MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

[underdog13]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

First to get it out of the way, the post I liked in no way bashed non programmers. I definitely feel it to be true though. Many people on here expect things that are way harder than they appear. Something like rotating interleague schedules comes to mind. Creating an algorithm for that would be a huge pain.

I agree they should focus on more franchise modes and more off field things. Personally things like numbers being too low, I've never noticed besides pictures on OS. On the other hand something like mid season contract extensions doesn't matter to me either.

Things that matter to me like profile association in rtts and not hiding stats in rtts, don't get much attention from others because it doesn't effect or matter to them. Just like uniforms and mid season mode extensions don't matter to me.

In the end, everyone should respect each other's opinions. Even if we don't care about what they care about. I know I've never opened the uniform thread because it's not something that interests me.

You did a good job explaining why contract extension logic can be so complicated. But even then, we're talking about a game designed to emulate reality. Is it more realistic to not be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with authentic socks, or is it more realistic to be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with generic socks?

Again, it's not just a matter of socks - there's so many more visual aspects the devs would have to get right to make the game look realistic. But here's the other thing - I don't know about you, but the game itself doesn't really look all that real. It's called the Uncanny Valley effect, and boy does it affect this year's game. Players are becoming so realistic that I'm starting to see how unrealistic they actually are. After playing '16, seeing '17's pitcher deliveries and batter swings made me cringe. The swinging motions, the way the bat hits the ball, and those darn pitchers...

It looked really bad until I got used to it. But here's the thing, I don't care about that I don't expect the developers to make the game look as realistic as real life. That's unbelievably hard to do and will never be perfect. In fact, I bet you the Uncanny Valley problem only gets worse as game becomes more realistic. You liked that one guys post bashing people who aren't programmers and thus can't comprehend the magnitude of the problem, but visual realism is a MAJOR programming dilemma that hasn't even come close to satisfying the naked eye.

My argument is that they should put less programming effort into socks and more programming effort into actual MLB mechanics. This is not just a baseball game - it's an MLB game, and thus ought to have MLB likeness. For me, contract extensions go far more towards depicting reality than batting gloves on a player who swings so unrealistically.

Also, as long as contracts affect player morale and thus player ratings in Franchise mode, then you simply can't justify saying extensions are merely a feature and not a gameplay issue. If the developers added the option to disable player morale, then yes, contracts would no longer affect gameplay.

Finally, despite the complications with contract extensions, OOTP has had them for years. No other game has ever had truly realistic socks. So, one could argue that extensions are by default easier to program, seeing as they already have been. (and to critical acclaim)

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[BillPeener]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

As a programmer, I can tell you that changing a visual aspect should be a super simple and quick/easy fix. Changing the way something behaves programmatically is a much more time consuming/deeper issue.

I understand people upset that uni-fixes are done before gameplay fixes. But the simple fact of the matter is, that a gameplay fix that would alter the way the game behaves would take a little time to re-program, debug, test, tidy up the programming, and then test again, and then post.

It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process.

Trust the process.

First you say you're a programmer, then you say visual graphics are "super simple and quick/easy" to fix. If it's so easy, then why didn't games 10-15 years ago have official socks, yet they had contract extensions (or other related logic)?

As a programmer, if Sony came to me right now and said, "you can either program the socks, or you can program the contract extensions", I'm taking the latter every single day. I don't know how SCEA's visual graphics system works. Maybe they've made it relatively simple to add new gloves, shoes, socks, and so on.

Even then, they still have to update that every year as the engine changes. I don't know how you can make the argument that contract logic is significantly more complicated / time-consuming than handling graphic upgrades every single year. Because remember, contract logic doesn't necessarily have to change much, if at all, each year. Once it's done, it's kinda just done.

I'm willing to leave open the possibility that the visuals are actually easier / quicker to implement than particular gameplay mechanisms, but I have a lot of doubt.

[baconbits11]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

It honestly doesn't matter if The Show has single player modes for that matter. They market it as a multiplayer game and it should deliver on that because there are plenty of people who only buy The Show to play exclusively online. It should be held to the same standard as any other game that has multiplayer. That's the only reason I mentioned other multiplayer games and the fact that there would be a virtual **** storm if their servers were in this state for 2 weeks following release.

I would guess this has more to do with the online code of the game than the servers. I would think this game has a lot of legacy code considering online has been a problem with the Show for a good 5 years.

[Mav3rek7]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

First you say you're a programmer, then you say visual graphics are "super simple and quick/easy" to fix. If it's so easy, then why didn't games 10-15 years ago have official socks, yet they had contract extensions (or other related logic)?

