Why this game is annoying

thenewchuckd · 08-26-2024, 04:03 PM

Besides other stuff like the manual, here is my list of big annoyances with the game:

1) Playing with normal or realistic injuries might be fine with me if I was looking for realism. My issue is that even very minor issues add up to making a player become fragile or wrecked. So two bruised knees in one season to a 19 year old becomes a slippery slope and soon that prospect is consistently injured.

This is not realistic at all. Young players should recover from injuries easier, with things like bruised knees not impacting future injuries. I get that a ruptured achilles might be different but a bruised knee, the flu, etc - especially on young players - should be irrelevant.

As it stands, this is just another way that makes drafting college players much more OP and is a serious disadvantage to high schoolers.

2) Fielding skills drop off - with little to no improvement.

Still happening - my 23 yr old CF went from 65 rated defending to 55 in just 2 seasons. I thought this was changed in the recent patch (his stats also reflected this drop - in case you thought it was scout error). It seemed mostly due to a hit in his outfield range.

A quick search tells me 26 should be a player's peak defending year. Before this release, it was around 23 in OOTP - and my quick sim shows that is still the case.

Range is more than just physical abilities, too. Jump off the ball, proper path to the ball, etc - these are all skills to learn.

I get that fielding skills used to get better & it led to other problems. Really there should be potential ranges for fielding skills, beyond just the positional development. Infield error in particular should have a development range.

3) Development lab

On the surface,the lab solves some of my gripes. You can train a position, you can train injuries. Although, it is way too random for my taste. Also not realistic. I understand development labs in real life are for all players and not just a few.

Some people say work ethic, intelligence, etc has an impact (maybe coaching?) but I don't see it in any meaningful way. Or the documentation is so poor, that many things impact & perhaps are cancelling.

The "medium", "easy", "hard", don't actually seem meaningful either.

4) Development in general

Seems to be for the mostpart tied to performance, which is not realistic. I may have a guy ready for A ball but if he goes up 1-2 months and posts bad stats he'll regress.

A guy hitting .210 on a good team, who is happy, with good coaches won't necessarily regress in real life. Having him hit .350 in rookie ball shouldn't be the optimal thing.

In fact, this is the big issue right now in my opinion for international players and high schoolers. They get stuck in rookie ball too long and then advance through A-AAA super fast. I feel it should be the opposite. We shouldn't see 18 year olds stuck in rookie ball, most should come there for 1 season and graduate.
(and once they get to AA skill level, almost every player gets mad that they're not in the majors)

This is more of a phycological thing (ie: morale) and being on a bad team with bad coaches should have as much or more impact than how they're performing. Instead I have to do this dance of figuring what level to put guys, rather than finding the right coach/team fit.

There should be less focus on getting players to the right level and instead getting the right fit.

thenewchuckd · 08-26-2024, 05:29 PM

Since there must be a random component to the development lab, I instead suggest the following:

Have coaches suggest players for the development lab; along with suggested skills to train. These could particularly come if a guy has just hit a regression point or the game has identified the player for skill drops / increases.

I would say the likelihood should be:
-balanced towards younger players
-suggested by a specific coach (the game should directly tell you what coaching skills are influencing the outcome)
-suggested at specific time frames - eg: during the spring training window
-have a real (ballpark) indication of the chance of success, based on all factors in the calculation (devs if you can't do this, then there's a problem)
-failure should be temporary outcomes, with coaches and work ethic influencing how fast the player gets back on track

Reading how development labs are used, I believe this would be a more realistic implementation.

twins_34 · 08-26-2024, 06:00 PM

Well, facts are, players positive personality traits, positive morale, coaches, do all help with the dev lab. That is from the person that created the dev lab. So, I tend to believe the coder that coded it. It is also a minor boost not a guaranteed outcome just cause the player has all the boosts. Maybe we should just go back to how it was in 24 and before when you had zero control over player development again.

jcard · 08-26-2024, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

Since there must be a random component to the development lab, I instead suggest the following:

Have coaches suggest players for the development lab; along with suggested skills to train. These could particularly come if a guy has just hit a regression point or the game has identified the player for skill drops / increases.

I would say the likelihood should be:
-balanced towards younger players
-suggested by a specific coach (the game should directly tell you what coaching skills are influencing the outcome)
-suggested at specific time frames - eg: during the spring training window
-have a real (ballpark) indication of the chance of success, based on all factors in the calculation (devs if you can't do this, then there's a problem)
-failure should be temporary outcomes, with coaches and work ethic influencing how fast the player gets back on track

Reading how development labs are used, I believe this would be a more realistic implementation.

Thank you for taking the time to not just make a “grievances” list, but to provide for each item (1) a clear articulation of the perceived issue (2) including details of your experience (3) contrasted with the empiric observations of said dynamic in real-life. Whether met with agreement or skepticism, you have laid the grounds for honest and thoughtful conversation.

mytreds · 08-26-2024, 09:52 PM

Honest question- was development really considered that badly implemented before the dev lab was introduced? I always felt in earlier games players developed just fine, but could just be my own bias. Would love to hear other opinions since I don’t play the current games.

