Do you think next years game?
-
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@Ikasnu said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@BigBadBosc44 said in Do you think next years game?:
After 3 innings i have struck out 7 of his nine hitters he has struck out 0 of my 9 hitters 7 of my outs good/squared up
But i am losing 1-0 eight of ten games i played was like that.Did this happen to most?
Yes it does.
This game is straight garbage...Final Answer.
I wouldn't say straight garbage, it's better than 18, and that is literally a fact. Half of this board doesn't even recognize 18. At least 19 will be known for stepping the franchise back in the right direction.
Your facts are wrong. This year is worse than 18, arguably the worse ever. I strictly play DD RS, so its strictly from that perspective, and not any of the other game modes including franchise.
Yeah no, you’re clearly the one in the wrong here.
Yeah no, you're the one clearly in the wrong.
I said strictly from a DD RS perspective, and you're a CPU player, Playing CPU vs. online DD RS is like night and day, so you wouldn't be able to relate
I’ve played enough RS and events to know that 18 was far, far worse than 19.
A whole type of hitter was completely unusable in 18, yet you think 19 is worse.
o
18 had abysmally slow pitch speeds making fastballs even more ineffective than they are now. Defense didn’t matter at all in 18, and contact hitters were useless.19 has way more problems, not because I say so, but it's already been echoed throughout this forum. Excessive lineouts on perfect timing/pci placement, excessive pass balls (that little leaguers could block) and yet catchers like 99 Molina has trouble with, horrible pitch control for analog pitching despite control attributes by diamond pitchers, poor AI baserunning, inability to have sense of urgency to get rid of the ball on close plays, but instead player will hold onto the ball before getting rid of it, inability to tag runners out at times, etc., etc.,
Not gonna go back and forth, i'm done.
Clearly you haven't been on the forums long. Almost everyone with the except of a few guys with some screws loose believe that 19 is a step in the right direction and is far better than 18. Catchers were even worse last year so that is off the table. this game has a lineout issue, but in all honestly on HOF and Legend it doesn't occur as much whereas in 18, you would have a good/good center pci 100 mph FB to then have an exit velo of 85. That occurred more than lineouts in 19. Pitch speeds were so slow on HOF and Legend in 18 that my Grandma could have early timing on a Legend FB. Zero skill gap in 18.
19 is a step in the right direction but there was a time this game worked great. 19 is very bad up until you get to legend. Even on HOF I get a ridiculous amount of lineouts...although better still badly flawed.
Allstar imo is not playable if you have any competitive bone in your body. It’s literally a game of absolute chance at that level.
I just don’t get why this game took so many steps backwards in regards to competitiveness in the last few years. Hopefully 20 will be a big improvement - I think they are gonna scale a few things back to bring that old skill based game play back.
-
It feels good to not be the problem here for once
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
poor AI baserunning, inability to have sense of urgency to get rid of the ball on close plays, but instead player will hold onto the ball before getting rid of it, inability to tag runners out at times, etc., etc.,
All of this stuff was exponentially worse in 18 than 19.
-
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
The first part doesn't make sense to me. Of course we are talking about this specific game. What else would we be talking about?
I suppose you could use batting average as a more important metric in establishing what qualifies as average (compared to the records of players), but then you would have to use objective data to demonstrate where the median or average batting average falls. I have no idea if the objective average for batting average is above or below .250, I would suspect that it is around .250.
I don't disagree that some people exaggerate or misrepresent their losses but this sounds like a subjective take to me. I have also seen plenty of people demonstrate, with evidence, that they objectively outplayed their opponent in a loss.
-
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
BR is an entirely different beast with 3 innings and the way starting pitchers/bullpen are drafted. Using it to conclude how good/bad a player is a foolish endeavor.
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
OOH OOH, TELL ME MINE
-
@eatyum said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
BR is an entirely different beast with 3 innings and the way starting pitchers/bullpen are drafted. Using it to conclude how good/bad a player is a foolish endeavor.
Duh.
That's why stats, whether its BR, RS, CPU, have no bearing with the issues with this game.
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
-
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
EDIT: just checked your stuff the season you went WS, ya went 79 and 74. like I said you can get it if you have a lot of time to play and can go .500 or slightly above it.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
-
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
OK Mr. Big Shot whatever you say, LMAO
And it didn't take me 1,628 games for me to hit WS.
1,628 is games played to date which today is 02/13/20, I attained WS back in 07/19. So subtract all the games played between 07/19/19 to 02/13/20 is the real number it took....see you really are CLUELESS.
