A solution going forward
-
Same here it's a big no
-
How about no Scott?
-
@Dolenz_PSN said in A solution going forward:
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
First, make the existing Diamond Dynasty as a 100% coop play mode.
You lost me and probably about 90% plus of existing players right there.
It seems like you describe a completely new game mode but want them to call it Diamond Dynasty and rebrand all of the existing Diamond Dynasty modes.
Don't misrepresent what someone says and them use that misrepresentation as the basis of your statement. Diamond Dynasty obviously already exists. Everyone knows that. My point is that going forward it should only exist as a platform for online competition games -- called coop for short.
Clearly what I wrote is that all the other sub-modes in DD should be removed, games versus CPU and Friendly league games. Once moved out, these should be placed in a new game mode named Friendly Competition. In this game mode, all players are available at the start of the game.
The part about custom stadiums is needed because all of the various restrictions on creation were implemented as a result of DD players complaining about online cheating. Well, remove the custom stadium option entirely and then remove all the restrictions so us who create stadiums can do so as we desire.
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Too late of course for MLB 24. However, this concept for Diamond Dynasty could be implemented in time for MLB The Show 25. I think doing so would end about 75% of the chronic complaints we see about the game, which are centered on the as described arbitrary nature of card issuance, market actions, and seasonal aspects to the coop play.
First, make the existing Diamond Dynasty as a 100% coop play mode. The sub-modes for games versus the CPU as well as friendly online games in privately controlled leagues would be retained, but under a new game mode named "Friendly Play."
First rule for the coop play mode is that the game is released with everyone having the exact same roster, filled with fake players who all possess minor league talent levels. Games are then entered into and points earned through gameplay alone. Points can be awarded for positive results such as wins, strikeouts, hits, homers, stolen bases, etc ... However, points can also be deducted for bad plays such as losses, errors, caught stealing, striking out, etc ...
Those points are then placed into a bank account for each customer. Starting the first day of the month after game release, and then updating on the first day of each month thereafter, a roster of free agents is released. These free agents will be actual and legacy MLB players of various levels of talent. The more talent, the more points a player will cost.
This free agent roster is ONLY applicable to the coop game mode. All other game modes won't allow such players. The Friendly mode would have all potential players immediately available since this game play would be against the CPU or within a friendly private league. Again, the points to purchase free agent players for coop would ONLY be awarded in coop games. And no players from any other game mode would be allowed in the coop play mode.
Once a player is selected, that player is considered signed, and as such the points are deducted from the customer's account and that player remains a part of the customer's roster of available players for the duration of the game. There are no seasons. A player can be on the active 26-man roster or not, but that player will always remain available for being on that 26-man roster.
Once a player is put on the free agent roster, the player will remain forever. However, new players are added on the first day of each month. So, customers will need to be wise about who they spend points for. But, since all players are equally available, and it all comes down to skill in playing the game in coop, then it's really all on the customer to build the best team he can.
Finally, to keep the coop games fair, only default SDS created stadiums would be allowed in coop play. As a result of this move, all the rules barring creation of concepts within Stadium Creator would be immediately removed. All props, including batters eye props, would be treated as normal props, and all props can be placed in the field of play as desired -- no restrictions. Since custom stadiums would only be useable in Friendly online competition devoid of earning points, as well as in RTTS, Franchise, Moments, and Exhibition modes, there wouldn't be any point to creating stadiums to gain competitive advantages in.
Chicken or rooster?
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Too late of course for MLB 24. However, this concept for Diamond Dynasty could be implemented in time for MLB The Show 25. I think doing so would end about 75% of the chronic complaints we see about the game, which are centered on the as described arbitrary nature of card issuance, market actions, and seasonal aspects to the coop play.
First, make the existing Diamond Dynasty as a 100% coop play mode. The sub-modes for games versus the CPU as well as friendly online games in privately controlled leagues would be retained, but under a new game mode named "Friendly Play."
First rule for the coop play mode is that the game is released with everyone having the exact same roster, filled with fake players who all possess minor league talent levels. Games are then entered into and points earned through gameplay alone. Points can be awarded for positive results such as wins, strikeouts, hits, homers, stolen bases, etc ... However, points can also be deducted for bad plays such as losses, errors, caught stealing, striking out, etc ...
Those points are then placed into a bank account for each customer. Starting the first day of the month after game release, and then updating on the first day of each month thereafter, a roster of free agents is released. These free agents will be actual and legacy MLB players of various levels of talent. The more talent, the more points a player will cost.
This free agent roster is ONLY applicable to the coop game mode. All other game modes won't allow such players. The Friendly mode would have all potential players immediately available since this game play would be against the CPU or within a friendly private league. Again, the points to purchase free agent players for coop would ONLY be awarded in coop games. And no players from any other game mode would be allowed in the coop play mode.
Once a player is selected, that player is considered signed, and as such the points are deducted from the customer's account and that player remains a part of the customer's roster of available players for the duration of the game. There are no seasons. A player can be on the active 26-man roster or not, but that player will always remain available for being on that 26-man roster.
