Too many 99s
-
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
I know it's fictional but it really waters down the elite cards
I think current day players should have a 95, 96 overall cap. Legends and past players should be the only ones with 99 overall cards. Always respect the elders.
I agree, There should only be a handful of 99s like Griffey, Mantle, Mays, Babe, Gibson, etc. Not like the 93-97 cards aren't playable
I would be only ok with current day players receiving 99 overall cards if they are breaking records. Like in the case of Randy for the Rays. He deserves a 99.
No, he doesn't. A hot streak is just that, a hot streak. It's only when they're done, that we can actually compare them to a legend and see how they match up. Trout still has a few more years, but I still feel as if he's done enough to be in that comparison, and certainly Pujols has. The rest of the modern day hitters can take a back seat to the legends.
-
Regardless of his postseason feats, and they were spectacular. There is no way randy should have a card with better attributes than trout mantle mays Griffey. It’s just stupid , this 125 125 maxed out [censored] is nonsense, especially if your going to give it to cards like randy or potm Mondesi but not Mays chipper mantle etc
-
@ComebackLogic said in Too many 99s:
Absolutely agree, while line up diversity and a wealth of useable options at each position is definitely a good thing, the whole thing has gone too far now. I’ve been referring to the implementation of the 125 scale and SDS logic of that time that it was a way to make the all time greats like Babe Ruth and Ted Williams stand apart from the rest of the 99s in the game. That only the best of the best were worthy of such a rating for this reason. So, I’m guessing next year they’ll have to expand to a 150 or 200 scale, given how diluted it’s now become.
Line up diversity can still be attained in DD, as it was in years gone by, without offering a selection of vanilla feeling juiced cards with 110+ in every category that are only differentiated by the card art. You get some hitters with decent contact, speed and defense, say the Gwynn or Ichiro types. You sacrifice power as a result. You get the powerful players in RF, cards like Reggie Jackson, or Stan Musial. Here, you’re sacrificing the speed and defense for more pop. Then you might get the balanced options in between, all rounders who are good, but not elite. There can be many useable options that fall into this category that promote line up diversity.
Then there are the end game players at that position. The elite, hard to obtain, much sought after cards that are the best of the best to play the game. The cards we implemented the 125 scale for. 5 tool players who can hit, run, defend and stand apart from the rest. These should be premium cards that aren’t necessarily easy to get. Throwing 110+ ratings on everything from a single game flashback to a legitimate legend tends to water down the feeling of accomplishment from finally obtaining a card like Willie Mays or Griffey, when there are a multitude of equally, or sometimes, ridiculously, better options just raining down from the skies.
You can’t really justify giving these cards better ratings than Mantle, Mays and Junior. I’m not a fan of the repeated cards either - Gavin Lux has three diamond cards already, including a 99 with 114/108 vs RHP, 91/98 vs LHP. Joe Morgan has a solitary 99 diamond with 123/107 RHP and 84/67 vs LHP. Is it just me, or is this not absolute insanity?
Nope not you......it is complete insanity. The Baseball HOF is the hardest to get into of any major sports HOF. There are way too many cards of players that have better stats than Real HOF Players. How much sense does that make?
-
All time greats and trout deserve 99. Active players killing it with diff versions like finest PS and POTM. deserve mid level diamonds. All other future garbage players that we realistically have no clue how they’ll be and topps now guys like Travis darnaud who is a mediocre player at best (just an example of topps now) don’t deserve such juiced stats, they deserve high golds for the assumption of being good for couple of games. These non established players even some finest guys get 99s bc everybody deserves a medal now a days instead of the best
-
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
I know it's fictional but it really waters down the elite cards
I think current day players should have a 95, 96 overall cap. Legends and past players should be the only ones with 99 overall cards. Always respect the elders.
I agree, There should only be a handful of 99s like Griffey, Mantle, Mays, Babe, Gibson, etc. Not like the 93-97 cards aren't playable
I would be only ok with current day players receiving 99 overall cards if they are breaking records. Like in the case of Randy for the Rays. He deserves a 99.
Do not speak that name in the presence of a Cardinals fan....
He did not even play a full 60 games season, Now we will see what he does next year.
-
@sbevans142 said in Too many 99s:
I dont see the problem. I like that everyone doesn't HAVE to put Babe in the lineup because he has the ultimate card. It's fun that current players you like have useable cards. I honestly dont get the idea that good cards should be limited- Do you not get tired of facing Kluber, Orel, and Paxton every game? Or Tatis, Trout, Mantle, and Babe? Because that's what you are arguing for
If you want to play with a lesser player, then by all means play him. They shouldn't however have their stats blown up to something that they aren't or never will be, just because you don't want to take the hit of playing a non-elite.
