Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

[djep]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

If there was an option to hide the meter and just time the release of the ball based on the pitchers leg kick and release point, I would totally use that.

That's how I play with the analog pitching. If you're using one of the behind the pitcher views, you can pretty much "hide" the meter by editing your pitching camera. Just make the meter as small as possible and position it all the way to the upper left. The meter ends up being the lost in the crowd behind home plate and very difficult to see. After a while you won't even notice that it is there once you get your attention focused on the pitcher.

This makes it imperative that you are familiar with your pitchers' throwing motions and release points. It also adds to the tension when you get guys on base and work from the stretch instead of the windup.

[OhioCub]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

That is interesting but I don't know how much I want to have that red thing on the screen.

It's really no worse than the traditional ball marker. There is the option to make it fade as well.

[canes21]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

I use classic. I just like having my guys ratings having a huge impact. If a guy is on its amazing. If he's off, you better find a way to make it work or you're killing your bullpen.

If there was a pure timing mechanic, I'd be interested in that, but I have stuck with class the entire time and really don't know if the other methods are based on release or not.

[RangersCruz]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

I use classic. I just like having my guys ratings having a huge impact. If a guy is on its amazing. If he's off, you better find a way to make it work or you're killing your bullpen.

If there was a pure timing mechanic, I'd be interested in that, but I have stuck with class the entire time and really don't know if the other methods are based on release or not.

Thats really with every mechanic assuming your not on rookie

[Majingir]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

I've been using analog for a few years. Used to use meter during early days of playing game. Which one would people really recommend for me? Or is it more of a personal preference?

Cause I like analog cause it feels like the success of the pitcher really just depends on me. Part I don't like is how I can throw strikes way too easily(80-90% of my pitches are strikes).

Meter I haven't used in years, but to me,I feel like it takes away from the game abit cause I'd be looking at the meter more than anything else while pitching. Though it has been in game for many years,so many people must like it alot.

And classic,it's simple/straight forward and like people said,it depends alot on pitchers ratings as well. But at same time,I'd also feel like I won't have as much control over the pitcher and where the pitches might go.

[Brando70]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

I've been using analog for a few years. Used to use meter during early days of playing game. Which one would people really recommend for me? Or is it more of a personal preference?

Cause I like analog cause it feels like the success of the pitcher really just depends on me. Part I don't like is how I can throw strikes way too easily(80-90% of my pitches are strikes).

Meter I haven't used in years, but to me,I feel like it takes away from the game abit cause I'd be looking at the meter more than anything else while pitching. Though it has been in game for many years,so many people must like it alot.

And classic,it's simple/straight forward and like people said,it depends alot on pitchers ratings as well. But at same time,I'd also feel like I won't have as much control over the pitcher and where the pitches might go.

I was an analog guy, but never found a way to generate realistic walks while pitching, even with a few house rules.

This year I tried all three pitching methods and have found meter to be my favorite. It seems less forgiving to me than in years past, and I see pitches have a lot more variation in location if I miss the delivery line by more than a little bit.

I love the feeling of analog, but because the meter is so much slower, I find it way easier to control and therefore don't miss out of the zone unless I'm aiming there.

Also, I have a couple house rules for meter pitching:
--I always have to move the L-stick a little, no grooving.
--For any fastball, I have to move the L-stick until I get at least a little vibration.
--If the catcher calls a breaking ball on ball three, I have to throw that.

The first two rules seem pretty realistic as no pitcher wants to drill a fastball down the heart of the plate on purpose. The last one is just a little randomizer to help keep the potential for walks.

[OhioCub]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

I was an analog guy, but never found a way to generate realistic walks while pitching, even with a few house rules.

This year I tried all three pitching methods and have found meter to be my favorite. It seems less forgiving to me than in years past, and I see pitches have a lot more variation in location if I miss the delivery line by more than a little bit.

I love the feeling of analog, but because the meter is so much slower, I find it way easier to control and therefore don't miss out of the zone unless I'm aiming there.

Also, I have a couple house rules for meter pitching:
--I always have to move the L-stick a little, no grooving.
--For any fastball, I have to move the L-stick until I get at least a little vibration.
--If the catcher calls a breaking ball on ball three, I have to throw that.

The first two rules seem pretty realistic as no pitcher wants to drill a fastball down the heart of the plate on purpose. The last one is just a little randomizer to help keep the potential for walks.

I've been trying something new with analog and actually gave up 4 walks in my last game. First of all, I went back to something I heard curt schilling say on ESPN's broadcast Sunday night. "you don't get major league hitters out with pitches in the zone, you get them out with pitches out of the zone." so I used that information in my game play. I aimed for right on the corner or outside the zone with every pitch unless it was a 3-0 count. Then certain hitters (I was playing against Seattle so cano and cruz) if I fell behind I would purposely stay out of the zone and try to get them to chase. A couple times they did and it got me back in to the at-bat. But if they didn't I didn't give in and I'd give them the walk. I'm not saying I was just throwing anything out of the zone. I'd still stay close to the edge. Anyway, the point is, when you use analog I think it's more important than ever to actually think like a major league pitcher and know when to give in and when not to give in.

[bukktown]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

I use everything but pulse.

[canes21]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

Thats really with every mechanic assuming your not on rookie

With meter or pulse or even analog I have a big say in my players performance. In classic I don't. That's why I use it. That's not how every mechanic is. I don't know where you're getting that from.

[bukktown]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

That's how I play with the analog pitching. If you're using one of the behind the pitcher views, you can pretty much "hide" the meter by editing your pitching camera. Just make the meter as small as possible and position it all the way to the upper left. The meter ends up being the lost in the crowd behind home plate and very difficult to see. After a while you won't even notice that it is there once you get your attention focused on the pitcher.

This makes it imperative that you are familiar with your pitchers' throwing motions and release points. It also adds to the tension when you get guys on base and work from the stretch instead of the windup.

I did this for a good amount last year. It's a blast!

[Greencollarbaseball]

Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

Classic. Because ratings...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skyboxer]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

So do you want to have a version of the game to have classic hitting where you press a button just as the pitcher throws the ball and base on hitter ratings the outcome will occur positive or negative?

I never got this. I want to play the game and if pitching is just to hit a button and the rating of a player will determine the posibility of the outcome why pick up the controller?

If that is such a sim thing then why not the same for hitting and just not field and let the cpu field.

I use classic pitching, Auto field and timed hitting. All methods that take ratings more into account than user stick skills.
Just the way I(and others prefer to play) nothing right or wrong with it.

In my RTTS pitcher I use meter and will try analog too

[brrmikey]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

Classic, Broadcast View. Love the reduction in screen clutter with the combination of Classic, Cursor Fade On, Vibration On...just the quick view of where the ball is going to go and then on my own using vibration if i need to paint the corners of the zone...love it.

One thing I can get past...I could swear I'm adding some user input holding the pitch button versus tapping the pitch button. For example, right handed pitcher vs right handed batter...I could swear that let's say it's 0-2 (me vs cpu batter) and i aim a sinker low and outside...if i tap the button it has break to it, but if i hold it down and release right before the vibration, it has more break to it and could end up in the dirt (as desired at times )...has a dev ever confirmed this (tap vs hold = level of break/effort/accuracy) or is this just my imagination...if the latter i've been in dreamland several years now...lol

edit: my example assumes same exact pitch location / break point

[RangersCruz]

Re: Pulse vs analog vs meter vs classic?

Yeah tapping it supposedly makes you more accurate but it doesn't do anything for me

Holding the x adds less control and uses your stamina more