Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

[cardsleadtheway]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

I don't think removing the H/9 rating will do anyone any good. No matter how spanked, if a ball is hit directly to one of the eight men in the field, more often then not, that ball is caught. Why isn't H/9 essential for balance?

Because the way the H/9 is implemented on the game makes that stat more important than pitch location/plate success. Real pitchers with good H/9 numbers either pitch to locations that force the batter to hit the ball to someone, have great defenses behind them, or both. On the game, if two pitchers with different h/9 ratings throw the same pitch in the same location against the same batter, the results will be different due to the H/9 rating rather than the afore mentioned circumstances. Physics shouldn't be influenced by ratings. A good sinkerball pitcher should be able to induce a ground ball because the sink was deceptive enough to get the batter to swing on top of it, not because his dice roll was higher than the batter's.

[swaldo]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Swaldo, I fully agree on your contact and power assessments for what you'd like to see in the future. Especially the part in your power write up, where you indicate it would have less of an impact than contact.

I'm a little mixed on the 4-seam fastball revamping. As we all know, movement is already an editable attribute for that pitch. For instance, I can rake all day long against Wade Davis. K-Rod on the other hand...I just can't pick up that guy's number one. I don't see his fastball very well upon release. I'm not certain, but I'd gather his fastball has a higher rated movement.

Granted, predetermined SCEA deliveries, as well as velocity add to this deception. All in all, in response to what you said above, I'd welcome any new addition to the games engine for deception. Currently, there's not enough factors to seperate between top/bottom tier pitchers. A color-trail system and/or a change in ball size is a great idea.

Also, wouldn't it simply make more sense to make pitches rather than a 4-seam fastball some guy's number one. SCEA already does a decent job in pitch selection for aces, but instead of reworking how the 4-seamer moves, how about eliminating it for some guys and replacing it with a cutter, or sinker, or 2-seamer. Or, make the 4-seam the number 4 or 5 pitch when applicable.

I don't think removing the H/9 rating will do anyone any good. No matter how spanked, if a ball is hit directly to one of the eight men in the field, more often then not, that ball is caught. Why isn't H/9 essential for balance?

Movement for a 4-seamer is not editable, check my last post. I tried minimizing and maximizing the break rating and there was no difference in movement at all. The only factors you can change is speed and control - with control probably being the most important unless you're talking about 95MPH plus speed. The only player differences I see with the fastball is location, speed and as you mentioned player specific pitching motions which can throw you off. Most pitchers though have the generic 3/4 motion if I remember correctly.

Fastballs are an interesting thing, catchers will tell you some pitchers throw a "soft ball" and others throw a "hard ball" even though they're the same speed. So I find it amazing when a catcher says a 93MPH fastball lands in his glove nice and softly. I think somehow it would be cool if they can capture the differences with this pitch in the game. Not soft/hard but movement, deception, pop etc.

Regarding #1 pitches I think you're right. The problem is they only allow 5 pitches in the game so that's why most are stuck with the 4 seamer. It's kinda like asking Mariano Rivera "Which would you rather have - your 4 seam, 2 seam or cutter? You can only have one." I didn't even bother mentioning this because Russ said the pitch limitation is not going to change anytime soon. If they opened that up then you could really pimp out some of these pitchers.

Regarding removing the misc stats such as H/9 - As I understand it those are in the game to make the stats more realistic. Basically, it's a big part of the "dice roll" factors going on under the hood. If you have a physics based ball-to-bat engine you wont need them. And fielders would have their own separate ratings. Well actually you'd have to keep them for the sim engine I guess but not live action.

Example: You have a good batter at the plate with good vision and has a nice plump PCI. The pitcher sucks so you see the ball well out of his hand and it's green so you know it's a changeup. The location is good (low & away) but his changeup rating is bad so the size of the ball is large and easier to hit. So you wait on it and swing late hitting the ball to the opposite field for a single. In this scenario what good is a H/9 rating? You controlled the outcome, no calculation was needed.

