Performance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

[Smallville102001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Maverick09

Just simmed one season, here are some examples. Mark Buehrle (36 YO): 14W - 10L, 2.49 ERA: Went from 83 OVR to 69 OVR (-14 OVR) R.A Dickey (40 YO): 11W - 8L, 3.99 ERA: Went from 84 OVR to 68 OVR (-16 OVR) David Ortiz (39 YO): 31 HR, 75 RBI, 261 AVG: Went from 88 OVR to 74 OVR (-14 OVR) There are other examples of guys regressing to this degree (Tim Hudson of the Giants, etc.). Dickey and Ortiz retired, Buehrle stayed around.

wow that dose not look good. Its was thing for guys to get worse in a season but to drop by 10 or more points in just one year and when they have a good season to is not good at all.

[extremeskins04]

Sorry but this thread is kinda ridiculous.

In ANY sports game, AGE IS KING when it comes to regression. Always has been, and it always should be. Yes SCEA toned how much players regress but no sorry, a 39 or 40 year player is not going to stay the same in attributes.

It's just not going to happen, and it shouldn't.

I understand that the devs said in their stream that regression was tweaked some but not to the extent you're thinking of. Old players do not stop getting worse.

[Smallville102001]

Quote: Originally Posted by extremeskins04

Sorry but this thread is kinda ridiculous. In ANY sports game, AGE IS KING when it comes to regression. Always has been, and it always should be. Yes SCEA toned how much players regress but no sorry, a 39 or 40 year player is not going to stay the same in attributes. It's just not going to happen, and it shouldn't. I understand that the devs said in their stream that regression was tweaked some but not to the extent you're thinking of. Old players do not stop getting worse.

Yeah old guys do get worse but guys shouldn't be dropping off by a whole 20 points in one year and after having a great season to. Most players don't show a big decline in just one season. Most players show a decline for sever years not just a big drop in one year. If a player is a say 80 and drops by 20 in just one year that is like a 25% drop in just one year. This is starting to look like the bad regression issue that NBA 2k had before its patch. At the same time I am not to surprised though because sports games tend to have more major issues then they used to and its gotten to the point where just about ever sports game has some major issue in franchise mode that either never gets fixed or that you have to want sever months for it to be fixed. Patches have made things a lot worse then things used to be. If a guy is say 35 and he hits 30 HR and ends up with a 320 batting average changes are he is not going to all of a sudden hit only 10 HR and have a 220 average the next year.

[Grubster11]

I seriously don't understand how anyone can be defending this regression. It makes absolutely no sense to have players in your franchise over the age of 35 with the current system. I agree they need to have some sort of regression for older players, but they need to find a proper balance, as it stands right now (and in past Shows), it makes no sense.

With the advertised "performance based progression" in this year's game, I was really hoping for this issue to have been fixed. I am a Jays fan and have a Jays franchise every year, but it is pointless to have Buehrle or Dickey on my team beyond the first month. Even Bautista drops off significantly by year 2 of the franchise. This is pretty ridiculous and for them to advertise a new progression/ regression system is a blatant marketing ploy.

[Instant C1a55ic]

This is the same issue that plagued my franchise from '14 as well.

I get the point you dont want old timers hanging around which causes younger players to get clogged in the minors system, but R.A. Dickey proves the point most guys are trying to make. Once in a blue moon you get a 35+ guy that turns in a CY Young or MVP type season. You get those guys that stick around longer then they should, and I think the game needs to reflect that.

Its need to be a more balanced system. There is nothing wrong with having 8-10 guys spread out over multiple teams past age 35 stick around for a few more years then they should, you know hovering around 70-80 or so.

I also feel it ads to the vision that I control my franchise as well. If the new progression is based off performance, I should be able to take an aging pitcher, play all of his starts intentionally having him win most of them to have him stick around. Its my choice, my franchise.

All in all, it stinks. It stinks that I have to follow the philosphy from '14 and abondon ship when a guy even sees the slightest amount of decline.

[CujoMatty]

Quote: Originally Posted by extremeskins04

Sorry but this thread is kinda ridiculous. In ANY sports game, AGE IS KING when it comes to regression. Always has been, and it always should be. Yes SCEA toned how much players regress but no sorry, a 39 or 40 year player is not going to stay the same in attributes. It's just not going to happen, and it shouldn't. I understand that the devs said in their stream that regression was tweaked some but not to the extent you're thinking of. Old players do not stop getting worse.

Based on your logic than SCEA probably should have rated dickey a 69 to begin with. If last year he regressed that much in mlb 14 by the end of the year why did they rate him 84 to begin with this year.. It doesn't make any sense. If they truthfully feel like the regression system is working properly and is realistic than dickey shouldn't be rated higher than he was last year.

If I did a year to year franchise with last year I'd be starting with dickey at 69 and then God knows what for next year. If thats truly what they think would happen in real life regression he can't be an 84 out of the box this year. So which is right? Should he be an 84 or 69 starting this year. I don't think anyone being at all realistic would say he's a 69.

[BrianU]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

I disagree. Statistics do not prove that skills have improved or not diminished. I really would like to see performance progression toned down a tad. If you Sim in the future a little the league becomes dominated by pitchers rated 88+ with sub 3 eras. I've seen players drop less than other Sims and maintain better in others.

You do great work when it comes to testing franchise year after year. I hope the devs read your posts!

In your tests, how many years would you say we can realistically play franchise before the ratings get out of control? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? If they want to push Y2Y saves as a big feature this really should be addressed pronto.

[ghostofsparta15]

It's annoying, but I will probably edit the "superstars" (Cabrera, Trout, Kershaw) to curb some of the regression in each off-season.

Do I except Miggy to stay above a 90 ovr late into his no, but I also dont expect him to be in the 60's.