Attributes, animations, etc. that need to be in The Show.

[Gagnon39]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Tagging/sliding would be very hard to evaluate, especially on a 0-99 scale. What's the difference between 90 tagging and 99? or 80 sliding and 85?

I disagree. As it stands right now one of the big gameplay changes in 18 was the fielder's tagging. As soon as I saw the developers talk about it and a few videos I immediately said, "well, everyone's going to apply perfect tags. Every. Single. Time." Which they do. If the ball beats the runner to the bag and the throw is online, the runner is out, 100% of the time. In real baseball this is not the case.

As far as the difference, it could be as easy as a 99 has a 99% chance of applying a perfect tag. An 80 has an 80% chance, etc. Of course there could be higher percentages for guys rated lower as you wouldn't want to have a guy that only has a 40% chance of applying a good tag.

But the tags should be high up on the shoulder sometimes, on the head sometimes, the hip and when it's perfect on the hand or foot (whichever is reaching the bag first). I don't buy that this would be all that hard to program, since this game is so detailed as it is. It could be a more simple solution than this but the fact remains, there should not be perfectly placed tags 100% of the time, period. I'd just take that as it is, make all players, "not perfect." However, making player's skill at tagging and also sliding would be the perfect scenario.

[Caulfield]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gagnon39

I disagree. As it stands right now one of the big gameplay changes in 18 was the fielder's tagging. As soon as I saw the developers talk about it and a few videos I immediately said, "well, everyone's going to apply perfect tags. Every. Single. Time." Which they do. If the ball beats the runner to the bag and the throw is online, the runner is out, 100% of the time. In real baseball this is not the case. As far as the difference, it could be as easy as a 99 has a 99% chance of applying a perfect tag. An 80 has an 80% chance, etc. Of course there could be higher percentages for guys rated lower as you wouldn't want to have a guy that only has a 40% chance of applying a good tag. But the tags should be high up on the shoulder sometimes, on the head sometimes, the hip and when it's perfect on the hand or foot (whichever is reaching the bag first). I don't buy that this would be all that hard to program, since this game is so detailed as it is. It could be a more simple solution than this but the fact remains, there should not be perfectly placed tags 100% of the time, period. I'd just take that as it is, make all players, "not perfect." However, making player's skill at tagging and also sliding would be the perfect scenario.

I didnt take it KB is saying its difficult to program but rather, hard to evaluate without proper stats?

[BigOscar]

Quote: Originally Posted by Caulfield

I didnt take it KB is saying its difficult to program but rather, hard to evaluate without proper stats?

You could say the same about a lot of the stats already there tbh (durability, clutch, difference between fielding and reactions, bunt/drag bunt etc etc)

I think they could do with changing the scale for a lot of these stats are 1-99 is just unnecessary. No one really bunts enough anymore to have an accurate rating, maybe just simplify them to a 1-5 scale or something. (while keeping 1-99 fo more measurable things like contact/power/speed/arm strength etc)

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Caulfield

I didnt take it KB is saying its difficult to program but rather, hard to evaluate without proper stats?

Exactly. How would the rating get set more than "99 for Baez because he's all over highlights with his slides/tags"?

That's why I think the quirk approach would be better and to Big Oscar's good point, apply that for a lot of the "intangible" ratings.

Even if they still exist "under the hood" - show quirks for guys who are good at it. It highlights them more readily, expands the quirks system, players could grow into them/lose them, and alleviates the "what's the difference between 2 points of this or that".

You probably could put ALL attributes under a similar thinking. Probably why the scout scale is 2-8 or 20-80 with changes being representative of large, easily observed/measured levels.

Would be an interesting option - like how OOTP lets you change the scale