Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion

SDS

Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.

My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.

100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.

There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.

Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.

I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.

So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.

SDS

Completely agree. Make 90+ diamonds again. 85-89 gold.

SDS

I think it’s a bad idea to go back

SDS

@Ikasnu said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:

Completely agree. Make 90+ diamonds again. 85-89 gold.

Agreed! This would also mean more variety in teams because a lot of guys will be rated 90+ and the differences will be smaller when it comes to attributes. So guys would consider using players of their favorite team over the obvious higher rated player because the differences are minimal.

SDS

@ZOMBIEKILLS_128 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:

I think it’s a bad idea to go back

Usually when you want to engage in a discussion, you not only present your opinion but you also provide arguments as to how you formed that opinion.

SDS

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.

SDS

@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.

SDS

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.

SDS

@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.

SDS

@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.

SDS

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.

SDS

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.

SDS

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.

SDS

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"

SDS

@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.

SDS

@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.

SDS

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.

SDS

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.

SDS

@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,

SDS

@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.

Log in to reply