As a programmer, if Sony came to me right now and said, "you can either program the socks, or you can program the contract extensions", I'm taking the latter every single day. I don't know how SCEA's visual graphics system works. Maybe they've made it relatively simple to add new gloves, shoes, socks, and so on.

Even then, they still have to update that every year as the engine changes. I don't know how you can make the argument that contract logic is significantly more complicated / time-consuming than handling graphic upgrades every single year. Because remember, contract logic doesn't necessarily have to change much, if at all, each year. Once it's done, it's kinda just done.

I'm willing to leave open the possibility that the visuals are actually easier / quicker to implement than particular gameplay mechanisms, but I have a lot of doubt.

I say I'm a programmer because I am a programmer...

The point I was making is that visual issues are usually just a simple matter of updating the overlay for that particular part. The basic programming structure of the jersey is there, the colors are just simply overlays for those pieces. The issue of an incorrect uniform part could be as simple as changing one line of code. Instead of leftUniSleeve = "12345" it needed to be leftUniSleeve = "12346". Those types of programming issues are quick/easy related to visual aspects.

Official uniform sock choices weren't in the game 10-15 years ago because of memory space. It's 2017, we have more space on things than ever before and can add in the little things that had to be omitted previously.

As for contract extensions, I'm going to make some assumptions here...

1) I'd say each year with each new iteration of MLB the Show they probably start with a bare bones template (for lack of a better term) and build from the ground up. If they were simply reusing all the code from last year and just updating rosters, then we'd get a new game every month, or not at all.

2) There is turnover in any company. Maybe the same guys who worked on it last year aren't 100% the same guys who worked on it this year. Maybe they switched roles, who knows.

3) Sometimes in code you don't really know how adding in one thing may affect another. Or it changes it in a way you didn't expect. You can plan/code/test till you're blue in the face, but something seemingly trivial can greatly change something else and you may have never seen it coming. It happens.

4) Contract logic is infinitely more complicated than visual aspects. Logic in general is infinitely more complicated. The graphics are nothing but skins on top of 1's and 0's. The actual 1's and 0's themselves are the hard part. Putting a pretty bow on something in the programming world is a trivial task.

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

[mike24forever]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

^ This is how you respond. Well done and I like your explanation.

[OtherMoon2]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

Game has been out 2 weeks.

2 weeks.

A much larger and far reaching patch is in the works.

Patience.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

But what standard are they being held to when they release a half baked product or a product with several bugs that affect the game across the board?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

I say I'm a programmer because I am a programmer...

The point I was making is that visual issues are usually just a simple matter of updating the overlay for that particular part. The basic programming structure of the jersey is there, the colors are just simply overlays for those pieces. The issue of an incorrect uniform part could be as simple as changing one line of code. Instead of leftUniSleeve = "12345" it needed to be leftUniSleeve = "12346". Those types of programming issues are quick/easy related to visual aspects.

Official uniform sock choices weren't in the game 10-15 years ago because of memory space. It's 2017, we have more space on things than ever before and can add in the little things that had to be omitted previously.

As for contract extensions, I'm going to make some assumptions here...

1) I'd say each year with each new iteration of MLB the Show they probably start with a bare bones template (for lack of a better term) and build from the ground up. If they were simply reusing all the code from last year and just updating rosters, then we'd get a new game every month, or not at all.

2) There is turnover in any company. Maybe the same guys who worked on it last year aren't 100% the same guys who worked on it this year. Maybe they switched roles, who knows.

3) Sometimes in code you don't really know how adding in one thing may affect another. Or it changes it in a way you didn't expect. You can plan/code/test till you're blue in the face, but something seemingly trivial can greatly change something else and you may have never seen it coming. It happens.

4) Contract logic is infinitely more complicated than visual aspects. Logic in general is infinitely more complicated. The graphics are nothing but skins on top of 1's and 0's. The actual 1's and 0's themselves are the hard part. Putting a pretty bow on something in the programming world is a trivial task.

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

This post is written like someone who has teaching experience...This post belongs in the OS Hall of Fame for posts. One of the best posts I've seen on here in quite some time.

[HolyStroke3]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

They should wear the green helmet with the yellow brim for all games but they wear an all green helmet for away games. This changed IRL 3 or 4 years ago I believe and the Show never changed it.

The Show did fix it last year (or maybe 15 I don't remember) but last year they wore the green helmet/gold bill for with all their uniforms. This year they have reverted back to all green helmet with the road grey and alternate green uniforms.

They haven't worn the all green helmet since ~2010 when they added a black helmet to match their black alternate and went with the green helmet/yellow bill for all their other uniforms. And it's even worse because the A's don't even wear the solid green hat with gold logo on the road anymore so now they have a helmet they don't use that matches a hat they no longer wear

[BillPeener]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

I appreciate you carefully writing out your thoughts, but as a programmer, we see this from vastly different angles. So, with all due respect...

