Loooooooong Singles.

[NDAlum]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

From my observations the problem is the perfect routes fielders take the every ball off the wall. They get in perfect position and field it very fast...then laser out a relay throw on the money most times.

[Pared]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

From my observations the problem is the perfect routes fielders take the every ball off the wall. They get in perfect position and field it very fast...then laser out a relay throw on the money most times.

Another part of the problem - great point.

If you watch baseball, you'll see that players slow up while fielding a ball in the corner. Here, the AI knows where to go to field the ball and will not slow down.

We discussed this as well. If you notice, the AI dives for balls now and takes more chances on some hits to the OF - this was more pronounced this year than last. They should focus on adding the imperfect routes next year, something we definitely discussed quite a bit.

[pistolpete]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I can get down with examples and discussions like this rather than the extremist comments.

You also have to be down with the fact people don't always need documented proof of something happening for it to actually have occurred. I've seen balls laced off the pitchers mound which have fallen 5 feet in front of the CF. Where was he positioned? Who cares. I know when something doesn't look right.

Outside of the Vita, the biggest thing they pitched this year was physics. Some of them are quirky. Do you have any idea how simple it is to do the math on how high, far and which direction something will bounce when it comes in contact with something else. You could give me initial velocity, trajectory, height and a couple constants and that could be done on half a piece of paper in 5 minutes.

A computer should be easily able to account for a million other things. They could go in as deep as basing it on air temperature if they want.

The ball bouncing the way it does on the game, which I think is the problem is a 1 number fix. That is it. One friggin number.

[Pared]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

No, you see I won't be a part of people belittling those who make the game when discussing these things. That's not how OS started and that's not how it will continue.

If things were as simple as you say, every - single - game would have realistic physics in every aspect of it. They don't, and that all has to do with the animations that have the players tie into interactions with these objects. A lot of you seem to forget that.

Again - if it were so simple, it would be the norm in every single game. You would think instead of minimizing the scope of something like that you would critically evaluate why this isn't the staple in game development today.

And yes - I need proof. We still have not seen proof of Vash's exaggerated claim and there is a reason for it. Heck - just throw the fielder speed at 10 just to save face at this point and post it.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

You also have to be down with the fact people don't always need documented proof of something happening for it to actually have occurred. I've seen balls laced off the pitchers mound which have fallen 5 feet in front of the CF. Where was he positioned? Who cares. I know when something doesn't look right.

Outside of the Vita, the biggest thing they pitched this year was physics. Some of them are quirky. Do you have any idea how simple it is to do the math on how high, far and which direction something will bounce when it comes in contact with something else. You could give me initial velocity, trajectory, height and a couple constants and that could be done on half a piece of paper in 5 minutes.

A computer should be easily able to account for a million other things. They could go in as deep as basing it on air temperature if they want.

The ball bouncing the way it does on the game, which I think is the problem is a 1 number fix. That is it. One friggin number.

The thread was finally getting constructive...

Until someone decided to criticize the physics programming (and programmer); while claiming it's a 5 minute fix (that HE CAN DO), can be done on a peice of scrap paper, and literally consists of changing only ONE NUMBER in the program's code.

All hope is lost.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

No, you see I won't be a part of people belittling those who make the game when discussing these things. That's not how OS started and that's not how it will continue.

If things were as simple as you say, every - single - game would have realistic physics in every aspect of it. They don't, and that all has to do with the animations that have the players tie into interactions with these objects. A lot of you seem to forget that.

Again - if it were so simple, it would be the norm in every single game. You would think instead of minimizing the scope of something like that you would critically evaluate why this isn't the staple in game development today.

And yes - I need proof. We still have not seen proof of Vash's exaggerated claim and there is a reason for it. Heck - just throw the fielder speed at 10 just to save face at this point and post it.

Beat me too it.

I must have hit submit just seconds after you.

Well put Pared.

[pistolpete]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

The thread was finally getting constructive...

Until someone decided to criticize the physics programming (and programmer); while claiming it's a 5 minute fix (that HE CAN DO), can be done on a peice of scrap paper, and literally consists of changing only ONE NUMBER in the program's code.

All hope is lost.

I also should be allowed to criticize the programmer. Why am I not?

I have changed my mind about the physics on the game. I think they are probably excellent for the most part. I wouldn't really know either way most of the time.

The issue I'm talking about is for the ball bouncing off the wall and other items such as pitcher's mounds, players, etc. I am addressing no other issues, I wouldn't know how to.

There is a number in physics which affects the speed of an object before and after a collision. They could not write physics code without it. This number will be tied into the baseball itself. It is a property of the baseball. This number is a constant which and it should take place in every single collision that occurs with the baseball on the field.

The magnitude of this fix is changing a single number.

With all that said, I could be completely wrong, but I'm sticking to it. The ball doesn't lose enough energy when it bounces, and to fix it that have to change 1 number associated with the baseball.

[jimmyl008]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

There is a number in physics which affects the speed of an object before and after a collision. They could not write physics code without it. This number will be tied into the baseball itself. It is a property of the baseball. This number is a constant which and it should take place in every single collision that occurs with the baseball on the field.

The magnitude of this fix is changing a single number.

The coefficient of restitution is also dependent on the object with which the ball is interacting. So it's not really a single number, it's different for every surface on the field.

[pistolpete]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

The coefficient of restitution is also dependent on the object with which the ball is interacting. So it's not really a single number, it's different for every surface on the field.

That's true, but you could still doing it by just lowering the ball's portion of it.

