Performance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

[BrianU]

The regression tied to age thing is frustrating because we have lots of solutions here in the community from people that test this one area hardcore. This is a great resource the answers are all here they just need to implement it. I know this is all subjective but as others mention, when you look at RA Dickey in MLB 14s rating beginning of the year in the first roster, then this year, he did not drop 15 points....

Why can't those 15 point drops just be 5 point drops? Seems like a very easy fix just changing an attribute in the game code. Also give a bit more boost to performance limiting the drop. Bingo Bango problem solved.

Don't get me wrong The Show has the best franchise mode in all of the sports games and next year with statistics getting upgraded it will be crazy addicting but it is frustrating when within 1 week of the game being released we have spotted these issues. I am sure they run franchise simulations at the office, how did they see this as not a realistic mechanic?

[jaysfan17]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bullit

This. Plus I am curious what makes this an "Official Thread"?

I searched the forum to find topics about this feature and I couldn't find any so I created this thread to generate more views in hopes of minimizing the bandwidth. I know it's not technically "official", but I'm hoping some people read this thread instead of making their own.

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

I am worried about Bautista too because it is completely unrealistic that he would decline 5-10 points on his overall rating. Players like Bautista who are physically fit (even in his mid 30's he look's like he's still 25-26 years old) and take good care of themselves seem to stay neutral or age gracefully as they get older. When I look at a guys like Trout, Harper, Pedroia, and Lawrie I can't help but think that they will decline quickly as they get into their mid to late 30's. I believe this because they play game hard every day and never have a clean jersey after nine innings. The fielding and speed will take a hit, but I think the hitting will still be there, whereas the problem here is every attribute decreases.


I strongly believe that the Durability attribute should be taken into account here. For example: Let's take Mark Buerhle, James Shields, Cal Ripken Jr, Mariano Rivera, and Craig Kimbrel. All these guys didn't or rarely were injured and they are relatively consistent year after year.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Quote: Originally Posted by BrianU

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.

Thank you. Yes they hear from me through different forms of communication and CD events. Trust me, when I say they want to make it perfect as well.

I would say that the pitchers get going a little crazy about 4 to 5 years into the future. Seems to really hit closers the hardest with a majority of them 95 plus. Again, it's a fine balancing act because as they pitch better the performance factors into progression causing an increased speed of progression.

Quote: Originally Posted by BrianU

The regression tied to age thing is frustrating because we have lots of solutions here in the community from people that test this one area hardcore. This is a great resource the answers are all here they just need to implement it. I know this is all subjective but as others mentions, I , when you look at RA Dickey in MLB 14s rating beginning of the year in the first roster, then this year, he did not drop 15 points.... Why can't those 15 point drops just be 5 point drops? Seems like a very easy fix just changing an attribute in the game code. Also give a bit more boost to performance limiting the drop. Bingo Bango problem solved. Don't get me wrong The Show has the best franchise mode in all of the sports games and next year with statistics getting upgraded it will be crazy addicting but it is frustrating when within 1 week of the game being released we have spotted these issues. I am sure they run franchise simulations at the office, how did they see this as not a realistic mechanic?

I understand what you are saying about year one regression, but remember the system is set up for all years, not just year 1. As the franchise develops there are not such extreme drops, because they are regressing slowly as they age.

Until there is a progression/regression system tied to individual positions it will be difficult to accurately nail it. We all know shortstops and starters regress, as a whole, much quicker than loogy relievers and knuckle ballers.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by jaysfan17

I searched the forum to find topics about this feature and I couldn't find any so I created this thread to generate more views in hopes of minimizing the bandwidth. I know it's not technically "official", but I'm hoping some people read this thread instead of making their own. I am worried about Bautista too because it is completely unrealistic that he would decline 5-10 points on his overall rating. Players like Bautista who are physically fit (even in his mid 30's he look's like he's still 25-26 years old) and take good care of themselves seem to stay neutral or age gracefully as they get older. When I look at a guys like Trout, Harper, Pedroia, and Lawrie I can't help but think that they will decline quickly as they get into their mid to late 30's. I believe this because they play game hard every day and never have a clean jersey after nine innings. The fielding and speed will take a hit, but I think the hitting will still be there, whereas the problem here is every attribute decreases. I strongly believe that the Durability attribute should be taken into account here. For example: Let's take Mark Buerhle, James Shields, Cal Ripken Jr, Mariano Rivera, and Craig Kimbrel. All these guys didn't or rarely were injured and they are relatively consistent year after year.

