Which pitching interface is the most realistic one to use?

[DLion]

I have been using classic, but was wondering if any of the other ones is more realistic in base of outcomes both pitching and hitting.

[Armor and Sword]

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

If you want player ratings and %’s to be the primary driver classic is the only game in town.

Once you start using meter, pulse and analog it gos to stick and button skills.

That is my opinion of course.


I came from MVP Baseball to The Show in 2009 and was a meter guy and once I started playing classic, with no ball marker......from the broadcast behind the pitcher camera....I never went back to any other way to play this game.

[TheWarmWind]

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

It highly depends on what kind of a mix you want between user skill and pitcher ratings.

Personally, I highly recommend pulse. It's a great mix between player skill and ratings. You will always be able to have an impact, but turn up the difficulty and there will always be room for missing your spot due to pitcher attributes.

Make sure that difficulty is high though. Pulse on anything lower than HoF is basically cheating, and even HoF is pretty easy. Huge jump in difficulty between HoF and Legendary. I played HoF with the CPU boosted using sliders, then finding that too easy I went Legend default and got consistently crushed. I now play on Legend with the CPU nerfed a bit with sliders. Perfect level for my skill.

[Rmiok222]

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

Well both of these guys above me are two guys that have been here forever and absolutely know their stuff ^^^^ but yes pulse and classic would be most realistic.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[stealyerface]

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

[KBLover]

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

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.

My pitchers miss that memo. In fact, they do worse in Pulse than Classic. Leaving my sliders the same, if all I do is change interface, they all do objectively worse. Whiff rate drops, runs go up, CPU chase rate drops, etc.

I even tracked how many Good/Perfect I got. It was like 93%. So I wasn't misusing the interface.

The thing I dislike most about Classic is it's very hard to pitch with a good zone %.

Real pitchers put strikes in the zone less than 50% in most cases. They try to induce chases. Classic just ruins that because mistakes on pitches I want out of the zone don't just become obvious balls enough. Instead they become either borderline strikes or worse.

It's like "mistake" has to equal "crushable pitch". A lot of times it just means "easy take".

[TheWarmWind]

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

My pitchers miss that memo. In fact, they do worse in Pulse than Classic. Leaving my sliders the same, if all I do is change interface, they all do objectively worse. Whiff rate drops, runs go up, CPU chase rate drops, etc.

I even tracked how many Good/Perfect I got. It was like 93%. So I wasn't misusing the interface.

The thing I dislike most about Classic is it's very hard to pitch with a good zone %.

Real pitchers put strikes in the zone less than 50% in most cases. They try to induce chases. Classic just ruins that because mistakes on pitches I want out of the zone don't just become obvious balls enough. Instead they become either borderline strikes or worse.

It's like "mistake" has to equal "crushable pitch". A lot of times it just means "easy take".

Pulse's effectiveness can vary wildly based on roster, input lag, difficulty, etc. These things can all effect the different interfaces in a different way.

I'm not approving or disproving anybody's opinion on the modes, just offering an explanation as to why you two might be seeing such a difference in results.

[stealyerface]

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

Let me be clear here... I do not dislike Pulse, it is actually pretty fun, other than the graphical clutter involved with it.

My all-time favorite, and honestly must intuitive pitcher mode was by another MLB game that required a specific input and accuracy based no only on ratings, but the movement on the stick itself.

Fast balls were straight down and straight up, 12-6 curveballs were up to 12 o'clock and stick swing to 6 o'clock, and your result was based on how well you performed the necessary motion, as well as the zone of error, based on ratings.

It was fun, didn't get in the way of the screen, gave feedback based on the input, and was super intuitive, while being challenging. I also liked the the entire input was done prior to the pitch, so you could watch the pitch motion and delivery with no clutter. (the rest of the game was a hot mess but the pitching was well done for sure).

I have my idiosyncrasies with Classic pitching that can get frustrating, and you touched on the biggest one- I want to throw a ball, and miss the strike zone by enough to either get a weak hack or just a different eye level on the batter, but there is a disconnect with how far away I need to aim to make sure it doesn't come back over the plate and be hittable.

