Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion
-
I mean when you look back when gameplay turned a little off it was when 18 introduced the attributes to 125. To counter argue downgrading it really wouldn’t be a problem, I mean look at 16 and 17’s attributes.
-
@Nanos_McGregor said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
I mean when you look back when gameplay turned a little off it was when 18 introduced the attributes to 125. To counter argue downgrading it really wouldn’t be a problem, I mean look at 16 and 17’s attributes.
The problem now is that whenever you have a guy that has 120+ contact/power, it creates the expectation that this hitter is just going to be so much better than the rest. And that's just not the case. So in effect it doesn't really do much and it seems more like a placebo. But in my opinion, back in 17 for example when a guy had 90 power or 95 power, you could tell the difference.
-
Look at how the game played back in 16 and even 17 for that matter. Much better game and you didn't have to rely on G/G or P/P. Having played DD since 16 I would have to say that 16 was my favorite EVEN with the bunt cheese that went on.
-
@TEXAS10PT said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Look at how the game played back in 16 and even 17 for that matter. Much better game and you didn't have to rely on G/G or P/P. Having played DD since 16 I would have to say that 16 was my favorite EVEN with the bunt cheese that went on.
@ComebackLogic and I have played some games of 17 earlier this year. It was so much fun and it felt so much better in almost every aspect. Sure, some things felt a little outdated and the game had some minor issues. But the core mechanics of the game were just flat out better, no matter how you put it. If you hit the ball, you hit the ball. I hardly ever felt cheated on exit velocities and when I missed it, I know I missed it.
-
@TEXAS10PT said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Look at how the game played back in 16 and even 17 for that matter. Much better game and you didn't have to rely on G/G or P/P. Having played DD since 16 I would have to say that 16 was my favorite EVEN with the bunt cheese that went on.
I agree that 17 and 16 played much better but I don't think the 125 scale has anything to do with it. They were just better games.
-
A scale of 1-100 is perfect. Using 125 as the max is like when coaches say "our players gave 110% out there today". No... They didn't.
-
I like the idea of the 125, but I think it's over used. A guy like Babe Ruth or Ted Williams sure, 125 power is special. It differentiates how good they are/were. Where as someone like Yelich or Harper could get away with 99 no problem. Maybe drop the 80 power threshold 75 if you're dropping most power guys down to a 99 cap too.
There's arguments for both, but realistically if they keep it at 125 or revert back to 99, it won't make that much difference. Things will just be adjusted accordingly.
-
I feel like SDS introduced the 125 attribute cap as a mechanism to meter out quality cards more slowly. Raising the cap to 125 allows more "in between steps" than having a 99 cap. It's why all of our headliners lost relevance in a week or two, for the most part.
From a business standpoint, I get it. More wiggle room until "end game" means more opportunity to create content to sell.
But from an end user perspective, it makes the volume and quality of content feel both overwhelming and pointless at times, respectively.
It also strongly devalues LS cards in terms of usability, which is a drag.
-
I don't think they can go back without so many cards seeming like trash, we'd get used to it after a year, but that's a year of people complaining "Why didn't X get 99 contact, he batted .675 against lefties on Tuesdays in May"
-
@LankyRyan said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
I feel like SDS introduced the 125 attribute cap as a mechanism to meter out quality cards more slowly. Raising the cap to 125 allows more "in between steps" than having a 99 cap. It's why all of our headliners lost relevance in a week or two, for the most part.
From a business standpoint, I get it. More wiggle room until "end game" means more opportunity to create content to sell.
But from an end user perspective, it makes the volume and quality of content feel both overwhelming and pointless at times, respectively.
It also strongly devalues LS cards in terms of usability, which is a drag.
Majority of LS cards were all outclassed within a month. I would love to see LS Trout on an end game lineup.
-
@Ikasnu said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Majority of LS cards were all outclassed within a month. I would love to see LS Trout on an end game lineup.
Yes! The only difference between Trout this season and the year his MVP card is from is that he may actually be better this year. No reason his LS shouldn’t be endgame.
-
I don’t mind the 100 plus contact but the power is over rated. The game doesn’t play right, you have guys with 120 power but they hit warning track fly balls, then the 65/75 power guy comes in and hits a no doubter 450 ft.
-
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
SDs really need to boost live Series attributes. A handful of the best live Series cards should compete with end game cards, even if they just scale them as the season goes. Like Trout starts the year as a 95 but goes up to a 99 by the end of the regular season.
They seem to era adjust all the old cards, but don't era adjust live Series cards to match.