Once a player is put on the free agent roster, the player will remain forever. However, new players are added on the first day of each month. So, customers will need to be wise about who they spend points for. But, since all players are equally available, and it all comes down to skill in playing the game in coop, then it's really all on the customer to build the best team he can.
Finally, to keep the coop games fair, only default SDS created stadiums would be allowed in coop play. As a result of this move, all the rules barring creation of concepts within Stadium Creator would be immediately removed. All props, including batters eye props, would be treated as normal props, and all props can be placed in the field of play as desired -- no restrictions. Since custom stadiums would only be useable in Friendly online competition devoid of earning points, as well as in RTTS, Franchise, Moments, and Exhibition modes, there wouldn't be any point to creating stadiums to gain competitive advantages in.
Eww hard pass right away, i prefer to play alone unless i play online.
-
Nope I don't like that idea at all. SDS would never do that because they'll lose a lot of players this way.
-
Imagine the freeze offs
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Everyone knows that. My point is that going forward it should only exist as a platform for online competition games -- called coop for short.
Well, there is your mistake. The game already has a co-op mode and it does not mean that at all, so when you say coop the community is going to assume you are talking about the current mode and not just online head to head.
But in the end it does not matter because they would never do that.
-
@Dolenz_PSN said in A solution going forward:
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Everyone knows that. My point is that going forward it should only exist as a platform for online competition games -- called coop for short.
Well, there is your mistake. The game already has a co-op mode and it does not mean that at all, so when you say coop the community is going to assume you are talking about the current mode and not just online head to head.
But in the end it does not matter because they would never do that.
You have a trend of being wrong when you criticize people. Perhaps the lesson you should draw from that is to avoid criticizing people, especially when in doing so you call them wrong!
In computer gaming, coop is short for "cooperative play." It means two people playing a computer game together, more often today using the internet for an online game. It wasn't always online as it originated with two people using the same console offline and with two controllers to play a game together. Most of the time, it was one human player versus another human player. But, in more recent times, especially with the advent of so-called shooter games, it morphed into two human players working together against the CPU, or in some cases, two human players working together against other human players.
While the idea of coop gaming being between friends, the online avenue took it into territory where people who didn't know each other could play, either in competition with each other, or as a tag-team working together. Ultimately, some games have advanced to the point where teams of people can play other teams of people online.
You knew full well the context of my suggestion and that it applied to coop play in the competitive games in MLB The Show. That was made clear since I made a clear distinction with games played in a friendly league, or games played against the CPU. I also clearly stated that DD should going forward be dedicated strictly to competition game play.
Here's some more advice. Be sure you are correct before calling other people wrong! You see, I played these games when they first came out, and even wrote a few computer games myself. This started in the 1980's and continued in one form or another until today. In fact, the first computer game I wrote was a space game written on a floppy disk for a PC back when I was a computer science student at NC State University, back in 1984.
So, I've seen all these various games develop over the decades. Something else I concluded is that I would much rather fly airplanes for a living than sit in a cubicle all day writing computer code. It wasn't a dig at those who did. Just a realization that while I enjoyed playing video games, I wouldn't have been too happy making a career out of making them.
One more thing this thread further confirms. Far too many of you just seem obsessed with disagreeing with people because you love to argue and criticize more than anything else in the world. That's really sad. Lots of room to merely make your point and move on, vice feeling the obsessive need to call others out, much less call them wrong or try to ridicule them.
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL is Dunning-Kruger in the room with us?
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
@Dolenz_PSN said in A solution going forward:
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Everyone knows that. My point is that going forward it should only exist as a platform for online competition games -- called coop for short.
Well, there is your mistake. The game already has a co-op mode and it does not mean that at all, so when you say coop the community is going to assume you are talking about the current mode and not just online head to head.
But in the end it does not matter because they would never do that.
You have a trend of being wrong when you criticize people. Perhaps the lesson you should draw from that is to avoid criticizing people, especially when in doing so you call them wrong!
In computer gaming, coop is short for "cooperative play." It means two people playing a computer game together, more often today using the internet for an online game. It wasn't always online as it originated with two people using the same console offline and with two controllers to play a game together. Most of the time, it was one human player versus another human player. But, in more recent times, especially with the advent of so-called shooter games, it morphed into two human players working together against the CPU, or in some cases, two human players working together against other human players.
While the idea of coop gaming being between friends, the online avenue took it into territory where people who didn't know each other could play, either in competition with each other, or as a tag-team working together. Ultimately, some games have advanced to the point where teams of people can play other teams of people online.
You knew full well the context of my suggestion and that it applied to coop play in the competitive games in MLB The Show. That was made clear since I made a clear distinction with games played in a friendly league, or games played against the CPU. I also clearly stated that DD should going forward be dedicated strictly to competition game play.
