone for him to regress for one more year. If he signed a new contract I'd reverse his regression but only to the tune of his previous years contract OVR. What I really wanted was for most of these guys to retire because I didn't want to waste so many hours reversing their regression. But if they signed I would fulfill my obligation to reverse their regression because after all seeing continuity in the league was not only special to me, but reflective of the real MLB, for true superstars anyway.

I agree! What I'm going to do is something very simple tho lol. But I can manage regression how I see fit

[DarthRambo]

For the first year I will make it where no one regresses the entire year. At the end of each month reverse regression for anyone 35+. Then based on stats at the end of the year I will regress them myself. No real formula to it but just lowering attributes here and there. I'll use a random app generator to determine if his overall drops from a 1-7ovr range or something.

[Smallville102001]

Quote: Originally Posted by IrishSalsa

I just checked in my franchise and I can edit any player I want. Don't agree with the regression has been? Change it back! It will take all but 45-60 seconds.

I don't see how going though 30 teams roster and hundreds of players can only take 45-60 seconds try more like hours.

[DarthRambo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Smallville102001

I don't see how going though 30 teams roster and hundreds of players can only take 45-60 seconds try more like hours.

Just sort by age and only look at guys 35 or older. And then only players who are 75 or 80+ overall. Not that many...and I meant 45sec to edit a guy.

[Smallville102001]

Quote: Originally Posted by IrishSalsa

Just sort by age and only look at guys 35 or older. And then only players who are 75 or 80+ overall. Not that many...and I meant 45sec to edit a guy.

Oh lol I thought you meant over all but still this is something we shouldn't have to do. I was surprised that NBA 2k patched there as it was really bad and the patch that fixed it came out like 5 months after the game so I see know reason why mlb cant be patched to. Question can you edit players right in the screen that shows if they progressed or not? In NBA 2k I don't think you can so if you are going to edit guys I think you have to keep track of how much they went down and I don't think it shows how many points they went down in a skill. I think it just says like shooting A now A- but doesn't say like they went down say 4 in shooting.

[cervin29]

I agree sometimes it can be very frustrating to see high caliber players falling off the cliff. This was one thing I did appreciate about the dreaded 2K baseball game. The had an option on every player of what age their prime would start and what age they would start to decline. You had some superstars that were set to decline at age 31-32 while some were at 35+

What I noticed was the guys that were set to decline at 31-32 generally experienced a slow and steady decline, their numbers consistently declined over the next 3-7 years but not at an advanced rate. The guys set at 35+ would have the\ chance to continue their superior years through 35, but generally at 36 or 37 there would be a fall off the cliff moment and there was a substantial ratings decrease.

There was always the few exceptions that were able to hold on longer and some that went ahead and tanked ahead of schedule but overall I always found there was a good mix of veterans, prime superstars, and young players.

The same went for drafted players, you could find a highly rated prospect that you draft but he's slated for an early prime and decline age. He may sprout early but ends up being a flash in the pan and falls off as quickly as he arrived. You may also have the late bloomer that turns into a valuable asset over time.

I think there is a reliable (not perfect) system that could be established based upon performance, age, position, and like Knight said a touch of randomness i.e. injuries, Bautista like Dark Horse, or a huge drop off of a star.

My last point though is to keep in mind that the system is purely trying to predict the future, we know these older superstars are going to fall off, the when and how much is the question. Everyone will have their own opinion of what is fair and what is excessive. Look at a player like Albert Pujols, a combination of decline and injuries and he looks like a shell of his former self his first couple years with the Angels. I don't think anyone saw that coming. Then last year he comes back with a significant increase across the board. How do you predict that?

[Smallville102001]

Quote: Originally Posted by cervin29

I agree sometimes it can be very frustrating to see high caliber players falling off the cliff. This was one thing I did appreciate about the dreaded 2K baseball game. The had an option on every player of what age their prime would start and what age they would start to decline. You had some superstars that were set to decline at age 31-32 while some were at 35+ What I noticed was the guys that were set to decline at 31-32 generally experienced a slow and steady decline, their numbers consistently declined over the next 3-7 years but not at an advanced rate. The guys set at 35+ would have the\ chance to continue their superior years through 35, but generally at 36 or 37 there would be a fall off the cliff moment and there was a substantial ratings decrease. There was always the few exceptions that were able to hold on longer and some that went ahead and tanked ahead of schedule but overall I always found there was a good mix of veterans, prime superstars, and young players. The same went for drafted players, you could find a highly rated prospect that you draft but he's slated for an early prime and decline age. He may sprout early but ends up being a flash in the pan and falls off as quickly as he arrived. You may also have the late bloomer that turns into a valuable asset over time. I think there is a reliable (not perfect) system that could be established based upon performance, age, position, and like Knight said a touch of randomness i.e. injuries, Bautista like Dark Horse, or a huge drop off of a star. My last point though is to keep in mind that the system is purely trying to predict the future, we know these older superstars are going to fall off, the when and how much is the question. Everyone will have their own opinion of what is fair and what is excessive. Look at a player like Albert Pujols, a combination of decline and injuries and he looks like a shell of his former self his first couple years with the Angels. I don't think anyone saw that coming. Then last year he comes back with a significant increase across the board. How do you predict that?

What year was that when 2k did that?

[thawkprime 21]

Do older players retire based more on age or on skill in the game. It was just a thought i had and havnt had time to test it. But if I edit players to not regress as fast will it prolong how long they are in the game which would result in to many good players in the minnors not getting call ups. I guess my questions is does the show value skill or age when determining retirements.