[JTommy67]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

The only potential problem with this is....the game FIRST looks at ratings to derive stats....so the chance to see a player that hits .330 then .280 then .330 is less likely(impossible with a heavy stat driven progression....but I don't see that and the Show uses a good dose of "chance" or "randomness" under the hood IMO).... In your case....it would go.... .280.... .300 ....then .330. Players hitting 20 HR's....then 45...then 30 would also be nearly impossible in the game with stat based progression. Look at David Ortiz as an example....and tell me how you would justify stat based progression/regression in him from 2003 to 2012. (without other factors such as random chance....etc) M.K. Knight165

Agreed.

I had a nice corollary to this but lost it cause I got logged out before I submitted.

In short, my concern is that the natural variance found within player performance will suffer in favor of the new system which will alter the players' arcs too much based on one year.

It's fairly common for a .260 hitter to have a great season and bat .300. It's less common for a .260 hitter to develop into a .300 for the remainder of his career. I fear we will see more of the second at the expense of the first.

You can see the variance in almost every major league player, and as you said, this variance was already built into the game, and its present even when you are in control. Now we seem to be moving in the direction where this natural variance will be used to boost or penalize ratings even more. At best this seems superfluous, at worst illogical.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but in franchise mode I want my own effect over player progression to be more limited. This move seems like it will turn your franchise into a RTTS experience with your entire roster. I'd prefer more emphasis on the managerial aspect, which means less control over progression arcs. There seems to be a number of different ways one might affect player progression without resorting to statistical performance.

As you point out, and this seems to be getting lost, the ratings are prerequisite - they come first. I see many folks characterizing the ratings as a type of report card. To me this is backwards, but I think it derives from the RTTS approach in a way. And perhaps the fundamental disagreement lies in how we're viewing franchise mode altogether.

In any case, it would be nice if the devs could shed more light on all this. Perhaps some of our concerns can be put to rest.