Babip first

[Fabtron7]

Hey Dev people. Is it too late to make BABIP the batting rating at the top of the player card instead of AvK??? It just seems odd and wrong for some reason?

[Matt Arnold]

We wanted to give the AVK and BABIP (and PBABIP/Movement) "high level billing" in PT. Along with that, we wanted to make sure that where you see ratings (in player lists and such), we switched to the 4 primary ratings display. And when you do that, it just makes sense to match up the batter and pitcher columns so that AvK and stuff show together, babip and p-babip, power and movement, and eye-control. And then since they show up in that order in those views, it only made sense to map the player pages and other spots to also display in the same order.

[gustoes]

BABIP felt really good at the top... having it correlate to the same row as a pitcher profile doesn't mean much to me.... Avk is usually a secondary rating we look for after BABIP or power/eye.. For batters even in 26, I always started with babip for hitters. Many people for pitchers will always sort or first look on bars at hra or pbabip.. stuff isnt even always primary.

BABIP first for batters makes more sense imo. If keeping this new way ,, I guess youd have to make the switch on the pt cardshop splits as well?

[Fabtron7]

I totally get that from an organizational standpoint. It feels counterintuitive but I'll get used to it soon enough.

[jberg57]

Just rename Avoid K's to Contact. It's the same thing basically. Better Contact rating then attributes to BABIP and infers a better job at Avoiding K's.

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by jberg57

Just rename Avoid K's to Contact. It's the same thing basically. Better Contact rating then attributes to BABIP and infers a better job at Avoiding K's.

This is wrong, because contact doesn't directly associate with one single stat, like babip/avoid k do. All the main PT ratings correspond to a single statistic. Contact was removed because it was largely meaningless as anything that corresponded to a statistic.

[gustoes]

Originally Posted by gustoes

BABIP felt really good at the top... having it correlate to the same row as a pitcher profile doesn't mean much to me.... Avk is usually a secondary rating we look for after BABIP or power/eye.. For batters even in 26, I always started with babip for hitters. Many people for pitchers will always sort or first look on bars at hra or pbabip.. stuff isnt even always primary.

BABIP first for batters makes more sense imo. If keeping this new way ,, I guess youd have to make the switch on the pt cardshop splits as well?

I do see the use/case for column sorts.... so get that.

I wonder if perhaps keeping S/K but move PBABIP to top of pitcher rating panel and stuff down. and leave BABIP at top to match (columns and panels imo can also just not be correlated)

[cwhitman]

i think people are largely just uncomfortable with change and in two weeks we'll forget it ever existed in any other way. but it should definitely be consistent everywhere

[gustoes]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

This is wrong, because contact doesn't directly associate with one single stat, like babip/avoid k do. All the main PT ratings correspond to a single statistic. Contact was removed because it was largely meaningless as anything that corresponded to a statistic.

Agree.. for PT contact and movement terminology obsolete

[OppositeZer0]

I understand why the devs made this change and recognize that I will probably just get used to it with more time spent looking at it, but I really think some customization options to change the order of the ratings and hide specific ratings would go a long way. It seems feasible considering there's the option to hide BABIP entirely from the profile (which already reorders things back to how they were a few years ago) but I'm also not a game dev so idk how labor intensive it would actually be.

I think having these be customizable would be great change because then we can prioritize which ratings we care about most vs which we don't look at as often. For example, ever since Contact was broken out into BABIP and AVK, I never look at the actual Contact rating anymore. It makes sense to leave that rating in the game obviously but I personally don't feel the need to let it take up valuable place on the screen so I would just hide that while keeping BABIP and AVK.

I'd also like to see an option to disable the indentation of the sub-ratings. Again, I understand why it's there but an indented 65 rating makes the bar look further along than a normal 65 rating which alters the way I perceive them at a glance.

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by OppositeZer0

I understand why the devs made this change and recognize that I will probably just get used to it with more time spent looking at it, but I really think some customization options to change the order of the ratings and hide specific ratings would go a long way. It seems feasible considering there's the option to hide BABIP entirely from the profile (which already reorders things back to how they were a few years ago) but I'm also not a game dev so idk how labor intensive it would actually be.

I think having these be customizable would be great change because then we can prioritize which ratings we care about most vs which we don't look at as often. For example, ever since Contact was broken out into BABIP and AVK, I never look at the actual Contact rating anymore. It makes sense to leave that rating in the game obviously but I personally don't feel the need to let it take up valuable place on the screen so I would just hide that while keeping BABIP and AVK.