-
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
SDs really need to boost live Series attributes. A handful of the best live Series cards should compete with end game cards, even if they just scale them as the season goes. Like Trout starts the year as a 95 but goes up to a 99 by the end of the regular season.
They seem to era adjust all the old cards, but don't era adjust live Series cards to match.
And there is a reason for that, if you can buy LS cards that are end-game day one, why would you need to upgrade your team later? Obviously talking about that from a business perspective, not a consumer. They can't sell you 99 Trout later on if the LS gets there,
-
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
I agree, but that's the thing; this isn't the case and hasn't been the case ever since they implemented the 125 scale in 18. They did however feel more accurate and representative in 17 for example, the difference between 90 power or 95 power was noticable in my opinion.
-
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
-
@ComebackLogic said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
Completely agree and this is a problem, but the reason they did it is because we complained about lineup diversity. To create lineup diversity they have to give multiple options at each position with similar attributes, which lead to more power creep.
To help with this it would be nice if they added gap power attributes. Cobb should be able to rip doubles and triples but home runs should be relatively rare. I think this would help make contact hitters more viable again.
I think everyone agrees they screwed up the balancing in 18, it was HR or nothing. In 19 it was way better balance, contact hitters were viable. 20 has stepped back closer to 18 where power is king.
SDS needs to make the tiers of power levels feel a bit different. you are certainly right that you should be able to tell the difference between a 120 power and a 110 power.
No matter what scale is used, if power is king, there will be a minimum viable power threshold that a card needs to be in your lineup regardless of whatever scale is used.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
I agree, but that's the thing; this isn't the case and hasn't been the case ever since they implemented the 125 scale in 18. They did however feel more accurate and representative in 17 for example, the difference between 90 power or 95 power was noticable in my opinion.
Completely agree they screwed it up in 18. Attributes aren't the only factor though, swing / stance, quirks, pitch type and location, swing timing, pci placement and movement, etc all play into how the ball comes off the bat. Some players play above and some play well below thier attributes (I hate Ripken.....).
-
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@ComebackLogic said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
Completely agree and this is a problem, but the reason they did it is because we complained about lineup diversity. To create lineup diversity they have to give multiple options at each position with similar attributes, which lead to more power creep.
To help with this it would be nice if they added gap power attributes. Cobb should be able to rip doubles and triples but home runs should be relatively rare. I think this would help make contact hitters more viable again.
I think everyone agrees they screwed up the balancing in 18, it was HR or nothing. In 19 it was way better balance, contact hitters were viable. 20 has stepped back closer to 18 where power is king.
SDS needs to make the tiers of power levels feel a bit different. you are certainly right that you should be able to tell the difference between a 120 power and a 110 power.
No matter what scale is used, if power is king, there will be a minimum viable power threshold that a card needs to be in your lineup regardless of whatever scale is used.
I am with you here. I survive on my pitching skills and will put them up with most anyone. But I am tired of games when I give up 2-3 hits in 9 innings and all of them are solo home runs. Seems like 70% plus of hits this year are homers, and although we had a record for home runs hit last year, they have gone way too far.
-
@OreoRockstar said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@ComebackLogic said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
Completely agree and this is a problem, but the reason they did it is because we complained about lineup diversity. To create lineup diversity they have to give multiple options at each position with similar attributes, which lead to more power creep.
To help with this it would be nice if they added gap power attributes. Cobb should be able to rip doubles and triples but home runs should be relatively rare. I think this would help make contact hitters more viable again.
I think everyone agrees they screwed up the balancing in 18, it was HR or nothing. In 19 it was way better balance, contact hitters were viable. 20 has stepped back closer to 18 where power is king.
SDS needs to make the tiers of power levels feel a bit different. you are certainly right that you should be able to tell the difference between a 120 power and a 110 power.
No matter what scale is used, if power is king, there will be a minimum viable power threshold that a card needs to be in your lineup regardless of whatever scale is used.
I am with you here. I survive on my pitching skills and will put them up with most anyone. But I am tired of games when I give up 2-3 hits in 9 innings and all of them are solo home runs. Seems like 70% plus of hits this year are homers, and although we had a record for home runs hit last year, they have gone way too far.
The community at large are as much to blame as SDS for this shitshow. When they show a clear propensity for 3 inning all star games at Shippet, either because they want to say “Hurr, Durr, look how many bombs I hit, that’s freakin’ awesome! I’m a great hitter!”, or because they’re naively trying to emulate things they’ve seen popular streamers do, like “get rewarded” by playing at Shippet, where a jam pop fly would turn into a wall scraping homer down the line, SDS assume people are lapping it up. Hence we get more 125 power cards rammed down our throats and gameplay is HR or bust.
