Performance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

[jaysfan17]

I just simmed the last half of April after playing the first half and I must say the "new" Performance-Based Player Progression feature doesn't seem to work for me. This was the biggest feature I was most looking forward too. I thought I was finally going to have veteran players (35-40) on my team without having to trade them away before or halfway through the season.


Example: RA Dickey was 3-0 with a 1.98 ERA and he as already regressed 2-3 points per pitching attribute. Mark Buerhle's record is slightly weaker, but he's probably performing at a typical Mark Buerhle level. He's decreased at the same rate as well.


Before I bought the game, my assumption was that over the year, Mark and RA would probably gain a point or two or stay neutral IF they had the same season as last year. Right now, IMO, they are performing exceptionally better then last year.


I have the game for both the Vita and PS4 and I've noticed that not all features in the PS4 are in the Vita, but I expected that. Is this new feature only in the PS4 and PS3?


Does anyone else notice any problems? Could there be a patch?


Oh, I remember Ramone telling us that we could challenge umpire calls in the game too. Is that only on PS4 and PS3?

[Maverick09]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

I just simmed the last half of April after playing the first half and I must say the "new" Performance-Based Player Progression feature doesn't seem to work for me. This was the biggest feature I was most looking forward too. I thought I was finally going to have veteran players (35-40) on my team without having to trade them away before or halfway through the season.


Example: RA Dickey was 3-0 with a 1.98 ERA and he as already regressed 2-3 points per pitching attribute. Mark Buerhle's record is slightly weaker, but he's probably performing at a typical Mark Buerhle level. He's decreased at the same rate as well.


Before I bought the game, my assumption was that over the year, Mark and RA would probably gain a point or two or stay neutral IF they had the same season as last year. Right now, IMO, they are performing exceptionally better then last year.

Very good points you're bringing up here. I personally haven't done the test, but this would suck if it were the case. What's the point of having older, experienced players if they're going to regress immediately? May as well trade them for younger guys. I hope their regression stops at some point; have you tried to sim the rest of the season to see the result?

[jaysfan17]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Very good points you're bringing up here. I personally haven't done the test, but this would suck if it were the case. What's the point of having older, experienced players if they're going to regress immediately? May as well trade them for younger guys. I hope their regression stops at some point; have you tried to sim the rest of the season to see the result?

Not yet. I kind of just want to play instead of sim for now. I read a different thread and a guy simmed a full season and RA Dickey regressed to 71 by the All-Star break (I think).


Thanks for your input as well; I appreciated it.

[Maverick09]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

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.

[rman]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

So much for the fluff fact sheet they posted. More broken features...makes you wonder how much BS filler is in there.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

In 2008 Mussina must have improved his fastball, endurance and power at 39 since he went 20-9.

The performance progression mitigates some of these losses as you age. NOTHING stops a player from losing skill as they age.

[boxers]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

In 2008 Mussina must have improved his fastball, endurance and power at 39 since he went 20-9.

The performance progression mitigates some of these losses as you age. NOTHING stops a player from losing skill as they age.

Agreed. I haven't tested this myself but based on the above examples, it sounds like the base regression level needs to be tuned a little bit. If the formula is:

Net regression/progression= base regression/progression + performance based progression/regression

For example, the base regression for a 38 year old is -10 OVR, with a 2.50 ERA season, he should be able to have a maximum performance based progression of +5 OVR. Net regression=-5 OVR.
If that same player has a terrible season, he receives a maximum -5 OVR performance based regression. Net regression -15OVR.

It just seems harsh for the game to punish a 36 year old who puts up a 2.49ERA in the AL East, as Mark-E-Mark seemed to do in the OP's sim.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Agreed. I haven't tested this myself but based on the above examples, it sounds like the base regression level needs to be tuned a little bit. If the formula is:

Net regression/progression= base regression/progression + performance based progression/regression

For example, the base regression for a 38 year old is -10 OVR, with a 2.50 ERA season, he should be able to have a maximum performance based progression of +5 OVR. Net regression=-5 OVR.
If that same player has a terrible season, he receives a maximum -5 OVR performance based regression. Net regression -15OVR.