I take this with a grain of salt, as in real life, there is a fine line between missing on purpose, and with such purpose as to not even getting a swing and miss.... and trying to miss just enough to be effective, but not so much as to be a wasted pitch. This line blurs with Classic, and it takes some practice and some repetitions to realize which guys on your staff can throw that 2 seamer and miss by a foot, or whose pitch leaks back over the outside edge and gets smacked.

As I have grown to love the clean screen, I'll take the mystery over gimmicky clutter, but while I wish someone could uncover and reveal the secrets of the Classic Pitching input, once that were to happen, it would be just like counting the cadence of the pulse pitching.

~syf

[bcruise]

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

To answer the OP's question, I believe that all of them can be - it just depends on what difficulty you're using and whether it's enough of a challenge that you have to pitch smart to the CPU. I agree that as Armor said above, Classic is the mode that is most true to actual player ratings and performance, but the price of that is being afforded less user control over the outcome.

Since everyone's explaining their own preferences, I'll toss mine in on meter:

I think of meter at HOF-Legend as not too unlike classic, with one major difference - you are in control of your own execution mistakes. Anyone who's played meter above All-Star can tell you that you're not going to dot up your pitches even on a perfect accuracy meter (thus, player ratings still matter), and in that way the "error radius" of pitches on meter is similar to that of classic. But if I screw up the meter input, I might get a wildly inaccurate pitch that either goes to the backstop or right down the middle. This is where the difference comes in - the game's engine (i.e. player ratings) did not cause me to throw that mistake pitch - I did it myself.

I like being in control of when I make mistakes - it brings me more into the game. And as long as I set the difficulty or sliders to be challenging enough, I will make those mistakes enough through the course of the game to have realistic results. The big thing with difficulty level increase is the CPU's enlarged PCI - it actually makes me fear the CPU enough that I'm not going to try to throw all strikes. That's why I can end up walking the CPU and also get it to strike out on pitches outside of the zone.

[dubplate]

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

It highly depends on what kind of a mix you want between user skill and pitcher ratings.

Personally, I highly recommend pulse. It's a great mix between player skill and ratings. You will always be able to have an impact, but turn up the difficulty and there will always be room for missing your spot due to pitcher attributes.

Make sure that difficulty is high though. Pulse on anything lower than HoF is basically cheating, and even HoF is pretty easy. Huge jump in difficulty between HoF and Legendary. I played HoF with the CPU boosted using sliders, then finding that too easy I went Legend default and got consistently crushed. I now play on Legend with the CPU nerfed a bit with sliders. Perfect level for my skill.

I use pulse for the same reason and agree about the difficulty. I hit on All-Star but pitch on HOF.

[NolanRyansSnowmonkey]

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

If you don't want to touch sliders much, yes Classic and Pulse.

However - If you don't mind messing with sliders for a while to match your play style and skill level, you can get even more realistic numbers with Meter or Analog than both Classic and Pulse. Believe me i have done both. And year after year i have very realistic numbers, and MLB 18 was the most realistic i have ever seen (I'm talking across the board, even BB per game, K/BB, and even all of the little "detail" stats that have come to the forefront in modern baseball.) - (While the players play pretty much solely to attributes using Classic, their attributes can lack in producing a lot of these details.)

I am borderline obsessed with realistic gameplay, combined with simulation-realistic numbers and details and I don't see that kind of detail happen without Meter/Analog/Zone combined with sliders and appropriate Difficulty Level. (I have hundreds of pages of spreadsheets to back me up lol). And YES i experience players still playing to their attributes using Sliders and using Meter/Analog pitching and Zone hitting. (And btw MLB 18 has surpassed any previous version of the game from a 'sim stat' standpoint, to the point that it is going to be extremely hard to beat going forward.)

It is a very, very common (and unfortunate) misconception on here that once you get away from Classic pitching, or if you use Zone hitting, you are turning the game into a skill game, and the user determines the outcome with little influence from attributes. From a guy who has played 100s if not thousands of games, playing every pitch, keeping score on every pitch, and entering every stat into spreadsheets and graphs, this cannot be further from the truth.

The big "but" is it takes time to configure sliders to match your playstyle and skill level. Sliders are the key. That is the only way to get players to play to their attributes, regardless of your skill level, and produce even better numbers. (It's also why there is no such thing as a universal slider set. But these slider sets can be used as a starting point).