-
I checked just for fun and man I'm disappointed, only a 1.200 ops when I've had better ranked seasons than that
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
OK Mr. Big Shot whatever you say, LMAO
And it didn't take me 1,628 games for me to hit WS.
1,628 is games played to date which today is 02/13/20, I attained WS back in 07/19. So subtract all the games played between 07/19/19 to 02/13/20 is the real number it took....see you really are CLUELESS.
Let me reword the sentence for it to be more clear.
You have played 1,628 games and have only been able to hit WS once. I have hit WS 10 times and have played 167 games.But remember we are here to discuss the issues with the game not stats, even though you just totally disregarded my points about the game and went right back about talking individual stats.
-
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
OK Mr. Big Shot whatever you say, LMAO
And it didn't take me 1,628 games for me to hit WS.
1,628 is games played to date which today is 02/13/20, I attained WS back in 07/19. So subtract all the games played between 07/19/19 to 02/13/20 is the real number it took....see you really are CLUELESS.
Let me reword the sentence for it to be more clear.
You have played 1,628 games and have only been able to hit WS once. I have hit WS 10 times and have played 167 games.But remember we are here to discuss the issues with the game not stats, even though you just totally disregarded my points about the game and went right back about talking individual stats.
And yet, you were the one that initially brought it up.
You also said that there is no denying the fact that lineouts are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, etc., etc., as if that doesn't legitimize this game being garbage, then it doesn't matter because it's all opinionated.
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
OK Mr. Big Shot whatever you say, LMAO
And it didn't take me 1,628 games for me to hit WS.
1,628 is games played to date which today is 02/13/20, I attained WS back in 07/19. So subtract all the games played between 07/19/19 to 02/13/20 is the real number it took....see you really are CLUELESS.
Let me reword the sentence for it to be more clear.
You have played 1,628 games and have only been able to hit WS once. I have hit WS 10 times and have played 167 games.But remember we are here to discuss the issues with the game not stats, even though you just totally disregarded my points about the game and went right back about talking individual stats.
And yet, you were the one that initially brought it up.
You also said that there is no denying the fact that lineouts are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, etc., etc., as if that doesn't legitimize this game being garbage, then it doesn't matter because it's all opinionated.
You are missing the entire point. You can call 19 garbage if you want, but the statement that it is worse than 18 is wrong. You can acknowledge 18 is terrible and still think 19 is garbage. They aren't mutually exclusive. Noone's singing the praises of online play for 19 here, only that 18 was worse.
-
@eatyum said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
OK Mr. Big Shot whatever you say, LMAO
And it didn't take me 1,628 games for me to hit WS.
1,628 is games played to date which today is 02/13/20, I attained WS back in 07/19. So subtract all the games played between 07/19/19 to 02/13/20 is the real number it took....see you really are CLUELESS.
Let me reword the sentence for it to be more clear.
You have played 1,628 games and have only been able to hit WS once. I have hit WS 10 times and have played 167 games.But remember we are here to discuss the issues with the game not stats, even though you just totally disregarded my points about the game and went right back about talking individual stats.
And yet, you were the one that initially brought it up.
You also said that there is no denying the fact that lineouts are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, etc., etc., as if that doesn't legitimize this game being garbage, then it doesn't matter because it's all opinionated.
You are missing the entire point. You can call 19 garbage if you want, but the statement that it is worse than 18 is wrong. You can acknowledge 18 is terrible and still think 19 is garbage. They aren't mutually exclusive. Noone's singing the praises of online play for 19 here, only that 18 was worse.
Like I said, it's all opinionated.
No argument here. I'm done.
-
Hmmm I’m curious what my br stats are... particularly my ERA
-
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@eatyum said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@onnagood1 said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
@SefarR said in Do you think next years game?:
@cvogsfashow said in Do you think next years game?:
So if you have been here for a while you should of realized that most say 19 is better than 18. Yes, we all know it isn't perfect but a bigger problem is people thinking they are better than they actually are. People will always look for something to blame instead of themselves...like the game in this case. For example, if someone had 1,622 games played and are 818 - 804, with a .229 average, .351 slugging, and a .625 OPS. They are a below average player at this game especially when most of their games are on Allstar difficulty. Would that same person get offended for me calling them below average...yup, will they come up with some excuse as to why the stats are the way they are...YUP.