It just seems harsh for the game to punish a 36 year old who puts up a 2.49ERA in the AL East, as Mark-E-Mark seemed to do in the OP's sim.

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.

[boxers]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

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.

Fair. But how else do you implement a feature called performance based progression? I'm in favour of older players OVR dropping off a cliff but a good performance during the season should have some impact in staving off regression. Dropping 14 OVR after a sub 3 ERA season is too harsh IMO. An 85 OVR, mid rotation player, instantly becomes a mid-rotation AAA player despite putting up good numbers.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the system is somewhat flawed. If Dickey puts up a 3 ERA in real life this season, guaranteed he is rated at least 80 OVR in MLB 16. There's no reason for him to drop to 68 OVR in your franchise, because the regression basically says so.

What's the point of the performance based progression if it does nothing to stave off regression? A 68 OVR player is useless to your MLB team. You might as well just have pre-determined regression like before.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

I believe there is some staving off there. Just my observations, but let's assume that regression starts at 33. Every year would see a greater inherent regression.

As they age the performance only mitages a small amount the regression.

So a 40 year old would normally lose 20 points. With a great season he may only lose 17.

Imagine if the formula was as was mentioned before with a net loss of only 5. If that was the case we would have players playing at 50 at a high level. The ratings would remain high, which translates into stats, which in turn affect regression.

A vicious cycle.

[boxers]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

I hear what you're saying but -17 vs. -20 doesn't really make a difference when a 40 year old player is starting at 85 OVR. At best, a good season for that player means they end up a 68 OVR. With MLB 15's regression system, by mid-June his OVR is likely below 60.

I just don't think that 3/20 reduction is really staving off regression. If you are going to make players' ratings drop off a cliff, there should be some real chance of minimizing the natural regression that player will experience.

33 is a good age for players in MLB 15 to start naturally regressing but with a performance based system, the variability in OVR progression/regression should look more like this.

Age max regression (bad season) max progression (good season)

33 -10 0
34 -12 -2
35 -14 -4
36 -15 -5
37 -16 -6
38 -17 -7
39 -18 -8
40 -20 -10
41 -25 -12

Using these values, even a 33 year old with a 90 OVR who has 4 consecutive MVP seasons, still regresses to a 79OVR by the time he is 37. If he plays terribly, the progression system punishes him and makes him a sub 70 player in a couple of seasons. Essentially, I see the new system as trying to have good players fall gradually down the pecking order. Kind of like Jim Thome going from starter to bench player to situational hitter as he got older.

It should allow veteran players who perform poorly to quickly regress but to allow veterans who are still performing well to continue being useful. So in Dickey's case, if he has bad season he drops from 84 to 64. No chance of cracking an MLB rotation in this video game.
If he has a Cy Young season, he still regresses but from 84 to 74. This takes him from being a top of the rotation guy to a 4th or 5th starter.

I think a performance based progression should allow a player to alter his natural progression/regression by closer to 40%-50% rather than 15%-- especially if natural regression is going to be as dramatic as it is in MLB15.

Time catches up with every player but you should be able somewhat delay, at least in a video game. All that said, maybe that would mess up the current system, leaving too many good players but my view would have a similar impact on younger players who perform poorly. For example, a 26 year old whose natural progression is 5 can be bumped to 10 with a great season or regressed by -5 with a terrible season.

Anyways, I don't think people see it my way, so that's the last I'll say on this issue. I respect your view though, since you definitely know more about this game than I do.

[jaysfan17]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

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.

That's basically what happened in MLB 14 the show.

So much for the fluff fact sheet they posted. More broken features...makes you wonder how much BS filler is in there.

Completely with you on that one, brother.

I hear what you're saying but -17 vs. -20 doesn't really make a difference when a 40 year old player is starting at 85 OVR. At best, a good season for that player means they end up a 68 OVR. With MLB 15's regression system, by mid-June his OVR is likely below 60.

