Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

[KBLover]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

KB, I am willing to give Pulse another go, but the question I have is how, if I need a little extra Ummph on an 0-2 fastball up in the zone, how do I use pulse to add a little extra effort to the pitch?

On Classic I hold the button down a little longer, on Analog I push the stick faster, and Meter is pretty self-explanatory.... How do I add mph to a fastball or more break to a curveball with the Pulse mechanic?

You can't directly/at will in Pulse. You have to use whatever the pitcher's velocities/movements are.

The closest thing to that is throwing high-inside (including out of the zone) fastballs. Those will tend to the higher end of a pitcher's velocity. For breaking pitches, have to use the movement he has to locate to try to get the chase.

[KBLover]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

So, I'm wondering how you guys approach classic.

• Do you have vibration ON?
• What camera do you use for pitching?

When I use Classic, I take vibration off too (it's distracting to me).

For camera, in either Pulse or Classic, I hit and pitch from the Broadcast cam...I think it's Houston's, offset a bit and slightly...I guess elevated (I don't know the proper word to describe it) to give me a good "line" from hand to hitting zone so I can see what the pitches are doing that day and what the hitters are going to fish for (if anything).

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Not to hijack the thread, but I also like to play without any "noise" on the screen AND without vibration. I've toggled between classic and pulse since pulse was introduced, but always had a problem locating pitches with classic.



In '18 (don't have '19) I ended up reintroducing the ball cursor to my screen to help with location. It's doesn't bother me that much and it helps me when using broadcast cam for pitching.



So, I'm wondering how you guys approach classic.

• Do you have vibration ON?
  
• What camera do you use for pitching?
  

I keep vibration on. I liken the vibration to where my front foot would ultimately land like in real life to locate a pitch. And of course the beauty of classic is the ball does not always go exactly where we want 100% of the time. That is where the pitcher ratings come into play.

I can pitch really well with vibration on and ball marker off. That is a nice balance for me with using a clean screen but also keeping some semblance of user control and skill.

Knowing my pitcher, his pitches and the kind of “stuff” he has that particular day.

It all just comes together so nicely on classic pitching for me.

I use the broadcast camera always for pitching. It is glorious.


Sent from Palm Trees and Paradise using Operation Sports

[Armor and Sword]

Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

I keep vibration on. I liken the vibration to where my front foot would ultimately land like in real life to locate a pitch. And of course the beauty of classic is the ball does not always go exactly where we want 100% of the time. That is where the pitcher ratings come into play.

I can pitch really well with vibration on and ball marker off. That is a nice balance for me with using a clean screen but also keeping some semblance of user control and skill.

Knowing my pitcher, his pitches and the kind of “stuff” he has that particular day.

It all just comes together so nicely on classic pitching for me.

I use the broadcast camera always for pitching. It is glorious. The variety you get is when you are on the road and pitching from the various broadcast views of each park. It is great that 81 games I know my view and the other 81 games we using different broadcast views.




Sent from Palm Trees and Paradise using Operation Sports

[Jaysguy44]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Classic, there! Simple answer [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G955W using Operation Sports mobile app

[StormsWarning]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Well for me before Armor introduced me to classic I used meter, currently I'm using classic but the most thing that is frustrating and I still do not know to this day is where the heck do I point my arrows at?

I mean It is frustrating to me atleast and kinda starting to ruin my experience with the game, I like classic and the entire chemistry make up of it.

However since I use my catcher 85 to 90 % of his calls, and he tells me to throw a curve, he lines the catcher's mit up and I go to line my ball up to the middle of the catcher's glove it should be within that area, meanwhile i have 3 to 4 arrows indicating that I'm assuming the break of that particular pitch is going to go even further down then what the catcher indicated?

So I mean do I put the arrows where the catcher is calling for the ball or the ball and let the arrows be where they are.?

Usually when I dont use the arrows I give up bombs and even when I do, I still give up bombs.

Bombs are apart of baseball I get it, but I just want the mechanics down and the rest I can go and learn as I go.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Well for me before Armor introduced me to classic I used meter, currently I'm using classic but the most thing that is frustrating and I still do not know to this day is where the heck do I point my arrows at?



I mean It is frustrating to me atleast and kinda starting to ruin my experience with the game, I like classic and the entire chemistry make up of it.



However since I use my catcher 85 to 90 % of his calls, and he tells me to throw a curve, he lines the catcher's mit up and I go to line my ball up to the middle of the catcher's glove it should be within that area, meanwhile i have 3 to 4 arrows indicating that I'm assuming the break of that particular pitch is going to go even further down then what the catcher indicated?



So I mean do I put the arrows where the catcher is calling for the ball or the ball and let the arrows be where they are.?



Usually when I dont use the arrows I give up bombs and even when I do, I still give up bombs.



Bombs are apart of baseball I get it, but I just want the mechanics down and the rest I can go and learn as I go.

Join me on my stream in 10 minutes I will give you the arrow answer.


Sent from Palm Trees and Paradise using Operation Sports

[KBLover]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

So I mean do I put the arrows where the catcher is calling for the ball or the ball and let the arrows be where they are.?

Aiming pitches depends on if you're using arrows or ball trails.

If you're using the arrows, you're setting the targeted starting point of the pitch. This is where the pitcher starts the ball and hopes the movement (the arrow direction and how many it shows) takes it to the desired location.

If you're using the trails (where it shows a line showing the pitch's break), then you're setting the targeted ending point of the pitch. This is where you hope the pitch will end up after it's movement.

