Carry-over File Saves in MLB 21 .... What exactly do we Lose ?

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Armor and Sword

I agree. In the big picture it is. It was just a letdown for those of us who loved and looked forward to carrying forward our franchise on the latest game. It became a tradition. Again lets hope it was all worth it. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

If expanded rosters isn't part of the "revamp" then I'm going to be disappointed, as it has personally been my top priority for changes to franchise and knew after speaking with devs that it wasn't possible with how the infrastructure of their franchise coding was written.

So that is the first thing I want to hear. Obviously there are other things I want, but for me personally it begins and ends with expanded rosters.

They add expanded rosters, after having time to think, I will likely pick up '21. If not, then I don't know that there is anything they could add, without expanded rosters, that would make me end my carryover and start fresh.

Gameplay elements, overhaul of fielding being most significant thus far, will also play a part in which version of MLB The Show I'm playing come April 20th.

Time will tell.

[Bullit]

Quote: Originally Posted by Armor and Sword

I think this is the step back year since they have “revamped” franchise mode and also had to code the game for XBOX. The real story will come on MLB 22 and maybe not till MLB 23. These are the real hardline questions I want to know and have answered by MLB 22 for PS5 1. Will rosters be able to transfer from 21 to 22 2. Will we have all the tools we had from last gen plus more? 3. Will Y2Y saves return for 22 4. Did gameplay go backwards or forwards from a simulation point of view not a stick jockey point of view 5. Was it worth ditching Y2Y to re design the core franchise mode? 6. Sounds of the Show still in? 7. Better presentation (it is already top shelf imo). Look I have to think we are getting expanded roster capabilities, expanded statistics, full minor league statistics, rotating inter league schedules, more customization abilities within franchise, more classic ballparks, more minor league parks, a better scouting engine, better regression and progression, the ability to edit coaches and managers and of course better gameplay and visual candy on the new consoles and the biggest one? Better AI. We get all that? Worth it all day every day. We get window dressing and nothing to do cartwheels about. Well that would suck. Being real. I just want the game to as amazing as it is now and Y2Y return asap. I am just not “feeling” it though in regards to Year to Year saves coming back soon, if ever. But if the rest of the game gets a positive facelift like mentioned above I am cool with it. Nothing wrong with a “better” game in the end! Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Quote: Originally Posted by Armor and Sword

I agree. In the big picture it is. It was just a letdown for those of us who loved and looked forward to carrying forward our franchise on the latest game. It became a tradition. Again lets hope it was all worth it. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I agree with you in theory and with your questions that need to be answered.

I am just a lot more pessimistic than most. I have seen nothing in the modern gaming scene that leads me to have any thought than this is the end of sports gaming for the sim crowd. My feeling is that a lot will be taken out or dumbed down for the sake of "bringing players to the game" There is no reason to not expect them to fully embrace the DD and microtransaction practices that are prevalent in every facet of gaming today.

They will tout analytics and numbers what have you. But it all comes down to the all mighty dollar. While the Devs may love the game and want to put out a great Baseball product. They, in reality, have very little say over their product. Especially as a first party studio. SDS has removed more than they have added this generation and a lot of it was done without notice or attention.

I love '20 and have loved the Franchise as a whole. Ive played since 2007. But for me and in my opinion this is the sign on the wall that its over for me. Do I hope I am wrong? Of course I do. Am I saying that '21 is going to suck. Of course not. Well at least not as a product. It may actually suck for a lot of us. I just don't see any real improvements coming to "our" crowd. I think the trend going forward will be "quicker, easier, shorter, spend money" This trend has already been getting pushed to the forefront every year since the introduction of DD.

I truly hope they are successful in whatever they do. I don't begrudge them making money. But until proven otherwise, I will assume the worst and just be happy with what I have.

[TheWarmWind]

If there truly are franchise improvements, especially the ones I seek, then I'll probably get MLB 21.

I want to encourage the devs in the direction they've gone, and I also want to get a head start on a potential new generation of carry over action.

It will really, really suck to put down my 2014 carry over. There are players in there that I just can't imagine my Jays without. But in the long run, the sacrifice will be worth it, and if I truly miss them that much, I can always go back and play 20.