-
@dcmo3 said in Too many 99s:
@sbevans142 said in Too many 99s:
I dont see the problem. I like that everyone doesn't HAVE to put Babe in the lineup because he has the ultimate card. It's fun that current players you like have useable cards. I honestly dont get the idea that good cards should be limited- Do you not get tired of facing Kluber, Orel, and Paxton every game? Or Tatis, Trout, Mantle, and Babe? Because that's what you are arguing for
If you want to play with a lesser player, then by all means play him. They shouldn't however have their stats blown up to something that they aren't or never will be, just because you don't want to take the hit of playing a non-elite.
Exactly. But if they drop the ratings, and make guys like Ruth Mays mantle etc really hard to get or by paying real money for them, then so be it. But players like 99 kulber and Newhouser and last years Kershsw would be used less if they didn’t have 99s. Less 99s, less dumb players. I’m tired of playing these guys who throw 102 but have no more than 100’innings played like what a joke lol
-
@TEXAS10PT said in Too many 99s:
@ComebackLogic said in Too many 99s:
Absolutely agree, while line up diversity and a wealth of useable options at each position is definitely a good thing, the whole thing has gone too far now. I’ve been referring to the implementation of the 125 scale and SDS logic of that time that it was a way to make the all time greats like Babe Ruth and Ted Williams stand apart from the rest of the 99s in the game. That only the best of the best were worthy of such a rating for this reason. So, I’m guessing next year they’ll have to expand to a 150 or 200 scale, given how diluted it’s now become.
Line up diversity can still be attained in DD, as it was in years gone by, without offering a selection of vanilla feeling juiced cards with 110+ in every category that are only differentiated by the card art. You get some hitters with decent contact, speed and defense, say the Gwynn or Ichiro types. You sacrifice power as a result. You get the powerful players in RF, cards like Reggie Jackson, or Stan Musial. Here, you’re sacrificing the speed and defense for more pop. Then you might get the balanced options in between, all rounders who are good, but not elite. There can be many useable options that fall into this category that promote line up diversity.
Then there are the end game players at that position. The elite, hard to obtain, much sought after cards that are the best of the best to play the game. The cards we implemented the 125 scale for. 5 tool players who can hit, run, defend and stand apart from the rest. These should be premium cards that aren’t necessarily easy to get. Throwing 110+ ratings on everything from a single game flashback to a legitimate legend tends to water down the feeling of accomplishment from finally obtaining a card like Willie Mays or Griffey, when there are a multitude of equally, or sometimes, ridiculously, better options just raining down from the skies.
You can’t really justify giving these cards better ratings than Mantle, Mays and Junior. I’m not a fan of the repeated cards either - Gavin Lux has three diamond cards already, including a 99 with 114/108 vs RHP, 91/98 vs LHP. Joe Morgan has a solitary 99 diamond with 123/107 RHP and 84/67 vs LHP. Is it just me, or is this not absolute insanity?
Nope not you......it is complete insanity. The Baseball HOF is the hardest to get into of any major sports HOF. There are way too many cards of players that have better stats than Real HOF Players. How much sense does that make?
It makes a lot more sense than having the same lineup consisting of the same players year after year for every edition of this game until we all get old enough to where we no longer play video games. Because that is exactly how it would be if other players weren’t juiced. You don’t get these complaints from the 2k, Fifa, Madden communities, and you know why? Because the MLB the show community by far has the oldest active community members of any video game I’ve ever seen. And nothing against anybody that plays video games in their 30s and 40s, I’ll likely feel the same way as some of you when I get to that age, but the fact of the matter is that the target audience for video games is ages 14-mid 20s for a reason.
-
The variety this year is great! Keeps things fresh
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
To most people no matter how good a 93-97 card is, it is unplayable. The 99 is just a number. People are going to use the meta cards no matter what.
The thing is if there were only a limited number of players who had 99 cards then 93-97 cards would become playable to those people. The only reason they aren't playable to people right now is because there are multiple 99's at every position.
-
@bayareaj1991 said in Too many 99s:
@the_dragon1912 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
To most people no matter how good a 93-97 card is, it is unplayable. The 99 is just a number. People are going to use the meta cards no matter what.