A bit besides the point, but I'd be interested to hear how you define average? Would a .500 record (i.e. winning exactly as much as losing) not be the definition of average?
I also find it amusing that you think people overestimating their abilities is a bigger issue than the overabundance of RNG in 19. This is exactly why we have tools like the hit quality indicator and the post-game PCI analysis. With those we can objectively estimate how we did in any given game. The fact is, in 19 you will frequently lose games where you have objectively outperformed your opponent and it has nothing to do with a biased awareness of one's own skill level.
To me it has a lot to do with batting average and the difficulty they play most of their games on. If you are a .500 player and are batting .250 and play most of your games are on Allstar and HOF, to me, you are a below average player at THIS GAME.
People over estimating there skills is a huge issue in this game and on this forum. Yes, we are all aware that 19 has RNGesus issues. But I would say more than 50% of the time people make a thread complaining they lost due to RNG and not being rewarded, while striking out their opponent a 1000 times. Then you go check the game history and its not true. For example, @BigBadBosc44 said that he hasn't been rewarded 8 of his last 10 games meanwhile in the past week he has played one online game versus an opponent. People also don't realize that game history can be checked very easy and every time I see a post like this a go look at their game history and it tells a completely different story majority of the time.
OK, well my BR batting avg is .425 and my era is 2.04, yours is worse at batting avg. .408 with era 4.32, BR is set to all-star level....so what's your point?
LMAO hilarious.
Lets dive a little further shall we....BR you have 8 games played... 8 GAMES PLAYED and are batting .425 with a 2.04 era and have a best record of 5-2. I have played 185 games of BR with a .408 average and 4.32 era with a best run of 12-0 (which I have done 6 times this year). If you had at least 50 games played and a .425 average I would think differently. Ya have 8 games and think it means something. Get out of here. You are a below average player on any difficulty.
OK, well the same argument could be made for Ranked Seasons. You only have 167 games played vs. 1,628. I already admitted that by your standards that I am a below average player based on my stats. I also made it to WS. Check my game history for 07/19/19 (lol, which I realize was some time ago, but nevertheless, you can't take away the fact that I made it to WS). So by your standards you can be a below average player and still make it to WS.
So again, whether I was a scrub or a consistent WS player, it has no relevancy to the issues with this game. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just throwing numbers out there in attempt to discredit me and distract one's views from the real problem? I'm beginning to realize it may be both.
It took 1,628 games for you to hit WS once...congrats. I have hit it 10 times in 167. I play a few games after hitting WS, but don't grind for 1000, 1100, or 1200 rewards, don't need the stubs or packs just want the WS reward. And if you have a lot of time to play, anyone can eventually get up to WS even by going .500 or slightly above it. Getting to WS doesn't make you a good player.
I have already said there are issues with this game and no one is denying that fact. Line outs are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, swing and misses on very early or too late. But what I am about to say is also a large problem in the community. I am going to simplify it for you. A lot of people are not as good as they think which makes a lot of people blame the game instead of blaming themselves. LITERALLY THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD CAN BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. Literally said 8 of his last ten games have been the result he described above in the OP. The man had played 1 or 2 online games in the past 3 weeks when this was posted.
Lastly, no one is saying this game is perfect and doesn't have flaws, it does have flaws but it is significantly better than 18 and is a stepping stone to getting the game where the COMMUNITY wants it.
OK Mr. Big Shot whatever you say, LMAO
And it didn't take me 1,628 games for me to hit WS.
1,628 is games played to date which today is 02/13/20, I attained WS back in 07/19. So subtract all the games played between 07/19/19 to 02/13/20 is the real number it took....see you really are CLUELESS.
Let me reword the sentence for it to be more clear.
You have played 1,628 games and have only been able to hit WS once. I have hit WS 10 times and have played 167 games.But remember we are here to discuss the issues with the game not stats, even though you just totally disregarded my points about the game and went right back about talking individual stats.
And yet, you were the one that initially brought it up.
You also said that there is no denying the fact that lineouts are an issue, catcher blocking, check swings, etc., etc., as if that doesn't legitimize this game being garbage, then it doesn't matter because it's all opinionated.
You are missing the entire point. You can call 19 garbage if you want, but the statement that it is worse than 18 is wrong. You can acknowledge 18 is terrible and still think 19 is garbage. They aren't mutually exclusive. Noone's singing the praises of online play for 19 here, only that 18 was worse.
Like I said, it's all opinionated.
No argument here. I'm done.
Finally.
-
This post is deleted!
