Ideas for greater realism in PT

[DonMattingly]

PT is still young, so I am not trying to trash it here by any means. But there is room for improvement with such a young concept for sure and there's no harm in exploring some ideas.

Do away with defensive training:

I just posted in another thread that I think "training" in new defensive positions should go away. Tournaments have it right. You're managing cards that for the most part represent a one year snapshot of a player's career. The card's age and ratings will never change. Why should their defensive prowess then be able to change? If player X never played position B in year XXXX, then their card should be limited by that. Otherwise why isn't the card aging? Learning takes time but these cards play over 100 seasons and never age a day. I also don't think the training algorithm is 100% accurate, and I think it gets overused for people who want to highlight defense. Too many teams are way OP on defense and it sucks the life out of offense in many leagues.

Do away with cards that don't represent a year of actual player performance:

This would mean dropping PEAK cards and POTM cards. PEAK cards are not realistic, they are fantasy cards that don't represent what player X could actually do at any given time in their career. And the way they are created isn't consistent at all. Also drop POTM cards, one month of performance is not enough to base a card on, especially when it will be active for 100+ seasons. Or if you want POTM cards, then they should only be able to play in the month they were based on each season.

This would also mean dropping Future Legend cards. They often turn out to be the most unrealistic cards in the game. Guesses like these are just guesses/fantasy, no matter how educated/well coded.

For all LIVE cards, also make a static card based on the previous season's stats:

This takes all the ZIPS style estimates/guesswork out of the picture and gives two views of each LIVE player each season. I'm fine with the LIVE cards as they are for the most part, and they should change over the course of a season based on how the player performs. But there should also be a card based on what the player actually did the year before that isn't based on projections at all and that doesn't change.

The other area for improvement IMO would be in how plays are presented graphically, but that applies to PT and the single player game. I would like to see physics used more, and see better graphics (including different sized/shaped player icons). I would like to see less plays where guys look like they have plenty of time to make a throw to a base and have a play on a runner for example, but hold the ball forever because it's been predetermined that the runner will be safe. Less predetermination and more real time use of physics is what I want to see, if that makes sense.

[bailey]

1) Defensive training -- if that wasn't a thing, the number of players useable at each position would shrink leading to more teams with the exact same cards everywhere

2) Peak cards -- no opinion, except to say if you want people to spend money on cards, you have to make them exceptional.

3) Live cards -- Agree. Live cards are kind of worthless and making their ratings vary during the season makes them even less desirable. They are useful only for speculation on whether a diamond changes to perfect. One of those "Win at the Auction House" activities that many abhor.

4) Future Legends, POTM cards -- Agree. Totally fictional, although you could say that about the Negro League cards, too. Do you want to get rid of those, as well?
The rating inflation of these cards have undergone from 19 to 20 to 21 makes you wonder whether they will be the first cards in PT22 to have 200 contact, 200 gap, 200 power and 200 defense.

[DonMattingly]

Originally Posted by bailey

1) Defensive training -- if that wasn't a thing, the number of players useable at each position would shrink leading to more teams with the exact same cards everywhere

2) Peak cards -- no opinion, except to say if you want people to spend money on cards, you have to make them exceptional.

3) Live cards -- Agree. Live cards are kind of worthless and making their ratings vary during the season makes them even less desirable. They are useful only for speculation on whether a diamond changes to perfect. One of those "Win at the Auction House" activities that many abhor.

4) Future Legends, POTM cards -- Agree. Totally fictional, although you could say that about the Negro League cards, too. Do you want to get rid of those, as well?
The rating inflation of these cards have undergone from 19 to 20 to 21 makes you wonder whether they will be the first cards in PT22 to have 200 contact, 200 gap, 200 power and 200 defense.

I am OK with #1, I think the answer is adding more cards that are from different years in players' careers and adding more players. I prefer that to seeing Ozzie Smith being an inhuman 3b for example, to seeing IFs of nothing but trained up SSs, OFs of nothing but trained up CFs, and playing against teams whose defenses are so unbalanced and OP that offense gets killed.