Pelican · 08-26-2024, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytreds

Honest question- was development really considered that badly implemented before the dev lab was introduced? I always felt in earlier games players developed just fine, but could just be my own bias. Would love to hear other opinions since I don’t play the current games.

I of course cannot speak for the developers, but I expect the gripe was that development was too random. Players would improve or not without any rhyme or reason. The lab at least allows you to focus on a player's perceived weakness, and guide his development. And this has the sense of realism, in that teams really do work with players to develop a particular skill set. So more likely that players would follow a particular path.

08-26-2024, 04:03 PM	#1
thenewchuckd Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 63	Why this game is annoying Besides other stuff like the manual, here is my list of big annoyances with the game: 1) Playing with normal or realistic injuries might be fine with me if I was looking for realism. My issue is that even very minor issues add up to making a player become fragile or wrecked. So two bruised knees in one season to a 19 year old becomes a slippery slope and soon that prospect is consistently injured. This is not realistic at all. Young players should recover from injuries easier, with things like bruised knees not impacting future injuries. I get that a ruptured achilles might be different but a bruised knee, the flu, etc - especially on young players - should be irrelevant. As it stands, this is just another way that makes drafting college players much more OP and is a serious disadvantage to high schoolers. 2) Fielding skills drop off - with little to no improvement. Still happening - my 23 yr old CF went from 65 rated defending to 55 in just 2 seasons. I thought this was changed in the recent patch (his stats also reflected this drop - in case you thought it was scout error). It seemed mostly due to a hit in his outfield range. A quick search tells me 26 should be a player's peak defending year. Before this release, it was around 23 in OOTP - and my quick sim shows that is still the case. Range is more than just physical abilities, too. Jump off the ball, proper path to the ball, etc - these are all skills to learn. I get that fielding skills used to get better & it led to other problems. Really there should be potential ranges for fielding skills, beyond just the positional development. Infield error in particular should have a development range. 3) Development lab On the surface,the lab solves some of my gripes. You can train a position, you can train injuries. Although, it is way too random for my taste. Also not realistic. I understand development labs in real life are for all players and not just a few. Some people say work ethic, intelligence, etc has an impact (maybe coaching?) but I don't see it in any meaningful way. Or the documentation is so poor, that many things impact & perhaps are cancelling. The "medium", "easy", "hard", don't actually seem meaningful either. 4) Development in general Seems to be for the mostpart tied to performance, which is not realistic. I may have a guy ready for A ball but if he goes up 1-2 months and posts bad stats he'll regress. A guy hitting .210 on a good team, who is happy, with good coaches won't necessarily regress in real life. Having him hit .350 in rookie ball shouldn't be the optimal thing. In fact, this is the big issue right now in my opinion for international players and high schoolers. They get stuck in rookie ball too long and then advance through A-AAA super fast. I feel it should be the opposite. We shouldn't see 18 year olds stuck in rookie ball, most should come there for 1 season and graduate. (and once they get to AA skill level, almost every player gets mad that they're not in the majors) This is more of a phycological thing (ie: morale) and being on a bad team with bad coaches should have as much or more impact than how they're performing. Instead I have to do this dance of figuring what level to put guys, rather than finding the right coach/team fit. There should be less focus on getting players to the right level and instead getting the right fit.

08-26-2024, 09:52 PM	#5
mytreds All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 1,182	Honest question- was development really considered that badly implemented before the dev lab was introduced? I always felt in earlier games players developed just fine, but could just be my own bias. Would love to hear other opinions since I don’t play the current games. __________________ “Baseball isn’t statistics; it’s Joe DiMaggio rounding second.” “Once, centuries ago, it was the beloved national pastime of the Americas, Wesley. Abandoned by a society that prized fast food and faster games. Lost to impatience.” “ The term ‘WAR’ should be replaced by ‘WAG’. WAR isn’t an actual measurement; it’s just a wild-ass guess” -Bill James RIP National League 1876-2022 Floreat semper vel invita morte. I make custom ballparks.

08-26-2024, 05:29 PM	#2
thenewchuckd Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 63	Since there must be a random component to the development lab, I instead suggest the following: Have coaches suggest players for the development lab; along with suggested skills to train. These could particularly come if a guy has just hit a regression point or the game has identified the player for skill drops / increases. I would say the likelihood should be: -balanced towards younger players -suggested by a specific coach (the game should directly tell you what coaching skills are influencing the outcome) -suggested at specific time frames - eg: during the spring training window -have a real (ballpark) indication of the chance of success, based on all factors in the calculation (devs if you can't do this, then there's a problem) -failure should be temporary outcomes, with coaches and work ethic influencing how fast the player gets back on track Reading how development labs are used, I believe this would be a more realistic implementation.

08-26-2024, 06:00 PM	#3
twins_34 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2020 Location: Is this Heaven? No, it's Iowa Posts: 2,102	Well, facts are, players positive personality traits, positive morale, coaches, do all help with the dev lab. That is from the person that created the dev lab. So, I tend to believe the coder that coded it. It is also a minor boost not a guaranteed outcome just cause the player has all the boosts. Maybe we should just go back to how it was in 24 and before when you had zero control over player development again.