Now reverse the above scenario - a poor hitter vs a good pitcher with a high rated changeup. The batter doesn't see the color of the ball at all and the size of your PCI and the ball is very small. You swing early and hit a weak grounder off the end of the bat for an out. Big difference here and the best thing is that you can still get a hit if you do everything right! It wouldn't be easy though because your aim and timing would have to be precise, especially with a top changeup with good break and speed.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Swaldo, good post.

The color indicator is very intriguing. As well as ball size advice.

Your comparison of the "good/bad hitter vs. good/bad pitcher" scenario is great.

Question: How do you account for the average hitter vs. average hitter scenario? How do you ensure that the pitcher still has the advantage, which he should? How do you make for certain, and most importantly, that simply mastering the L-Stick won't make my team bat .290?

You're on the right path here Swaldo. I just don't want to be king because I put 50 hours in the cages.

[swaldo]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Swaldo, good post.

The color indicator is very intriguing. As well as ball size advice.

Your comparison of the "good/bad hitter vs. good/bad pitcher" comparison is great.

Question: How do you account for the average hitter vs. average hitter scenario? How do you ensure that the pitcher still has the advantage, which he should? How do you make for certain, and most importantly, that simply mastering the L-Stick won't make my team bat .290?

You're on the right path here Swaldo. I just don't want to be king because I put 50 hours in the cages.

That's a good question, and in my post I mentioned it would take alot of tweaking/testing to get it just right. And that's exactly how you do it (by starting with average vs average.) To start this would entail adjusting the PCI size until it feels right, then work in the other factors you put in to make the ratings stand out during live play.

And yea, mastery can't happen. Just leave it the way it is until you can do it right. If SCEA puts me on their payroll and sends me a prototype I'll fire it up.

[ElectricWizard]

STANCES STANCES STANCES

[major major]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Would welcome scaling down the size of hitters PCI's, but would not welcome the ball size increasing or decreasing. If the Show were to implement an oscillating ball size, then please allow it to be turned off.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Would welcome scaling down the size of hitters PCI's, but would not welcome the ball size increasing or decreasing. If the Show were to implement an oscillating ball size, then please allow it to be turned off.

I find the ball size thing to be intriguing, more than I find it to be ideal.

I guess to underlying point is to come up with some way to add a greater deal of deception/advantage to really good pitchers. The ball literally changing is one idea. I'd personally prefer just giving their pitches more movement and depth next year.

[major major]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

I find the ball size thing to be intriguing, more than I find it to be ideal.

I guess to underlying point is to come up with some way to add a greater deal of deception/advantage to really good pitchers. The ball literally changing is one idea. I'd personally prefer just giving their pitches more movement and depth.

For sure.

Maybe something that allows the hitter to see the ball more clearly=Laces seen quicker or something. I can see them now, but the ball is always on top of the plate.

[countryboy]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

I don't know why you say I'm "chasing" a randomness theory when there's obviously some sort of dice roll going on under the hood (based on various ratings of the players involved etc.) You even confirmed that in your posts and is similiar to text based games - the only difference being you do have some control over the outcome.

Anyway, you can have more user control and still have ratings. It would go something like this.

Batters Vision rating: You're going to need to bring in something similiar to MVP's "Hitters Eye" system which turns the baseball different colors in the pitcher's hand and leaves a trail as the ball flies through the air toward the plate to aid in hitting. Good hitters would be able to see the colors longer than poor hitters - and some hitters won't be able to see it at all.

Batters Contact rating: This one is simple, you increase or decrease the size of the PCI to reflect their rating. For example pitchers (at bat) will have a tiny PCI while Ichiro types will have a large PCI.

Batters Power rating: This will be smaller than the contact PCI and will effect distance and trajectory.

Batter Discipline rating: This one is tough because the user is basically in contol of discipline. However, you could tie in check swings here. Good hitters would easily be able to check swing while poor hitters would rarely be able to pull it off. Check swings are best with fully loaded swing animations (ala MVP) that's why 2K initially didn't have CW's this year (because their swings are pre-loaded so it was tough to program in check swings.) So maybe you'd have fully loaded swing animations for good hitters who can easily check swing, and pre-loaded animations for poor hitters. Of course there are compications with this but I'm just throwing this out there as an idea.

