With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

[Russell_SCEA]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Fair enough. But if that is the case (and for what it's worth, I do believe you), why program the pitch location to be completely random if you miss the meter target as Russell explained?

I never said "completely random" I stated it's more random than last years miss and our definition of random isn't the users.

[Woodweaver]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Fair enough. But if that is the case (and for what it's worth, I do believe you), why program the pitch location to be completely random if you miss the meter target as Russell explained?

I did not see where he made that statement, but if he did, that would be the source of the misconceptions. It is random within a specific "radius" of the original pitch target. Not completely random.

Many factors go into the size of that "radius", of which, the meter input is key. However, the pitch break of the selected pitch, your pitchers current control of that pitch, your pitcher's attributes and fatigue, and other factors contribute.

[Padgoi]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Before we continue, let me just state that I really appreciate your responses. I know this talk can get very frustrating for you guys (which is why you usually ignore it), so to have you actually come in here and respond means a lot. It's this interaction that drives sales, not just the gameplay itself.

Further, I do not mean to be offensive in my posts or condescending. I am simply trying to understand how things work so that I (and many other users with questions) know why we see what we see and if there are ways to combat them.

I never said "completely random" I stated it's more random than last years miss and our definition of random isn't the users.

I did not see where he made that statement, but if he did, that would be the source of the misconceptions. It is random within a specific "radius" of the original pitch target. Not completely random.

Many factors go into the size of that "radius", of which, the meter input is key. However, the pitch break of the selected pitch, your pitchers current control of that pitch, your pitcher's attributes and fatigue, and other factors contribute.

Ok, that explanation is reasonable, but I'd still like to know why it was coded this way instead of the way I described where if you're late on the meter, the pitch goes low and if you're early, it goes high? Wouldn't that extra level of control to the user provide for a more reasonable approach rather than putting so much randomness into the equation? Again, I go back to Links Golf. The meter they had in that game was all about user control. If you missed early, the ball hooked left into the trees. If you missed late, it faded to the right. But if you missed by a smidge either way, it went relatively where you had aimed. That level of control felt like I (the user) was dictating the result, not the game. Wouldn't that make more sense while still providing for realistic results? I just feel so helpless towards the end of games when I'm nursing a one-run lead only to see a pitch sail over the heart of the plate that I was aiming to be high and tight, almost hitting the guy in the grill.

[Woodweaver]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Before we continue, let me just state that I really appreciate your responses. I know this talk can get very frustrating for you guys (which is why you usually ignore it), so to have you actually come in here and respond means a lot. It's this interaction that drives sales, not just the gameplay itself.

Further, I do not mean to be offensive in my posts or condescending. I am simply trying to understand how things work so that I (and many other users with questions) know why we see what we see and if there are ways to combat them.





Ok, that explanation is reasonable, but I'd still like to know why it was coded this way instead of the way I described where if you're late on the meter, the pitch goes low and if you're early, it goes high? Wouldn't that extra level of control to the user provide for a more reasonable approach rather than putting so much randomness into the equation? Again, I go back to Links Golf. The meter they had in that game was all about user control. If you missed early, the ball hooked left into the trees. If you missed late, it faded to the right. But if you missed by a smidge either way, it went relatively where you had aimed. That level of control felt like I (the user) was dictating the result, not the game. Wouldn't that make more sense while still providing for realistic results? I just feel so helpless towards the end of games when I'm nursing a one-run lead only to see a pitch sail over the heart of the plate that I was aiming to be high and tight, almost hitting the guy in the grill.

No worries. I understand and appreciate where you're coming from.


I did not code the pitch meter, so I cannot answer with 100% certainty. I will try to get an answer for you.


Just speculating based on my experience with meter interfaces in other capacities/games... People just get too good with the meter. It becomes far too easy to accomplish tasks, and attributes become meaningless.


The meter does skew the area of possible location giving the user input. Aim a 4seam fast ball low in the zone, and let the meter go to the stops. The ball will end up in the dirt most times.

[Bobhead]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

I can say right off the bat (no pun intended),that I would definitely NOT want the pitching meter to work in the way you are suggesting. ("You" being the creator of this thread, PAD, not the developers above)

One of my biggest issues with the Analog meter is that it works in that way. If I miss to the right, the pitch goes to the right. Miss down, the pitch goes down. It leads to a lot of pitches missing down the middle, because the most common user error by far is to not tilt the stick far enough (or at all). I WISH that analog pitching were more random (with misses, only). It would function far better, and more realistically, in my opinion.

Pitching is not golf. A club is a solid, inflexible object, and, can be rotated and adjusted left or right unhindered. An arm is the opposite of all of those, and a shoulderblade can only move in limited directions, with limited fluidity. A small mis-alignment in your arm-slot or hand-placement, has very unpredictable ramifications. It's not as simple as "I missed to the right so my pitch went to the right" in real life. Maybe, for example I missed to the right which caused my hand to be off-center on the pitch, which caused the pitch to miss way low?