The thing is if there were only a limited number of players who had 99 cards then 93-97 cards would become playable to those people. The only reason they aren't playable to people right now is because there are multiple 99's at every position.
See MLB 18. By far the worst in the series. There were only like 15 99s and not a single other card was used except as bench bats and pitchers to fill rosters
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Too many 99s:
@bayareaj1991 said in Too many 99s:
@the_dragon1912 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
See MLB 18. By far the worst in the series. There were only like 15 99s and not a single other card was used except as bench bats and pitchers to fill rosters
Got you. I just started playing diamond dynasty in December so I only know 19 and 20 so I guess I didn't think about that.
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Too many 99s:
@TEXAS10PT said in Too many 99s:
@ComebackLogic said in Too many 99s:
Absolutely agree, while line up diversity and a wealth of useable options at each position is definitely a good thing, the whole thing has gone too far now. I’ve been referring to the implementation of the 125 scale and SDS logic of that time that it was a way to make the all time greats like Babe Ruth and Ted Williams stand apart from the rest of the 99s in the game. That only the best of the best were worthy of such a rating for this reason. So, I’m guessing next year they’ll have to expand to a 150 or 200 scale, given how diluted it’s now become.
Line up diversity can still be attained in DD, as it was in years gone by, without offering a selection of vanilla feeling juiced cards with 110+ in every category that are only differentiated by the card art. You get some hitters with decent contact, speed and defense, say the Gwynn or Ichiro types. You sacrifice power as a result. You get the powerful players in RF, cards like Reggie Jackson, or Stan Musial. Here, you’re sacrificing the speed and defense for more pop. Then you might get the balanced options in between, all rounders who are good, but not elite. There can be many useable options that fall into this category that promote line up diversity.
Then there are the end game players at that position. The elite, hard to obtain, much sought after cards that are the best of the best to play the game. The cards we implemented the 125 scale for. 5 tool players who can hit, run, defend and stand apart from the rest. These should be premium cards that aren’t necessarily easy to get. Throwing 110+ ratings on everything from a single game flashback to a legitimate legend tends to water down the feeling of accomplishment from finally obtaining a card like Willie Mays or Griffey, when there are a multitude of equally, or sometimes, ridiculously, better options just raining down from the skies.
You can’t really justify giving these cards better ratings than Mantle, Mays and Junior. I’m not a fan of the repeated cards either - Gavin Lux has three diamond cards already, including a 99 with 114/108 vs RHP, 91/98 vs LHP. Joe Morgan has a solitary 99 diamond with 123/107 RHP and 84/67 vs LHP. Is it just me, or is this not absolute insanity?
Nope not you......it is complete insanity. The Baseball HOF is the hardest to get into of any major sports HOF. There are way too many cards of players that have better stats than Real HOF Players. How much sense does that make?
It makes a lot more sense than having the same lineup consisting of the same players year after year for every edition of this game until we all get old enough to where we no longer play video games. Because that is exactly how it would be if other players weren’t juiced. You don’t get these complaints from the 2k, Fifa, Madden communities, and you know why? Because the MLB the show community by far has the oldest active community members of any video game I’ve ever seen. And nothing against anybody that plays video games in their 30s and 40s, I’ll likely feel the same way as some of you when I get to that age, but the fact of the matter is that the target audience for video games is ages 14-mid 20s for a reason.
So are you suggesting that I quit playing or having an opinion because of my age and that I'm not "Their" target audience? I happen to be 65 and played with and against many players in this game when I was in High School and College. I played organized ball for 29 years and after that time my body wouldn't let me play anymore. At that point do I just quit the game I love and move on to a wheel chair? No, I play a Baseball video game to stay in the sport that I have loved my whole life. Regardless of whether I'm part of SDS target audience or not, I will agree to disagree with you. I have the same right as you to go out and buy a console, gaming monitor and the game just as you or anybody else does.
-
@TEXAS10PT said in Too many 99s:
@the_dragon1912 said in Too many 99s:
@TEXAS10PT said in Too many 99s:
@ComebackLogic said in Too many 99s:
Absolutely agree, while line up diversity and a wealth of useable options at each position is definitely a good thing, the whole thing has gone too far now. I’ve been referring to the implementation of the 125 scale and SDS logic of that time that it was a way to make the all time greats like Babe Ruth and Ted Williams stand apart from the rest of the 99s in the game. That only the best of the best were worthy of such a rating for this reason. So, I’m guessing next year they’ll have to expand to a 150 or 200 scale, given how diluted it’s now become.