I think it's fair to say I'm one of the most attached to the carry over feature. Before year to year saves, I bought sports games infrequently, and had only ever bought 2 versions of the Show (09, 12). After the carry over feature, I virtually only ever played one mode (franchise) and one save, and bought every new iteration at or near launch.

Yet in spite of that attachment, I'll gladly sacrifice it on the alter of franchise improvements. All good things come to an end, and in this case the ends justify the means. I'm of course assuming the changes I want are coming.

As a side note: man I really hope they rip off the progression/regression and star/colour system from NHL. That system is so good and, with some minor tweaks, would be perfect for the Show.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

[capa]

Having worked in the IT field since the 80s it bothers me when I hear "technically we can't do it."

That is almost always not true when it comes to database mgt and software. What it really means is "we don't want to spend the time and money to write and test an API to transfer data.

It is what it is, but anything can be done..it just may not be worth their investment.

C

Sent from my Pixel using Operation Sports mobile app

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by baseballrosters

Just asking for clarification. Do We Lose ONLY Year-To-Year FRANCHISE Saves, or do we also lose the quick transfer of individual (classic) roster files, as was introduced in MLB 20. Another issue is do we Lose the ability to "Import/Export" players from a franchise file, into a roster file. Sent from my SM-J327T1 using Operation Sports mobile app

I'm in a carry over relocated franchise. What do you mean by losing year-to-year franchise saves? I kept my franchise and then relocated.

Regarding roster files I have always used the SCEA rosters. I've seen no problem keeping them intact with carry over saves. Can't speak to third party rosters.

[JoshC1977]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

If expanded rosters isn't part of the "revamp" then I'm going to be disappointed, as it has personally been my top priority for changes to franchise and knew after speaking with devs that it wasn't possible with how the infrastructure of their franchise coding was written. So that is the first thing I want to hear. Obviously there are other things I want, but for me personally it begins and ends with expanded rosters. They add expanded rosters, after having time to think, I will likely pick up '21. If not, then I don't know that there is anything they could add, without expanded rosters, that would make me end my carryover and start fresh. Gameplay elements, overhaul of fielding being most significant thus far, will also play a part in which version of MLB The Show I'm playing come April 20th. Time will tell.

I'm right there with you. I know some folks will say "who cares about expanded rosters?"; they want something flashy, and I get it.

But expanded rosters, even just 15-18 slots to accommodate a full A-ball, would hugely help in several areas. You can do a true representation of AAA and AA lineups, complete with all those marginal (D/F potential) guys. Those marginal guys are hugely important to how well the mode works because it allows for a proper flow of prospects through the systems. Essentially, it keeps the mode balanced. The added slots gives the wiggle room to add those 'flashy' young prospects down in A-ball without overloading systems with A/B potential prospects.

With the current 90-man rosters, roster creators often had to make tough choices between adding a bunch of prospects (which was horrible for franchise longevity) or staying more authentic in the upper minors (great for franchise longevity, but unpopular to those that wanted every 17 yr old 'prospect' added to their team's roster as an 'A' potential). This is one reason why Bacon's Fictional roster has been so well-received, he was able to craft a roster with loads of D-potential guys without people whining about "why so-and-so 'hot prospect' isn't in the roster" - and the result is a superior franchise experience.

The additional slots would allow roster creators to keep those marginal guys around while still adding a reasonable number of "high-end" prospects. By making this less of a conundrum, this ultimately begins to distill down into several areas:

1. Improved progression. With the lower potential guys cratering and dropping out of the minors, it opens up slots for the younger guys to get playing time in AA/AAA. More playing time = better progression. In other words, you're not seeing prospects be useless until they are 25/26 yrs old.

2. Younger/lower rated guys are cheaper. This adds up quickly, allowing teams to save several million each off-season. This gives team the budget space to lap up those veteran FAs. So, in theory, no more 35 yr old 88 OVR guys being left un-signed.

3. More "injury resistance". More players gives the system more flexibility to fill injury slots in both the high minors and major league level. Even simming games at 6 for the injury slider can sometimes result in some minor league systems getting devastated by injuries to the point where they don't have enough bodies for certain roles.