[Pared]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

The coefficient of restitution is also dependent on the object with which the ball is interacting. So it's not really a single number, it's different for every surface on the field.

Good point to play off of pete's. As it is right now, I think it may be a bit too high however as the ball does ping-pong around without the appropriate loss of energy. It could be a bit better.

I also should be allowed to criticize the programmer. Why am I not?

Because of our Terms of Service. You should go read it again because you have broken it earlier in the thread and I let it go then.

[Vashyron.]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I love the rationalizing and backtracking - it's pretty amusing. Again - you made the claim you can't get a double on a hit to the gap, then started whining about fielder speed, hits down the line, etc. after the fact. I asked you to provide video of a hit in the gap where you don't get a double and you have yet to do this, but you have offered plenty of "if you watch baseball" comments.

If you watch baseball, you'd see a hit down the line dies out at times:

http://tinyurl.com/7x445hl

So odd... LaRoche was thrown out at second (not standing up!), the OF cut off the ball and the grass friction was too high. What kind of perfect trifecta storm of Odin was that???

If you watch baseball, you would also see positioning plays a key role:

http://tinyurl.com/7blybzl

Why was Cruz pinching the gaps? Who knows. Maybe the OF positioning is broken in Texas?And again - still waiting for the videoabout balls hit to the gap. That was what I responded to and you went all over the place about real baseball. So there - I watch real baseball. Provided a few videos that prove it's more than just what you've ranted about that factor into an equation. Your turn.... that is, if you watch baseball.

I never said I was going to post a video of a single in the gap, go through my posts if you want. I was saying the whole time in this thread, that doubles get turned into singles (or outs) at default sliders, both down the line and gappers. You are doing some backtracking as well. You never debunked the long single at 7:50 in this video, the RF was NOT playing deep. It was bang bang at 2nd, when the ball was thrown to the cutoff man by 1st base because there was a runner going home. If the bases were empty, the runner would've been out at 2nd easy as the cutoff man would've been cutting off the throw to 2nd instead of to home.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...the-Best-Teams

In the second example that ball doesn't go to 2nd base as the throw attempt wouldn't even be made in real life. And you STILL don't know if he was safe or not...

Why wouldn't the throw attempt be made in real? Doesn't a fielder try to throw out a runner if there is a decent chance of getting the out? The play was bang bang at 2nd so there was a good reason to throw to 2nd for the out.

---

Really? You are now defending the high friction in the game? I challenge you to post a video of a ground ball down the line getting to the wall in The Show. It happens in real life but not in the The Show because the ball dies in the grass too soon. Minute Maid park and Fenway might be the only parks a ball could reach the wall because of how short the left fielder walls are. You can hit a grounder down the line to the wall at Wrigley, I remember a Ryne Sandberg inside the park HR that was hit down the left fielder line.

And, the CPU still has problems with OF positioning. I got a video of the CPU playing Reed Johnson like he's Prince Fielder. The game was in the middle innings, it was not a time for a no doubles defense either. I hit a fly ball to center that should be caught but the CF is basically on the warning track for some reason. And, the CPU stayed in the same defense for the next batter, the oh so powerful Darwin Barney.

[thaSLAB]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

The one portion of the ball physics that I believe could use some tweaking, is the energy loss calculation for balls with very low or very high angular velocity vectors. The former is just a matter of achieving the optimal CoF for the dirt/grass/etc. I think it is subjective, because I have seen balls hit hard enough to get to the wall, down the line (at Comerica). The latter is less affected by surface coefficient of friction, so that is why we see high bounces that end up as GRDs, or high bounces behind/off of the plate. In theory, these balls that contact an object (grass, dirt, homeplate, pitching rubber) at these steep angles, should lose more kinetic energy due to absorption (coefficient of restitution). With each material absorbing more or less. I think the balls that are hit in between these conditions, travel pretty much perfectly. So I don't think ball physics actually play a part in the long singles "issue" - not sure how the conversation switched to that from arm strength vs. player speed, etc.

I do know that I saw quite a few long singles over the opening week in MLB.

[pistolpete]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

not sure how the conversation switched to that from arm strength vs. player speed, etc.

In a couple years we'll be bickering about the time-space contiuum when we hit the ball into a worm hole.

[Pared]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I never said I was going to post a video of a single in the gap *snip*...I got a video of ...

......right. Woosh. Too involved in your own preconceived conclusions to even read the thread.

The one portion of the ball physics that I believe could use some tweaking, is the energy loss calculation for balls with very low or very high angular velocity vectors. The former is just a matter of achieving the optimal CoF for the dirt/grass/etc. I think it is subjective, because I have seen balls hit hard enough to get to the wall, down the line (at Comerica). The latter is less affected by surface coefficient of friction, so that is why we see high bounces that end up as GRDs, or high bounces behind/off of the plate. In theory, these balls that contact an object (grass, dirt, homeplate, pitching rubber) at these steep angles, should lose more kinetic energy due to absorption (coefficient of restitution). With each material absorbing more or less. I think the balls that are hit in between these conditions, travel pretty much perfectly. So I don't think ball physics actually play a part in the long singles "issue" - not sure how the conversation switched to that from arm strength vs. player speed, etc.

I do know that I saw quite a few long singles over the opening week in MLB.

The only constant in this discussion is there is a reason for everything. A few good points made lost in the sea of extremities.

[thaSLAB]

Its amazing the thought provoking discussions this game can spurn. I can totally see the future Nobel Prize winner thanking SCEA for being the catalyst behind his Skynet invention, lol.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-6