That is my problem with PEAK cards, yes they are carrots to dangle in front of whales, but they are fictional. I think though that whatever the top cards are, the whales will drive up their prices. I'd rather see those cards be based on historical reality instead of a fantasy algorithm. There have been a ton of fantastic single seasons by a ton of players, I would rather see those types of cards being added to entice the whales. They're going to pay for whatever the best cards are.

And I would keep LIVE cards, but just also have another card for every player that gets a LIVE card that is static and solely based on their performance from the past season. That would also help increase the choices of cards available in the game

I wouldn't want PEAK Negro league cards, but I'd be OK with taking individual seasons of those players. Some accuracy may be sacrificed in the translation to what they would have done in the majors, but I think it would be minor compared to what happens with POTM and Rookie Legends. It would at least be based on real, full historical seasons. I don't think there's any question that a ton of those players would have performed extremely well in MLB.

[scannon755]

Newcomer here, but I think the issue is that offense and pitching are bounded by the "gravity well" of the league totals context, but defense is not. Therefore, defense is more valuable the more talent there is in the league. This seems an obvious problem with the sim ... defense should be "balanced" the same as offense and pitching. I also agree that it is by no means a given that a tall SS would necessarily be a gold glove 1B. The training here is too simplistic. I personally think it shouldn't be allowed, but if allowed, each player should be capped to a total well below their rating at their prime position at any other position. So, Ozzie might be a 120-ish at SS, but shouldn't be able to approach that at any other position.

[Syd Thrift]

Live cards are mostly useless this year because since we aren’t playing real games their ratings don’t change. Part of the fun of live cards in years past from what I gather was to get someone valued as an Iron player and then watch while they unexpectedly tore up the league and turned into Silver or Gold for you.

I’m very split on training. On the one hand it would nip in the bud some of the worst aspects of tanking, which is reason number one why I quit this year. On the other hand, how is it “unrealistic” to play a natural CF in LF just because the team that used him that year already had another LF they preferred?

[ignats75]

Bill James has a strong theory on defense that includes the defensive spectrum.

The Spectrum is moves from left to right from difficulty to easy. SS-2B-3B-CF-RF-LF-1B. Players migrate from left to right all the time. Rarely the other way. I don't have a problem with a CF moving to LF or RF. 3B to 2B just to get a big bat in the lineup is a problem to me. The 3B who could turn the pivot is rare. Hell not many SS can get the footwork right. That needs to stop.

[DonMattingly]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Live cards are mostly useless this year because since we aren’t playing real games their ratings don’t change. Part of the fun of live cards in years past from what I gather was to get someone valued as an Iron player and then watch while they unexpectedly tore up the league and turned into Silver or Gold for you.

I’m very split on training. On the one hand it would nip in the bud some of the worst aspects of tanking, which is reason number one why I quit this year. On the other hand, how is it “unrealistic” to play a natural CF in LF just because the team that used him that year already had another LF they preferred?

You should be able to play some players at other positions, but they should not train up in that position - ie proficiency with new positions should not be saved with the card. If the cards aren't going to age, then they shouldn't be learning. They're a static image of one year of historical performance. Your CF'er should not be a dominant/uber LF'er.

The game code can decide how much of a penalty you'd get for playing an unfamiliar position. 2b is easier than SS in general for example, but a SS is going to take time to get used to 2b and won't play as well there initially. Ditto for CF to LF, maybe to a lesser degree there though. The rules tournaments currently use would work for me.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by ignats75

Bill James has a strong theory on defense that includes the defensive spectrum.

The Spectrum is moves from left to right from difficulty to easy. SS-2B-3B-CF-RF-LF-1B. Players migrate from left to right all the time. Rarely the other way. I don't have a problem with a CF moving to LF or RF. 3B to 2B just to get a big bat in the lineup is a problem to me. The 3B who could turn the pivot is rare. Hell not many SS can get the footwork right. That needs to stop.

The game already takes this into account, though. Players are rated in Arm, Range, Errors, and Turn DPs. SS needs all of those things, 2B needs all of them except Arm, and 3B needs Arm and Errors (which translates into hands). If you train up a 3B with bad range at 2B, he will never be a good 2B. Turn DPs is basically the “pivot” ability and 3B are rarely rated well in it.