4. Better 40-man roster management. As the lower potential guys get flushed out, those better-developing younger prospects become more attractive to be added to the 40-man rosters earlier in their careers. So, none of that drivel where 79/80 OVR prospects are just hanging out off the 40-man rosters.

5. More challenging trade dynamics. Sorry...when you have a slew of A potential guys, it's WAY too easy to make really unfair trades in your favor. In a more balanced roster environment, you'll be thinking twice about trading one of your (few) A guys...even if he is a couple years away.

Ultimately...this ONE change makes the life of one's franchise experience (whether you play every game or simulate a lot) a lot better and makes it a critical need for the potential future of this series as a whole.

[Armor and Sword]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoshC1977

I'm right there with you. I know some folks will say "who cares about expanded rosters?"; they want something flashy, and I get it. But expanded rosters, even just 15-18 slots to accommodate a full A-ball, would hugely help in several areas. You can do a true representation of AAA and AA lineups, complete with all those marginal (D/F potential) guys. Those marginal guys are hugely important to how well the mode works because it allows for a proper flow of prospects through the systems. Essentially, it keeps the mode balanced. The added slots gives the wiggle room to add those 'flashy' young prospects down in A-ball without overloading systems with A/B potential prospects. With the current 90-man rosters, roster creators often had to make tough choices between adding a bunch of prospects (which was horrible for franchise longevity) or staying more authentic in the upper minors (great for franchise longevity, but unpopular to those that wanted every 17 yr old 'prospect' added to their team's roster as an 'A' potential). This is one reason why Bacon's Fictional roster has been so well-received, he was able to craft a roster with loads of D-potential guys without people whining about "why so-and-so 'hot prospect' isn't in the roster" - and the result is a superior franchise experience. The additional slots would allow roster creators to keep those marginal guys around while still adding a reasonable number of "high-end" prospects. By making this less of a conundrum, this ultimately begins to distill down into several areas: 1. Improved progression. With the lower potential guys cratering and dropping out of the minors, it opens up slots for the younger guys to get playing time in AA/AAA. More playing time = better progression. In other words, you're not seeing prospects be useless until they are 25/26 yrs old. 2. Younger/lower rated guys are cheaper. This adds up quickly, allowing teams to save several million each off-season. This gives team the budget space to lap up those veteran FAs. So, in theory, no more 35 yr old 88 OVR guys being left un-signed. 3. More "injury resistance". More players gives the system more flexibility to fill injury slots in both the high minors and major league level. Even simming games at 6 for the injury slider can sometimes result in some minor league systems getting devastated by injuries to the point where they don't have enough bodies for certain roles. 4. Better 40-man roster management. As the lower potential guys get flushed out, those better-developing younger prospects become more attractive to be added to the 40-man rosters earlier in their careers. So, none of that drivel where 79/80 OVR prospects are just hanging out off the 40-man rosters. 5. More challenging trade dynamics. Sorry...when you have a slew of A potential guys, it's WAY too easy to make really unfair trades in your favor. In a more balanced roster environment, you'll be thinking twice about trading one of your (few) A guys...even if he is a couple years away. Ultimately...this ONE change makes the life of one's franchise experience (whether you play every game or simulate a lot) a lot better and makes it a critical need for the potential future of this series as a whole.

Outstanding post and why expanded rosters was #1 on the list. True full minors at A level ball is really that important to a long term franchise.

That really needs to be happening for 21 if indeed that is the reason they scraped Y2Y saves.

If you think about it. That is the most common sense reason they had to scrap it. Rosters would not be right moving from a 90 man roster save file to say a 104 man roster.

We will know soon enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Armor and Sword

Outstanding post and why expanded rosters was #1 on the list. True full minors at A level ball is really that important to a long term franchise. That really needs to be happening for 21 if indeed that is the reason they scraped Y2Y saves. If you think about it. That is the most common sense reason they had to scrap it. Rosters would not be right moving from a 90 man roster save file to say a 104 man roster. We will know soon enough. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

That is my hope.

If you expand the rosters from 90 to 110+, not only does the roster management of franchise need to be re-written, but so does the financial aspect of it so that it works out.

I know its not "smart" to do so, but I'm banking on expanded rosters being in '21 and the reason why Y2Y saves had to be "suspended" for the year.