I'd also like to see an option to disable the indentation of the sub-ratings. Again, I understand why it's there but an indented 65 rating makes the bar look further along than a normal 65 rating which alters the way I perceive them at a glance.

in PT, contact is completely removed from the bars, this sounds like you're speaking from a base game level.

[gustoes]

Customization would be nice though... I would move AvK back down in a heartbeat if I could. I looked briefly but think the layout is out of our control

For PT AvK at the top is a tough adjustment.

PBABIP to top of pitching ratings might be easier to get used to, keeping BABIP at the top of batting rating.
AvK and Stuff 2nd
imo

[cwhitman]

i still don't understand why pbabip NEEDS to be at the top, what information is it giving that it isn't elsewhere?

I agree that it should be on the same level as stuff is for pitchers. I don't really care otherwise where it is as long as things are consistent.

[gustoes]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

i still don't understand why pbabip NEEDS to be at the top, what information is it giving that it isn't elsewhere?

I agree that it should be on the same level as stuff is for pitchers. I don't really care otherwise where it is as long as things are consistent.

Because for 20 years Contact has always been at the top.
Base game Contact is still at the top.
In OOTP 9 Avk was below eye, very last.

For PT with Contact removed, BABIP is most representative of contact and it should be at the top or give me ability to layout and put it at the top where it's been for 20years.
IN MY OPINION for the above reason. TOP TOP TOP TOP!

[cwhitman]

i don't consider "this is how things were done, therefore this is how things should be" to be a valid argument. it being in base game still at top is a little bit more of one. but again, i think stuff should move down if that's the case. it makes complete sense that stuff and avoid k should be on the same line.

[gustoes]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

i don't consider "this is how things were done, therefore this is how things should be" to be a valid argument.

Yeah, you generally do have difficulty understanding that anyone elses perception of something could be different than your own.
I'm pleading MY case.. gave a reason and an alternative wish(customization in case I'm stuck with stock avk at top). You can plead your case to them, not me, that you want it at the top

Originally Posted by cwhitman

it being in base game still at top is a little bit more of one. but again, i think stuff should move down if that's the case. it makes complete sense that stuff and avoid k should be on the same line.

Which is exactly what my suggestion was. Besides it's most relevant on column sorts, when are you comparing a pitcher to a batter side by side?

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by gustoes

Yeah, you generally do have difficulty understanding that anyone elses perception of something could be different than your own.
I'm pleading MY case.. gave a reason and an alternative wish(customization in case I'm stuck with stock avk at top). You can plead your case to them, not me, that you want it at the top




Which is exactly what my suggestion was. Besides it's most relevant on column sorts, when are you comparing a pitcher to a batter side by side?

customization is great! i just don't see an inherent problem with the order and as i said, i genuinely believe "this is the way things was done" is a rotten argument that stops actual positive change from happening.

[gustoes]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

customization is great! i just don't see an inherent problem with the order and as i said, i genuinely believe "this is the way things was done" is a rotten argument that stops actual positive change from happening.

Half your arguments are literally "this is the way it was done"... including yesterday defending why anti tank limits were there as a left over with constructed roster idiosyncrasies and errors vs my suggestions to move forward with cleaning that up.

Today we interpret positive change differently and that is fine.. some people agree to disagree, some disagree to disagree. There is indeed one thing that is a pattern or inherent.

Anyway, moving on.

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by gustoes

Half your arguments are literally "this is the way it was done"... including yesterday defending why anti tank limits were there as a left over with constructed roster idiosyncrasies and errors vs my suggestions to move forward with cleaning that up.

Today we interpret positive change differently and that is fine.. some people agree to disagree, some disagree to disagree. There is indeed one thing that is a pattern or inherent.

Anyway, moving on.

as usual, you are completely misunderstanding me. i did not defend it and straight up said that should be changed! i was just saying that's why it's happening, but it's not a bug because it was programmed in that way. however, should be changed! i have never once said "we need to keep this thing the same because it's always been this way" unless there's a legitimate functional reason for that to be the case. i was solely acknowledging the mechanism that caused that problem, not that i was endorsing keeping it the same way.


the order of bars does not have any functional purpose. if you gave me a reason functionally it mattered, i would care more. just because "it was always this way" is not an argument for its functionality.

[gustoes]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

as usual, you are completely misunderstanding me. i did not defend it and straight up said that should be changed! i was just saying that's why it's happening, but it's not a bug because it was programmed in that way. however, should be changed!


the order of bars does not have any functional purpose. if you gave me a reason functionally it mattered, i would care more. just because "it was always this way" is not an argument for its functionality.

Sounds good, thank you.