I just don't think that 3/20 reduction is really staving off regression. If you are going to make players' ratings drop off a cliff, there should be some real chance of minimizing the natural regression that player will experience.

33 is a good age for players in MLB 15 to start naturally regressing but with a performance based system, the variability in OVR progression/regression should look more like this.

Age max regression (bad season) max progression (good season)

33 -10 0
34 -12 -2
35 -14 -4
36 -15 -5
37 -16 -6
38 -17 -7
39 -18 -8
40 -20 -10
41 -25 -12

Using these values, even a 33 year old with a 90 OVR who has 4 consecutive MVP seasons, still regresses to a 79OVR by the time he is 37. If he plays terribly, the progression system punishes him and makes him a sub 70 player in a couple of seasons. Essentially, I see the new system as trying to have good players fall gradually down the pecking order. Kind of like Jim Thome going from starter to bench player to situational hitter as he got older.

It should allow veteran players who perform poorly to quickly regress but to allow veterans who are still performing well to continue being useful. So in Dickey's case, if he has bad season he drops from 84 to 64. No chance of cracking an MLB rotation in this video game.
If he has a Cy Young season, he still regresses but from 84 to 74. This takes him from being a top of the rotation guy to a 4th or 5th starter.

I think a performance based progression should allow a player to alter his natural progression/regression by closer to 40%-50% rather than 15%-- especially if natural regression is going to be as dramatic as it is in MLB15.

Time catches up with every player but you should be able somewhat delay, at least in a video game. All that said, maybe that would mess up the current system, leaving too many good players but my view would have a similar impact on younger players who perform poorly. For example, a 26 year old whose natural progression is 5 can be bumped to 10 with a great season or regressed by -5 with a terrible season.

Anyways, I don't think people see it my way, so that's the last I'll say on this issue. I respect your view though, since you definitely know more about this game than I do.

Wow, I enjoyed reading this post! It was nice way of looking at progression/regression through this perspective. I guess I would have to ask what would constitute having a "good season" or a "bad season"?


Example: (I don't want to use Dickey as an example because he can potentially play into his late 40's and I don't know how his age would factor into your idea of player progression/regression.)


Victor Martinez (36 years old) hits 30 HR's driving in 102 RBI's, while maintaining 299/389/520 over 580 AB's.


Considering his age and past season's how would you want his progression/regression to look like?






Before I submit my reply I want to quickly go on a mini rant. I understand this is a video game and it's not the "be all, end all of the world", (I hope that's how the saying goes) but I'm 20 years old and I work hard for my money and I am super pumped every year when a new sports games comes out, especially baseball. And when I am told about a new feature(s) I would expect it to be in the game no questions asked. Now, I understand there is not always enough GB room to put in the Vita, PS4, or PS3 and I completely understand that (some of this also has to do with creating the game in a limited amount of time), but if you're not going to get it right in the first place, don't lie to your customers and rip them off. What's that saying, Karma is a......hmmm.......I don't remember.


Thanks

[Knight165]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

So much for the fluff fact sheet they posted. More broken features...makes you wonder how much BS filler is in there.

Is this your trolling day?
Give it a break and go back to the game you actually play.

Thanks.

M.K.
Knight165

[Bullit]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Is this your trolling day?
Give it a break and go back to the game you actually play.

Thanks.

M.K.
Knight165

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

[Knight165]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

I know you're half kidding...but I think guys put "official" to stave off multiple threads on the same topic.
I'm all for that.

Now....I'm glad that performance plays a small part in progression/regression.
Luis from SCEA did note in one of the streams...that it's meant to supplement not overcome the potential and age system in place.

I think on the "old age" end...if they let performance factor in more to keep guys around...as tabarnes said...you'd not only have the young guys pushing up...but the old guys hanging around....saturating the league.
Also....it would drive up the young players at a ridiculous rate once they started having their good seasons.

It's a tough balance and I'd rather that a good performance just give a player a better chance at getting gains(or staving off losses) than something absolute.

M.K.
Knight165