Here's some more advice. Be sure you are correct before calling other people wrong! You see, I played these games when they first came out, and even wrote a few computer games myself. This started in the 1980's and continued in one form or another until today. In fact, the first computer game I wrote was a space game written on a floppy disk for a PC back when I was a computer science student at NC State University, back in 1984.
So, I've seen all these various games develop over the decades. Something else I concluded is that I would much rather fly airplanes for a living than sit in a cubicle all day writing computer code. It wasn't a dig at those who did. Just a realization that while I enjoyed playing video games, I wouldn't have been too happy making a career out of making them.
One more thing this thread further confirms. Far too many of you just seem obsessed with disagreeing with people because you love to argue and criticize more than anything else in the world. That's really sad. Lots of room to merely make your point and move on, vice feeling the obsessive need to call others out, much less call them wrong or try to ridicule them.
Let's put it like this we all said no because it's a stupid idea and that would send this game backwards and no one wants that
-
Hard pass. I play 90% offline, so in your world I don't get to play DD.
-
@whiplash0013_PSN said in A solution going forward:
Hard pass. I play 90% offline, so in your world I don't get to play DD.
I can appreciate that. I don't play DD either. This proposal doesn't require that the other game modes be changed. It instead revolves around the notion that online competition needs a uniform set of rules that offers a way for thousands of people to play in a controlled environment where individual skill determines one's level of success.
In fact, I don't advocate any changes to RTTS or Franchise as a result of this proposal. The only game mode change would be to add another mode named Friendly Play, which would be online, but would not be competitive since nothing other than winning or losing a game would be the reward.
Within this new Friendly Play mode, you have the ability to sign any player on day one. You're only limited to 26 players on your roster. The paradigm shift is that one only has to "grind" to outfit his roster for competition play. Other forms of online play don't require the grind to create your team, but does not provide the "rewards" that are based on getting players.
Have your choice -- compete for points to build a better and better team. Or play online for the fun of it with friends or versus the CPU where you decide how much talent your team has on it.
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
@Dolenz_PSN said in A solution going forward:
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Everyone knows that. My point is that going forward it should only exist as a platform for online competition games -- called coop for short.
Well, there is your mistake. The game already has a co-op mode and it does not mean that at all, so when you say coop the community is going to assume you are talking about the current mode and not just online head to head.
But in the end it does not matter because they would never do that.
You have a trend of being wrong when you criticize people. Perhaps the lesson you should draw from that is to avoid criticizing people, especially when in doing so you call them wrong!
In computer gaming, coop is short for "cooperative play." It means two people playing a computer game together, more often today using the internet for an online game. It wasn't always online as it originated with two people using the same console offline and with two controllers to play a game together. Most of the time, it was one human player versus another human player. But, in more recent times, especially with the advent of so-called shooter games, it morphed into two human players working together against the CPU, or in some cases, two human players working together against other human players.
While the idea of coop gaming being between friends, the online avenue took it into territory where people who didn't know each other could play, either in competition with each other, or as a tag-team working together. Ultimately, some games have advanced to the point where teams of people can play other teams of people online.
You knew full well the context of my suggestion and that it applied to coop play in the competitive games in MLB The Show. That was made clear since I made a clear distinction with games played in a friendly league, or games played against the CPU. I also clearly stated that DD should going forward be dedicated strictly to competition game play.
Here's some more advice. Be sure you are correct before calling other people wrong! You see, I played these games when they first came out, and even wrote a few computer games myself. This started in the 1980's and continued in one form or another until today. In fact, the first computer game I wrote was a space game written on a floppy disk for a PC back when I was a computer science student at NC State University, back in 1984.
So, I've seen all these various games develop over the decades. Something else I concluded is that I would much rather fly airplanes for a living than sit in a cubicle all day writing computer code. It wasn't a dig at those who did. Just a realization that while I enjoyed playing video games, I wouldn't have been too happy making a career out of making them.
One more thing this thread further confirms. Far too many of you just seem obsessed with disagreeing with people because you love to argue and criticize more than anything else in the world. That's really sad. Lots of room to merely make your point and move on, vice feeling the obsessive need to call others out, much less call them wrong or try to ridicule them.
Here's where your wrong.
coop = animal pen
Co-Op or Co Op = competitive play between two people. -
I don't know if you are trolling or just astonishingly ignorant.
People like to grind to better their roster for offline play just as much, if not more, than those who prefer online play.
-
@X-FREEZE-OFF-X_PSN said in A solution going forward:
Co-Op or Co Op = competitive play between two people.
co op is by definition people on the same team
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
@Dolenz_PSN said in A solution going forward:
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in A solution going forward:
Everyone knows that. My point is that going forward it should only exist as a platform for online competition games -- called coop for short.
Well, there is your mistake. The game already has a co-op mode and it does not mean that at all, so when you say coop the community is going to assume you are talking about the current mode and not just online head to head.
But in the end it does not matter because they would never do that.
You have a trend of being wrong when you criticize people.
And you have a trend of being verbose.