[waittilnextyear]

The most realistic thing a PT'er could do is just play the main game, imo.

PT is a fantasy mode and works well that way.

[Lemandria]

There's a fair bit of sunk-costs protectionism involved, too.

Ootp sees little or no reason to upset their income sources, who are (not coincidentally) the most opposed to change.

[DonMattingly]

Originally Posted by waittilnextyear

The most realistic thing a PT'er could do is just play the main game, imo.

PT is a fantasy mode and works well that way.

I've played the main game for years before PT existed. I also like PT.

I would just like it to be more realistic. No harm in improving what is already a good thing.

[Marleigh]

Originally Posted by DonMattingly

I've played the main game for years before PT existed. I also like PT.

I would just like it to be more realistic. No harm in improving what is already a good thing.

yeah i'd love to see more realism in my team with Joe Morgan, Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson on the roster

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by DonMattingly

You should be able to play some players at other positions, but they should not train up in that position - ie proficiency with new positions should not be saved with the card. If the cards aren't going to age, then they shouldn't be learning. They're a static image of one year of historical performance. Your CF'er should not be a dominant/uber LF'er.

The game code can decide how much of a penalty you'd get for playing an unfamiliar position. 2b is easier than SS in general for example, but a SS is going to take time to get used to 2b and won't play as well there initially. Ditto for CF to LF, maybe to a lesser degree there though. The rules tournaments currently use would work for me.

This is how I would like to see it done.

I see teams in tournaments all the time playing players with zero rating at a position and still doing fine. It makes you have to make a decision with a trade-off instead of just playing anyone at any position with no downside.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by DonMattingly

PT is still young, so I am not trying to trash it here by any means. But there is room for improvement with such a young concept for sure and there's no harm in exploring some ideas.

Do away with defensive training:

I just posted in another thread that I think "training" in new defensive positions should go away. Tournaments have it right. You're managing cards that for the most part represent a one year snapshot of a player's career. The card's age and ratings will never change. Why should their defensive prowess then be able to change? If player X never played position B in year XXXX, then their card should be limited by that. Otherwise why isn't the card aging? Learning takes time but these cards play over 100 seasons and never age a day. I also don't think the training algorithm is 100% accurate, and I think it gets overused for people who want to highlight defense. Too many teams are way OP on defense and it sucks the life out of offense in many leagues.

Do away with cards that don't represent a year of actual player performance:

This would mean dropping PEAK cards and POTM cards. PEAK cards are not realistic, they are fantasy cards that don't represent what player X could actually do at any given time in their career. And the way they are created isn't consistent at all. Also drop POTM cards, one month of performance is not enough to base a card on, especially when it will be active for 100+ seasons. Or if you want POTM cards, then they should only be able to play in the month they were based on each season.

This would also mean dropping Future Legend cards. They often turn out to be the most unrealistic cards in the game. Guesses like these are just guesses/fantasy, no matter how educated/well coded.

For all LIVE cards, also make a static card based on the previous season's stats:

This takes all the ZIPS style estimates/guesswork out of the picture and gives two views of each LIVE player each season. I'm fine with the LIVE cards as they are for the most part, and they should change over the course of a season based on how the player performs. But there should also be a card based on what the player actually did the year before that isn't based on projections at all and that doesn't change.

The other area for improvement IMO would be in how plays are presented graphically, but that applies to PT and the single player game. I would like to see physics used more, and see better graphics (including different sized/shaped player icons). I would like to see less plays where guys look like they have plenty of time to make a throw to a base and have a play on a runner for example, but hold the ball forever because it's been predetermined that the runner will be safe. Less predetermination and more real time use of physics is what I want to see, if that makes sense.

I agree 100%. PT is a fantasy, and after almost 3 years of playing it almost daily, it's become obvious. I agree with all your points. IF, and only if, defensive training continues, it should be limited to the " SS-2B-3B-CF-RF-LF-1B" sequence (right-to-left). In addition, I think the ability to maximize ballpark factors is just another way to squeeze blood out of a turnip. There's little doubt I have lost interest in PT because it really is more of a Chess Game than baseball. Same players, same moves, same results.