Line up diversity can still be attained in DD, as it was in years gone by, without offering a selection of vanilla feeling juiced cards with 110+ in every category that are only differentiated by the card art. You get some hitters with decent contact, speed and defense, say the Gwynn or Ichiro types. You sacrifice power as a result. You get the powerful players in RF, cards like Reggie Jackson, or Stan Musial. Here, you’re sacrificing the speed and defense for more pop. Then you might get the balanced options in between, all rounders who are good, but not elite. There can be many useable options that fall into this category that promote line up diversity.
Then there are the end game players at that position. The elite, hard to obtain, much sought after cards that are the best of the best to play the game. The cards we implemented the 125 scale for. 5 tool players who can hit, run, defend and stand apart from the rest. These should be premium cards that aren’t necessarily easy to get. Throwing 110+ ratings on everything from a single game flashback to a legitimate legend tends to water down the feeling of accomplishment from finally obtaining a card like Willie Mays or Griffey, when there are a multitude of equally, or sometimes, ridiculously, better options just raining down from the skies.
You can’t really justify giving these cards better ratings than Mantle, Mays and Junior. I’m not a fan of the repeated cards either - Gavin Lux has three diamond cards already, including a 99 with 114/108 vs RHP, 91/98 vs LHP. Joe Morgan has a solitary 99 diamond with 123/107 RHP and 84/67 vs LHP. Is it just me, or is this not absolute insanity?
Nope not you......it is complete insanity. The Baseball HOF is the hardest to get into of any major sports HOF. There are way too many cards of players that have better stats than Real HOF Players. How much sense does that make?
It makes a lot more sense than having the same lineup consisting of the same players year after year for every edition of this game until we all get old enough to where we no longer play video games. Because that is exactly how it would be if other players weren’t juiced. You don’t get these complaints from the 2k, Fifa, Madden communities, and you know why? Because the MLB the show community by far has the oldest active community members of any video game I’ve ever seen. And nothing against anybody that plays video games in their 30s and 40s, I’ll likely feel the same way as some of you when I get to that age, but the fact of the matter is that the target audience for video games is ages 14-mid 20s for a reason.
So are you suggesting that I quit playing or having an opinion because of my age and that I'm not "Their" target audience? I happen to be 65 and played with and against many players in this game when I was in High School and College. I played organized ball for 29 years and after that time my body wouldn't let me play anymore. At that point do I just quit the game I love and move on to a wheel chair? No, I play a Baseball video game to stay in the sport that I have loved my whole life. Regardless of whether I'm part of SDS target audience or not, I will agree to disagree with you. I have the same right as you to go out and buy a console, gaming monitor and the game just as you or anybody else does.
No. You are allowed to play video games and have an opinion as long as you like. My point is that the loudest complainers on here about content specifically tend to be older folks. I respect anyones opinion about the gameplay for this game as long as they have reasonable complaints and aren’t just saying “this game sucks”. Complaining about cards being too juiced and saying the legends of the game are getting disrespected is asinine though IMO. I shouldn’t have brought up the age thing and I’m sorry about that but the content in this game is specifically meant for a certain audience(as are most products).
-
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
I know it's fictional but it really waters down the elite cards
I think current day players should have a 95, 96 overall cap. Legends and past players should be the only ones with 99 overall cards. Always respect the elders.
I agree, There should only be a handful of 99s like Griffey, Mantle, Mays, Babe, Gibson, etc. Not like the 93-97 cards aren't playable
They did that in 2018 and lineup diversity was non existent. That kind of thought is nice to think about, but its not practical.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Too many 99s:
Absolutely agree, while line up diversity and a wealth of useable options at each position is definitely a good thing, the whole thing has gone too far now. I’ve been referring to the implementation of the 125 scale and SDS logic of that time that it was a way to make the all time greats like Babe Ruth and Ted Williams stand apart from the rest of the 99s in the game. That only the best of the best were worthy of such a rating for this reason. So, I’m guessing next year they’ll have to expand to a 150 or 200 scale, given how diluted it’s now become.
Line up diversity can still be attained in DD, as it was in years gone by, without offering a selection of vanilla feeling juiced cards with 110+ in every category that are only differentiated by the card art. You get some hitters with decent contact, speed and defense, say the Gwynn or Ichiro types. You sacrifice power as a result. You get the powerful players in RF, cards like Reggie Jackson, or Stan Musial. Here, you’re sacrificing the speed and defense for more pop. Then you might get the balanced options in between, all rounders who are good, but not elite. There can be many useable options that fall into this category that promote line up diversity.