I say I'm a programmer because I am a programmer...

Based on the totality of your post, I feel it necessary to remind everyone that the significant majority of programmers are not good programmers. It's like English - people know how to write, but being a good writer is dramatically different.

The point I was making is that visual issues are usually just a simple matter of updating the overlay for that particular part. The basic programming structure of the jersey is there, the colors are just simply overlays for those pieces. The issue of an incorrect uniform part could be as simple as changing one line of code. Instead of leftUniSleeve = "12345" it needed to be leftUniSleeve = "12346". Those types of programming issues are quick/easy related to visual aspects.

Yes, but someone has to program all of those sleeves. Sure, the underlying framework for visuals is probably as simple as assigning IDs to each entity. However, someone has to create the code that scans in those sleeves. Someone has to develop and maintain the engine that makes those sleeves look good in-game. The jerseys have to flap in the wind, they have to react to different lighting, and so on. SCEA might have a solid framework for adding more items, but it still requires designing and coding them. This isn't 1998 when jerseys were just bitmaps assigned to certain vertices on a polygon. There so much code that goes into realistically showing every piece of clothing and making sure all colors agree with lighting, getting dirty, and whatever else can affect the appearance. Grooves, bumps, and textures require programming to look realistic. I cannot believe you are a programmer yet feel like these things, in comparison to contract logic, are trivial to develop and maintain.

Official uniform sock choices weren't in the game 10-15 years ago because of memory space. It's 2017, we have more space on things than ever before and can add in the little things that had to be omitted previously.

For the most part, that's either false or a bad excuse. Xbox and PS2 had limited memory, but there are countless sport games from that era, both PC and console, that had sufficiently detailed uniforms, jerseys, and other attire. The PC games especially had the memory to put in official apparel. Those games could have had official socks, for example, though they would've looked like low-res crap. Still, they could have been there.

The real reason is that developing the graphics engine and securing brands and official MLB licenses were difficult, slightly in part due to technological limitations. Yes, Xbox's 64 megs of ram forced developers to optimize, but official looking socks in MVP 2005 weren't impossible. But heck, they couldn't even convince MLB to let them put Barry Bonds into the game! They had so many issues to deal with back then. Those problems don't exist in the same capacity today.

1) I'd say each year with each new iteration of MLB the Show they probably start with a bare bones template (for lack of a better term) and build from the ground up. If they were simply reusing all the code from last year and just updating rosters, then we'd get a new game every month, or not at all.

That's a big assumption, and we'd need a developer to confirm it. Either way, we basically get a new game every month already when you factor in patches, updated rosters, new DLC, and so on. And even if your assumption is correct, then are you suggesting that the trade system, for example, is always re-coded every year based on a barebones template? If so, how do you justify them re-coding it every year so that only 3 players can be traded? Seems odd that they re-code it every year to have the same extremely unrealistic design.

2) There is turnover in any company. Maybe the same guys who worked on it last year aren't 100% the same guys who worked on it this year. Maybe they switched roles, who knows.

Come on. These are professional game companies who have the relatively easy task of creating the exact same game every year. All they have to do is make their previous baseball game more realistic. I'm not saying that's a piece of cake - there's a reason 60+ people are paid salaries to make this game - but it's not like we're talking about a brand new concept each and every year. Turnover is a real issue, but can you seriously blame a lack of in-season contract extensions on turnover? Who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe half the team switched over from last year. But logic is logic, and I figure SCEA has a flow-chart for each and every logical process. My point about it being the same game is that the conceptual flow-charts for baseball should follow the same basic pattern every year. Once you've developed the flow-chart for contract extensions, then it's a matter of coding it, which frankly, a friend and I could develop in a week or less. Now, imagine me working with a team on a salary.

3) Sometimes in code you don't really know how adding in one thing may affect another. Or it changes it in a way you didn't expect. You can plan/code/test till you're blue in the face, but something seemingly trivial can greatly change something else and you may have never seen it coming. It happens.

So, therefore, be so conservative in writing code that you completely leave out in-season contract extensions; allow the archaic trade system to devolve into an even less realistic system (yes, it's worse in '17 than '16); and [insert one of a myriad other issues]? All you're saying is that programming is hard.

4) Contract logic is infinitely more complicated than visual aspects. Logic in general is infinitely more complicated. The graphics are nothing but skins on top of 1's and 0's. The actual 1's and 0's themselves are the hard part. Putting a pretty bow on something in the programming world is a trivial task.

