Problems with player development?

[DarthRambo]

Franchise mode in general is really what holds this game from greatness. I wish we could combine the efforts from NBA 2k presentation, stat keeping, and the immersion they have in their franchise mode...that with the gameplay of this game would take it to the next level.

It is disappointing that every year they seem to do nothing to improve their franchise mode. The budget looks different but that's nothing.

I beg of the devs to please dive deep into improving franchise mode for MLB 18. I will gladly take no additions, just to fix the problems that have plagued this game's franchise mode for years.

Examples would be the regression and progression system. Better models and more prospects for drafts. Cpu lineup logic, and bullpen management logic. Cpu roster management logic needs to be improved overall but pretty good nonetheless.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Operation Sports mobile app

[bspring3]

Quote: Originally Posted by 335TDC

I've screwed around with Franchise enough to see that prospect development is a lot better this year, but still not great. I did a Franchise w/the Dodgers and cleaned house for prospects, drafted really well, and took advantage of the drafted stud/trade glitch, and in 2-3 years I had a roster full of mid-high 80's players in their early 20's. Additionally, Julio blew up to a 98 OVR morale-free by the end of CK's contract. I wish there would be the occasional super-prospect who would blow up and crash the Show early. Don't see that happening this year. On a side note, why the hell does Trea Turner ALWAYS instantly regress in every Franchise I've messed with? And why is he a LOW-B potential? Absolutely mind-boggling...

I did have one super-prospect in 16. Drafted him as a 60 overall in 2016 draft, so started in AA as a 60 overall 18 year old in 2017. Was a 71 overall 19 year old in AAA in 2018. Then an 83 overall 20 year old starter in MLB in 2019. Then a 90 overall 21 year old starter in MLB in 2020.

He started at 89 potential and then moved up to 90 potential by the end.

This is only one example however, and may not be indicative of everyone else's experience....but it can happen.

If you click on the league archives in my signature for the New York Yankees franchise, you will see him as Ray Velez.

[Nolove626]

Quote: Originally Posted by bspring3

I did have one super-prospect in 16. Drafted him as a 60 overall in 2016 draft, so started in AA as a 60 overall 18 year old in 2017. Was a 71 overall 19 year old in AAA in 2018. Then an 83 overall 20 year old starter in MLB in 2019. Then a 90 overall 21 year old starter in MLB in 2020. He started at 89 potential and then moved up to 90 potential by the end. This is only one example however, and may not be indicative of everyone else's experience....but it can happen. If you click on the league archives in my signature for the New York Yankees franchise, you will see him as Ray Velez.

No, I have experienced this in 16' as well. It just does not seem to happen in 17'

[BillPeener]

Quote: Originally Posted by IrishSalsa

Franchise mode in general is really what holds this game from greatness. I wish we could combine the efforts from NBA 2k presentation, stat keeping, and the immersion they have in their franchise mode...that with the gameplay of this game would take it to the next level. It is disappointing that every year they seem to do nothing to improve their franchise mode. The budget looks different but that's nothing. I beg of the devs to please dive deep into improving franchise mode for MLB 18. I will gladly take no additions, just to fix the problems that have plagued this game's franchise mode for years. Examples would be the regression and progression system. Better models and more prospects for drafts. Cpu lineup logic, and bullpen management logic. Cpu roster management logic needs to be improved overall but pretty good nonetheless. Sent from my SM-G920P using Operation Sports mobile app

+1

Franchise trading should be its own mini game. Offer 6 players for a star, and maybe the other GM says, "I like it, give me a few days to think about it." Then, he comes back saying, "eh, it's alright, but one of the players had a broken shoulder last year." Another franchise mechanic - the trainer screen - would allow you to give players physicals so you can see what their health is like. Forget the boring fatigue sliders and injured states. Revamp the injury system so that players get rating drops based on whatever injury they have. Then, you can send GMs player medical reports to boost the chance of them accepting the deal.

Medical reports can also give the player or GM an advantage when it comes to contract discussions, which could be a similar mini game to trading. If Kershaw's a FA and he had a broken elbow last year, he shouldn't demand the same amount as if he was perfectly healthy.

If Kershaw's on the DL for all of April to June with elbow soreness and he comes back in July, other GMs shouldn't immediately say YES give me Kershaw for Harper / Trout / Lindor. They should say, "eh, we don't trust his elbow. You need to give us more or prove he's healthy."

There's so much more that can go into a mini trade game. Right now, the trade system is disrespectful to all of us. It's 2017, and we're stuck trading 3 players at a time, checking every possible trade scenario against GMs who never get annoyed, frustrated, or try to rip us off. They always tell you what deals are acceptable. I don't have to tell you that the franchise trade system is a total joke.

[335TDC]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigOscar

Asked and answered. His overall rating is higher than his potential, so he has to go down. There are a few players like this, it's pretty much just laziness on SDS's franchise team imo as they've not bothered to increase the guys potential but the live team have upgraded the players current rating, so anyone who got a lot better last year gets screwed. (Rays have Colome and Miller who are 80+ players with C potential, so can only go down, lots of other examples)

He's exactly the same as last year's year-end roster, which is kind of lazy. I understand that he exploded in an unrealistic, unsustainable way last year, but he's a surefire A prospect, so this initial roster should have lowered his OVR to the low-mid 80's and bumped his potential. Ball dropped.

[335TDC]

Quote: Originally Posted by sccavs64

Uh oh.. what's this "drafted stud/trade glitch" you speak of? I literally just picked up the game last night sorry I'm late to the party

It's not a gamebreaker at all because the cpu doesn't work it, so you can just not do it. Simply put, when drafted players become available for trade during the offseason, you can fleece cpu teams because for some reason stud-A proscpects have little or no value. Seriously: you can get a 99 potential 18 year old for a C potential guy. It's goofy.

Similarly, there are always some studly prospects in free agency at the start of every franchise, but those guys are de facto untradeable if you sign them. In my Cubs franchise, there was -- seriously -- an 18yo A potential CF with an OVR of 74. Just hanging out in free agency. Signed, he's instantly top-5 on the prospect list. Who needs Almora or Jon Jay...? But I'm keeping him in AA and playing the long game...

[BigOscar]

Quote: Originally Posted by 335TDC

He's exactly the same as last year's year-end roster, which is kind of lazy. I understand that he exploded in an unrealistic, unsustainable way last year, but he's a surefire A prospect, so this initial roster should have lowered his OVR to the low-mid 80's and bumped his potential. Ball dropped.

Pretty sure Addison Reed is an 84, yet has potential 71. They just didn't bother update the vast, vast majority of players potential. I've updated a bunch myself on my franchise otherwise far too many players are going to backwards in their peak years

[bowler300820]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigOscar

Pretty sure Addison Reed is an 84, yet has potential 71. They just didn't bother update the vast, vast majority of players potential. I've updated a bunch myself on my franchise otherwise far too many players are going to backwards in their peak years

I'm having the same gripe with Kyle Barraclaugh of the Marlins. 85 overall with a D potential. I didn't even bother looking to see if it was 69 or 61.