Then there are the end game players at that position. The elite, hard to obtain, much sought after cards that are the best of the best to play the game. The cards we implemented the 125 scale for. 5 tool players who can hit, run, defend and stand apart from the rest. These should be premium cards that aren’t necessarily easy to get. Throwing 110+ ratings on everything from a single game flashback to a legitimate legend tends to water down the feeling of accomplishment from finally obtaining a card like Willie Mays or Griffey, when there are a multitude of equally, or sometimes, ridiculously, better options just raining down from the skies.
You can’t really justify giving these cards better ratings than Mantle, Mays and Junior. I’m not a fan of the repeated cards either - Gavin Lux has three diamond cards already, including a 99 with 114/108 vs RHP, 91/98 vs LHP. Joe Morgan has a solitary 99 diamond with 123/107 RHP and 84/67 vs LHP. Is it just me, or is this not absolute insanity?
That's just one of many examples. They need a rehaul on the ratings.
Add to the insanity is the fact that we are getting 99 diamond finest cards BASED on this seasons stats yet some of these players have live series cards that are SILVERS. Never close to sniffing diamond this year.
-
@eatyum said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
I know it's fictional but it really waters down the elite cards
I think current day players should have a 95, 96 overall cap. Legends and past players should be the only ones with 99 overall cards. Always respect the elders.
I agree, There should only be a handful of 99s like Griffey, Mantle, Mays, Babe, Gibson, etc. Not like the 93-97 cards aren't playable
They did that in 2018 and lineup diversity was non existent. That kind of thought is nice to think about, but its not practical.
That was for other reasons as well. The content delivery model was terrible, there were long periods in the middle of the game cycle with no gameplay adjustments or content, contact hitters were not viable and I don’t mean like this year where power is king, I mean they could not hit it past the infield, the stat accumulation grinds were too long and boring and outside of the handful of immortals there were very few useable, let alone elite, options. As I described earlier, that doesn’t have to be the case in order to make a card like Griffey or Mays stand out from a single game flashback from 2020.
-
I agree. I like only having the truly elite guys being 99s. I see these finest guys coming out now and everyone of them so far is a 99 and it’s just nuts for me to see Anthony Santander, who is a silver lever player in LS, with a 99 for example. I didn’t love the juiced topps now cards either, but at least most of them were not 99s.
-
@dcmo3 said in Too many 99s:
@sbevans142 said in Too many 99s:
I dont see the problem. I like that everyone doesn't HAVE to put Babe in the lineup because he has the ultimate card. It's fun that current players you like have useable cards. I honestly dont get the idea that good cards should be limited- Do you not get tired of facing Kluber, Orel, and Paxton every game? Or Tatis, Trout, Mantle, and Babe? Because that's what you are arguing for
If you want to play with a lesser player, then by all means play him. They shouldn't however have their stats blown up to something that they aren't or never will be, just because you don't want to take the hit of playing a non-elite.
Bingo. This is what Events and other game modes like Conquest are for. I run with players i enjoy playing with, not always based on stats. It's ultimately the gamers choice on who they play with.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Too many 99s:
@eatyum said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
@Thierry007007 said in Too many 99s:
@DoIHearBossMusic said in Too many 99s:
I'm ok with actual legends getting 99s, but agree about guys with a few good days getting cards better than Babe, Musial, Mays, etc.
I know it's fictional but it really waters down the elite cards
I think current day players should have a 95, 96 overall cap. Legends and past players should be the only ones with 99 overall cards. Always respect the elders.
I agree, There should only be a handful of 99s like Griffey, Mantle, Mays, Babe, Gibson, etc. Not like the 93-97 cards aren't playable
They did that in 2018 and lineup diversity was non existent. That kind of thought is nice to think about, but its not practical.
That was for other reasons as well. The content delivery model was terrible, there were long periods in the middle of the game cycle with no gameplay adjustments or content, contact hitters were not viable and I don’t mean like this year where power is king, I mean they could not hit it past the infield, the stat accumulation grinds were too long and boring and outside of the handful of immortals there were very few useable, let alone elite, options. As I described earlier, that doesn’t have to be the case in order to make a card like Griffey or Mays stand out from a single game flashback from 2020.
Yes there were other reasons 18 sucked and contributed to less lineup variety, but one of the biggest was the lack of 99's. People are going to gravitate towards the higher rates cards, that's just how it works. So if 99 is reserved for a handful, you will basically only see those in ranked