Correct, and it's the actual 1's and 0's that defeat your argument. I wasn't talking about applying skins to a polygons. I was talking about the fact that in today's world, visual graphics are insanely tied to the underlying logic, so much so that I don't see how you can even pretend that amending the contract code the game already has would be a taller order than continuing to maintain and improve the graphics logic. I'm talking about the programming that handles how skins are placed onto a jersey worn by a player of variable size in countless stadiums with different lighting, weather, and in-game situations like getting dirty.

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

The visual aspects are far, far more complicated than you're giving credit to. To say that adding new and official jerseys, socks, gloves, and so on is simply a matter of 1's and 0's is like saying my iPhone is just a matter of 1's and 0's. Come on, man. If you're really a programmer, you know that the graphic engine is the #1 most challenging aspect of game design. Underlying logic that has 100% no connection to the graphics engine is vastly less complicated and less fragile.

You're right in that we often underestimate how difficult a seemingly simple feature is to implement. However, in regards to in-game contract extensions, which currently is my biggest franchise gripe, you already have the logic when it comes to off-season contracts. The logic is partly already in the system. You just have to extend it to in-season. I'd love to know exactly why that was neglected this year. Getting an explanation would be sufficient for me.

[HustlinOwl]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

$150 and if it's a half finished product, then lower the price. No way I should be paying full price for a game that its entire online content does not work as advertised

[BillPeener]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

$150 and if it's a half finished product, then lower the price. No way I should be paying full price for a game that its entire online content does not work as advertised

I agree that online play should work, but as someone who didn't own a baseball game from 2005-2015, I love how I can play online for free. I love how they update official rosters and allow for 3rd party rosters. It's a dream-come-true getting patches and updates automatically installed. No trying to find the patch, updating the game, hoping it doesn't crash...

This is the best baseball game I've ever played, so I don't regret my $60. That's a fair price, and I look forward to the upcoming patches. But as a franchise guy, I'm determined to do whatever I can to make '18 much better.

[Mav3rek7]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

I appreciate you carefully writing out your thoughts, but as a programmer, we see this from vastly different angles. So, with all due respect...

Edited for space

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or the other way around...

I'm not saying that programming the way a jersey moves in the wind, reacts to environments, etc is the easy part. I'm saying that fixing an incorrect sleeve color would be infinitely easier than reprogramming a logic component. The underlying 1's and 0's part, sure, it's more difficult, but not correcting it post release.

As for why socks weren't in the game 10-15 years ago, I stand by what I said. MVP 2005 let you select different jerseys, yes. But it wasn't a mix/match of jerseys. You could select Home... Away... 1970 Home. Not 2015 home jersey, 1970 away pants, 2005 socks, 1999 hat. It was a one shot deal. Unless I'm just remembering that incorrectly. Then when you consider the space to program all the different combos, it adds up quickly.
Maybe memory space wasn't the only aspect of it(I'm sure it wasn't) but it was definitely a limiting factor.

Programming/Coding is a mindset. Programming is hard, it's complicated.
You have to think in a different manner. I respect your opinion and all, but it appears there are things that you just won't understand about coding/programming.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

[Mav3rek7]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

$150 and if it's a half finished product, then lower the price. No way I should be paying full price for a game that its entire online content does not work as advertised

I'm sure that the online issues weren't foreseen. There wasn't an open Beta, so they had some server problems when the world got access to the game.

They are working on them, I would assume.

As for the price, you had a choice and chose to spend more than double what the game itself costs. Yes, I realize that you wanted some additional things that go with the higher price tag, but still, it was a choice, so the amount you paid is irrelevant.

Let's say you walk in to a store and buy a toaster that only toasts from one slot and the other one isn't working. What do you do? You take said toaster back to the store and either a)return it and get your money back and go home with no toaster or b)exchange it for a working toaster and go home and make toast.

They're working on issues, you'll end up with your working toaster.

[HustlinOwl]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

I'm sure that the online issues weren't foreseen. There wasn't an open Beta, so they had some server problems when the world got access to the game.

They are working on them, I would assume.

As for the price, you had a choice and chose to spend more than double what the game itself costs. Yes, I realize that you wanted some additional things that go with the higher price tag, but still, it was a choice, so the amount you paid is irrelevant.

Let's say you walk in to a store and buy a toaster that only toasts from one slot and the other one isn't working. What do you do? You take said toaster back to the store and either a)return it and get your money back and go home with no toaster or b)exchange it for a working toaster and go home and make toast.

They're working on issues, you'll end up with your working toaster.

so Sony will refund my digital deluxe edition?

[Mav3rek7]

Re: MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

so Sony will refund my digital deluxe edition?

Sure, talk to them and see what they say, then return(delete) the game.