Since you guys are bringing Bautista into it...how would you guys get a performance based system to get him from his 05-09 performances to his '09/'10 progression?

M.K.
Knight165

[Grubster11]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Since you guys are bringing Bautista into it...how would you guys get a performance based system to get him from his 05-09 performances to his '09/'10 progression? M.K. Knight165

It would be impossible. They don't have any system in the game where an unknown player can become an all-star. But that's a completely different point altogether.

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

Thank you. Yes they hear from me through different forms of communication and CD events. Trust me, when I say they want to make it perfect as well. I would say that the pitchers get going a little crazy about 4 to 5 years into the future. Seems to really hit closers the hardest with a majority of them 95 plus. Again, it's a fine balancing act because as they pitch better the performance factors into progression causing an increased speed of progression. I understand what you are saying about year one regression, but remember the system is set up for all years, not just year 1. As the franchise develops there are not such extreme drops, because they are regressing slowly as they age. Until there is a progression/regression system tied to individual positions it will be difficult to accurately nail it. We all know shortstops and starters regress, as a whole, much quicker than loogy relievers and knuckle ballers.

I have done many, many, many sims of my own franchises as well. While every player slowly regresses at a certain age, there is always, ALWAYS, one year where every player does the Dickey and drops from an 85 to a 65. Like I said before, if you were doing a fantasy draft, it would be utterly useless to draft anyone over the age of 33, even if they are one of the best players in the league.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Grubster11

It would be impossible. They don't have any system in the game where an unknown player can become an all-star. But that's a completely different point altogether.

My point however is guys arguing for performance based progression and regression as if that's the indicator of how things actually happen.
Some guys RAILED about the random factor brought into player performance/progression/regression but fail to see that more often than not....there is a huge randomness to year to year player performances.

IMO....SCEA doesn't have progression/regression TOTALLY right with it's mostly linear path to projected numbers, but even it's flawed system is light years better than a totally performance based or heavily influenced system for sure(IMO)

M.K.
Knight165

[Knight165]

....and I'll also slightly disagree with your assertion that taking on 33+ age players is "worthless".
If you are "numbers hunting"....perhaps.(and one of the reasons that I beg for the day that we have the ability to NEVER see actual ratings and the GOD AWFUL TOTALLY IRRELEVANT video sports game phenomenon ...OVR.) back to topic....

In my 2014 franchise....I took a chance on two older players. Josh Willingham and Adam Dunn both regressed during the year and looking at their ratings.....you wouldn't really say you'd want them on your club. Especially their OVR.
But somehow through good handling(if I must say so myself) in pretty strict platoon play/PH......I got Dunn to hit .234 with 24 homers and Willingham to hit .295 with 18 homers at 1B.(traded Ike Davis and moved Duda to LF)
Not bad for two 33+ players.

M.K.
Knight165

[Grubster11]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

My point however is guys arguing for performance based progression and regression as if that's the indicator of how things actually happen. Some guys RAILED about the random factor brought into player performance/progression/regression but fail to see that more often than not....there is a huge randomness to year to year player performances. IMO....SCEA doesn't have progression/regression TOTALLY right with it's mostly linear path to projected numbers, but even it's flawed system is light years better than a totally performance based or heavily influenced system for sure(IMO) M.K. Knight165

I agree that SCEA definitely has most of the progression/ regression thing down. EXCEPT for older players. It literally makes no sense, and I don't understand how it's been like this for so many years. I don't get how anyone hasn't seen that it's a problem for older players. There has to be away to balance it out to have a regression for these players, but in no way is a -20 overall drop in a season acceptable. This literally happens for EVERY player at a certain age. It almost seems like it's a bug.