This is a great thread though. I will say that other than the above, I agree with the majority of your concerns. I especially agree that the strike zone is too high, and that error animations in general need a lot of work (and I think I mentioned the latter in Ramone's "top 3" thread).

I think an ideal goal is for error animations to look exactly like the non-error animations (except for... you know... the error part). There is no reason for the drastic and intentional differences in animation, such as with the "Ole" one OP described. The fielder should be approaching the ball the same way he should, and normally does, except simply fail to field the ball successfully.

The fact that I can recognize an error animation before the actual error occurs, is the summary of what I'm getting at here, and the source of much frustration from many of us. I shouldn't be able to.

[cervin29]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

I would also like to throw in the mix my issue with first basemen fielding a ground ball close to first base with a runner on first. The first baseman will field the ball right by the bag and make the throw to 2nd base and will never cover the bag. He will get out of the way to let the pitcher cover the bag when he is already there. This causes either the lame duck throw that arrives way to late, or the ball is thrown to the pitcher before he reaches the bag and the runner wins the race every time.

I have not turned one double play with my RTTS SS when this play occurs nor in a franchise or exhibition game. Both outcomes looks unrealistic and this situation happens quite regularly. The first baseman could easily tag the bag and throw to 2nd on a hard hit for a tag play, or simply cover the bag. Really frustrates me when I am in a 1st and 3rd situation late in the game with less than two outs and the CPU gets an easy run.

[gonjgb]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

I think on wild pitches its the stupid "catcher completely misses it" scenario which is way too prevalent.

[Artman22]

With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn'...

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1431748064.087858.jpg

Here's a perfect example of the strike zone shrinking late in the game. 9th inning and the 1st pitch is a ball, the second pitch is a swing and a miss low ball for a strike and now look at the 3rd pitch. The 3rd pitch is a clear strike and gets called a ball. This game is becoming more and more frustrating to play sometimes. I hope this can be addressed in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nomo17k]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

[ATTACH]98187[/ATTACH]

Here's a perfect example of the strike zone shrinking late in the game. 9th inning and the 1st pitch is a ball, the second pitch is a swing and a miss low ball for a strike and now look at the 3rd pitch. The 3rd pitch is a clear strike and gets called a ball. This game is becoming more and more frustrating to play.

It is definitely a bad call by the ump, but this can actually happen to both sides (human or CPU). The point becomes needlessly complicated when some people start insisting that the game does this *conditionally* when one side is down and vice versa, and the devs have been saying that that's exactly what the game does not do.

There is a small chance that a blown call like this happens in *any* pitch. It just happened to occur in an untimely occasion for you this case. That really is it.

[cts50]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn'...

[ATTACH]98187[/ATTACH]

Here's a perfect example of the strike zone shrinking late in the game. 9th inning and the 1st pitch is a ball, the second pitch is a swing and a miss low ball for a strike and now look at the 3rd pitch. The 3rd pitch is a clear strike and gets called a ball. This game is becoming more and more frustrating to play sometimes. I hope this can be addressed in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a question because context helps:

What kind of strike zone are you using?

The variance zone? (Zone is designed to be constantly changing, and mistakes are designed to occur)

The standard zone? (The zone is consistent, but it can be wrong)

The perfect zone? (As the names says, its perfect)

[cts50]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

I never said "completely random" I stated it's more random than last years miss and our definition of random isn't the users.

Would it be possible for you to give a brief explanation of what your definition of random is?

It would really help me decide how I want to pitch.

I use pulse because I think it is supposed to give me more control over the location of the pitch if my timing is good, but classic is quicker, easier to use, and I like to keep the screen as "clean" as possible.

If the randomness of pulse is the same as the randomness of classic, I would rather use classic. But I can never get a great feel for it and the difference can be hard to differentiate (difference between the randomness, not the actual interfaces).

Anyway, any insider information you have would be awesome.

[Padgoi]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Honestly, I'm going back to analog. All of this randomness makes the game absurdly unrealistic to me. I want control over where the pitch goes and I want my mistakes to dictate where the pitch goes, not the computer dictating when it's time to throw a meatball.

[cts50]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Honestly, I'm going back to analog. All of this randomness makes the game absurdly unrealistic to me. I want control over where the pitch goes and I want my mistakes to dictate where the pitch goes, not the computer dictating when it's time to throw a meatball.

Does analog have less randomness involved compared to pulse, meter, or classic?


Analog is so ugly. The meter is huge, and it takes up a big chunk of the screen.

[Padgoi]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Analog is completely user controlled.

[MLB14]

Re: With all they've tweaked with gameplay, there's still so much more they didn't...

Honestly, I'm going back to analog. All of this randomness makes the game absurdly unrealistic to me. I want control over where the pitch goes and I want my mistakes to dictate where the pitch goes, not the computer dictating when it's time to throw a meatball.

It's not exactly random. It's based on the pitcher's attributes, his pitch rating and the batter's attributes.

It's more like an equation. Without an equation like that, you wouldn't feel a difference between an all star pitcher and a AA pitcher. It also creates a unique duel between each batter and pitcher.

It has a purpose and that purpose is actually to make the game realistic.