Pitcher ratings: tweaking the fastball is the key since over 90% have that listed as thier #1 pitch in the game. Talk to baseball players and they'll tell you ace pitcher's fastballs "Are hard to see" or "Have extra pop" or "Have excellent or sinking movement." In The Show all fastballs look and act the same. So they need to make it harder to hit highly rated fastballs, so maybe make it so you can't see the ball out of the hand, or add some movement, or a little extra zip, or make the ball smaller thus harder to hit. Now do the opposite with poorly rated pitches and if you apply this concept to all pitch types you'll have a real challenge at the plate.

And good pitchers in general should be painting corners more often, while poor pitchers should be throwing more over the plate or lose control and issue walks. Meanwhile, stamina ratings could stay the same and you can throw out all those other ratings such as H/9, W/9, SO/9 etc.

If you throw in true bat/ball physics what you'll have is a system where the user is in control of his own destiny. Players will still have ratings and will perform as they do in real life without all the dice rolls. Yes this would entail a ton of tweaking and adjusting but it can be done.

With all that you mentioned, ratings are going to play a part and therefore there will be, whats the term you use, "dice rolls".

You cannot separate good players from bad players by user input and changes to the aids. You can't. Ratings have to be used and therefore the game will always have a "randomness" to it. They have, I'm guessing, formulas in place for how each rating is used in any given situation. And thus far, thru countless games, I'd say that its working pretty well.

As for your suggestions, I like some of them, but again, they are nothing more than aids that express the player's rating visually. Ratings will always be, and have to be, a part of the game.

[cardsleadtheway]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

I agree with you CB. I think the problem most people have is that it is too easy to see the wizard behind the curtain. I also agree with you that the the game plays out pretty well on the whole. There may be the occasional game where the control is taken completely out of the users hands. But for us franchise players, it is only one game in a very long season. I am sure there are times in real baseball where the game feels preordained and that control is taken completely out of the player's hands. You move on and play the next game.

To reiterate on the visual aids for the pitches, I really liked the way MVP 05 did it with the colors. I remember facing Curt Schilling (way back when he was good lol) and I would rarely see a brief flash, whereas a bad pitcher would show his hand sooner and longer. I don't know that the use of color is the best idea out there, but it seems to be the closest so far. Guess pitch falls far short.

Really though what I would prefer the developers to spend time on is the broken fielding system. The batting and pitching may not be perfect, but it certainly isn't that worst thing out there. It is hard to argue that it doesn't make for a pretty damn good game of baseball. Fielding on the other hand is borderline ridiculous. We keep making MVP 05 references here. And while that was a great game for its time, The Show has surpassed it on so many levels. Unfortunately, fielding is not one of those levels. I think people have so many issues with fielding not just because it is so bad, but because a game that is five years older (several lifetimes in software doggie years) was able to do it so much better. The Show would be nearly perfect if it could just get to that level, let alone surpass it like it has done with all the other aspects of the game.

[major major]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Off the hip.

Maybe you could have the left stick act as the hitter's eyes. Meaning as the ball leaves the pitchers hand u track the balls trajectory with the left stick. If ur left stick tracking is spot on, u see the laces or pitch type. This also may allow the user to release his top hand if tracking the outside even if the ball is not.

Sorry fellas, just really into this game. Trying to help LOL!

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

Cards, all I can say to your post is thank goodness for auto field. I simply can't do it on my own. I'm 100% on board with you there.

[Manmade Disaster]

Re: Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

I like the playoff mode idea. What the game really needs is a create a stadium and create a team mode.

I second this. I would love to see a create a stadium feature for the first year in franchise mode. This is particularly true for those of us who use Oakland

[ElectricWizard]

uniforms need to be current. Also if you do a 3/4 sleeve you should be able to wear a arm band. thick wrist bands and arm bands shouldn't touch. add the under armour type long sleeve option.

STANCES: players need to be looking at the pitcher and whatever angle is chosen by the player the stances should be on that angle. Pitcher view has a slight angle yet the stances are straight on. closed stances should be in the batters box. You cant have guys all over the plate (ex. Soriano).

Create-a-stance or just more current/better stances. I get people change but this years stances was horrible.

need more/better body types/motions. (fat players need to look fat etc.)

[rsox]

So... no one liked my idea to include Hazel Mae?