Neither is better than the other. You could argue arrows is "more real" since you throw pitches based on start point and hope movement does the rest (and hope you can throw it at the start point, i.e. your command). However, both work off that principle, it's just a matter which aligns more in your mind.

[EWRMETS]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Have always been a classic guy, but trying out HOF Meter and it's pretty realistic also.

[Jaysguy44]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Classic, simple and correct anwer, next question [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G955W using Operation Sports mobile app

[TripleCrown]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

What I like with classic arrows is you see your pitcher losing efficiency as he get tired. By example, you can have a good 4 arrows curveball but it may goes down to 2 arrows once your reach 7th inning. Love that simple feature !!

[Drty_Windshield]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

What I like with classic arrows is you see your pitcher losing efficiency as he get tired. By example, you can have a good 4 arrows curveball but it may goes down to 2 arrows once your reach 7th inning. Love that simple feature !!

Try turning the pitch types and ball markers off so you can be the judge of your own confidence.

[rush02721]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

I delved into the Classic Pitching after also being a transfer from MVP Baseball.

I tried the Meter, as it was the MVP mode of choice, then moved to pulse, and even tried mixing it up with different modes within the series of my season.

What I realized was that once you realized the cadence of the Pulse, and once the timing of the meter was quickly learned, you could turn your number-five starter, with an ERA north of four, into CY Young.

Picking spots, hitting corners and throwing filthy stuff, was simply a function of learning the mini-game of the pitching mode you chose.

After a gentle nudging from A&S to turn off all the indicators (clean screen) and give Classic a whirl, it took one game, and I'll never go back.

We can start a whole new thread on "Variable Stuff" and whether or not the game has a pre-disposition to trends and outcomes of pitching outings prior to taking the mound, but for a true representation of stats, ratings, and pitch efficiency, the Classic setting can really tax your nerves (in a great way).

I push the clean-screen to the point of no pitch selection on the screen as well. You need to either make an index card for each pitcher with his arsenal, and ratings of the different pitches, or memorize who has what.

I also make notes on hitter's hot and cold zones with the same number system I used in college, and utilize shifts and defensive adjustments accordingly.

The standard Po-Co answer to this question is "Whatever pitching mode you prefer and enjoy".

But the real answer is pretty obvious...

~syf

I’ve been a meter guy since MVP, but coming from a person with your username I’m going to give classic a try! I’ll have 11/2/69 in the background. My go to show

[JoshC1977]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

Classic, simple and correct anwer, next question [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G955W using Operation Sports mobile app

So, I am a classic guy. But, I also disagree with this.

Classic is no more or less "realistic" than any other interface. Any of the interfaces can be made "realistic" depending on user skill and/or slider adjustments.

The question is how much you want the player ratings to drive the final result. If you want a "ratings-heavy" outcome, then classic is 100% the way to go. Pulse is a mix of ratings and user input, while the other two are more dependent on user skill (though ratings do still contribute to the difficulty of getting an ideal input).

So, to the OP, any interface can be "realistic"...but you have to decide how much you want ratings to dominate.

[NolanRyansSnowmonkey]

Re: Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

So, I am a classic guy. But, I also disagree with this.

Classic is no more or less "realistic" than any other interface. Any of the interfaces can be made "realistic" depending on user skill and/or slider adjustments.

The question is how much you want the player ratings to drive the final result. If you want a "ratings-heavy" outcome, then classic is 100% the way to go. Pulse is a mix of ratings and user input, while the other two are more dependent on user skill (though ratings do still contribute to the difficulty of getting an ideal input).

So, to the OP, any interface can be "realistic"...but you have to decide how much you want ratings to dominate.

Very well put.

I would add that there can be quite a difference between the game 'playing purely to its ratings' and "realistic". You can play a game (any game - whether it be MLB The Show 19, Bases Loaded 2, Tecmo Baseball, Baseball Stars, Base Wars, etc) against itself for a "pure" outcome by allowing each game's ratings to determine everything, but the game will only ever be as realistic as the programmed ratings allow. They are all going to flawed to some degree or another, yes- even The Show.

The Show does a 'good enough' job of being 'close enough' for most people though and that's great.

I am just too big of a baseball nerd for close enough, and i was never fully happy when examining the statistics and percentages throughout the season. So i have to get some human involvement and sliders in there to find the sweet spot that produces both the most realistic gameplay and statistics for both human and CPU.

I use meter and/or analog pitching and i have some low-rated pitchers who really struggle to hit spots where i want it to hit. While the deGroms and other high-rated elites are (usually) easier to paint with (unless they are "off" that game - it happens). Most pitchers are somewhere in-between and miss their spots at a realistic rate.

I LOVE that i can't pinpoint pitches unrealistically. Many people would be surprised that this happens on Meter or Analog, even WITH perfect input from the user. Classic is not, not, not, not, not the only mode that does this. (Contrary to what i have read countless times on these forums. Maybe it was the case years ago, but not recently) So yes, with the right settings this happens beautifully. If it didn't, there's absolutely no i way i would still be playing this game. I would stick solely to OOTP.

(My hitters also end up with stats that compare very realistically to simmed stats, regardless of the 'human factor' in Zone hitting.)

It really just comes down to what you like and prefer. (And, importantly, how much time/effort you are willing to put into adjusting settings if you want to use meter or analog or zone hitting) The beauty of this game is they allow us all of these different interfaces for people with different preferences, and they all seem to do at least a decent job of producing some degree of realism.