This isn't for everyone. I actually enjoy tracking stats and configuring the game. People who don't enjoy it or don't have the patience for it (which is most people) call it "slider chasing." But once you find that sweet spot, there is no greater game on the planet. Most people give up before getting there. You get out of it what you put into it. For those willing to invest the effort to learn how sliders work, it can pay off swimmingly for months, if not years, of realistic and fun baseball.

So, for this reason alone, for MOST people, Classic is good enough if you want to jump right in. For myself, there is no looking back from Meter/Analog and Zone with my personal sliders. They really put you in the game and produce the best MLB-compared stats consistently. I haven't touched sliders since last summer and have had no reason to - they still play like a "bute".

[dowie]

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

If you don't want to touch sliders much, yes Classic and Pulse.

However - If you don't mind messing with sliders for a while to match your play style and skill level, you can get even more realistic numbers with Meter or Analog than both Classic and Pulse. Believe me i have done both. And year after year i have very realistic numbers, and MLB 18 was the most realistic i have ever seen (I'm talking across the board, even BB per game, K/BB, and even all of the little "detail" stats that have come to the forefront in modern baseball.) - (While the players play pretty much solely to attributes using Classic, their attributes can lack in producing a lot of these details.)

I am borderline obsessed with realistic gameplay, combined with simulation-realistic numbers and details and I don't see that kind of detail happen without Meter/Analog/Zone combined with sliders and appropriate Difficulty Level. (I have hundreds of pages of spreadsheets to back me up lol). And YES i experience players still playing to their attributes using Sliders and using Meter/Analog pitching and Zone hitting. (And btw MLB 18 has surpassed any previous version of the game from a 'sim stat' standpoint, to the point that it is going to be extremely hard to beat going forward.)

It is a very, very common (and unfortunate) misconception on here that once you get away from Classic pitching, or if you use Zone hitting, you are turning the game into a skill game, and the user determines the outcome with little influence from attributes. From a guy who has played 100s if not thousands of games, playing every pitch, keeping score on every pitch, and entering every stat into spreadsheets and graphs, this cannot be further from the truth.

The big "but" is it takes time to configure sliders to match your playstyle and skill level. Sliders are the key. That is the only way to get players to play to their attributes, regardless of your skill level, and produce even better numbers. (It's also why there is no such thing as a universal slider set. But these slider sets can be used as a starting point).

This isn't for everyone. I actually enjoy tracking stats and configuring the game. People who don't enjoy it or don't have the patience for it (which is most people) call it "slider chasing." But once you find that sweet spot, there is no greater game on the planet. Most people give up before getting there. You get out of it what you put into it. For those willing to invest the effort to learn how sliders work, it can pay off swimmingly for months, if not years, of realistic and fun baseball.

So, for this reason alone, for MOST people, Classic is good enough if you want to jump right in. For myself, there is no looking back from Meter/Analog and Zone with my personal sliders. They really put you in the game and produce the best MLB-compared stats consistently. I haven't touched sliders since last summer and have had no reason to - they still play like a "bute".

I my as well ask since I don't have really have any reason to buy 19 any time soon - care to share your sliders/level/setting etc.?

PM me them if you don't want to share here.

P.S. I've used Armors (classic/directional) and TNK's (meter/directional) all year long and really like them both. Maybe you have a secret sauce they both missed?


Thanks - Dowie

[NolanRyansSnowmonkey]

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

I my as well ask since I don't have really have any reason to buy 19 any time soon - care to share your sliders/level/setting etc.?

PM me them if you don't want to share here.

P.S. I've used Armors (classic/directional) and TNK's (meter/directional) all year long and really like them both. Maybe you have a secret sauce they both missed?


Thanks - Dowie

I don't mind sharing them at all. Ive shared them before, but like i said, with everyone on different skill levels, playstyles, expectations, most people wil need at least somewhat different sliders, especially when it comes to meter/analog pitching and zone hitting. Since the user is involved more, unlike other modes, everyone may need a different setting to get the same type of results.

Armor and TNK are two tried and true contributors and slider set creators for those particular interfaces and they are great sets for many people. I don't have any secret that they have missed, because they haven't missed anything for their playstyle. Using meter/zone requires a completely different approach to sliders. Not to mention they require settings that are more unique to the individual than classic/directional.

( - I also stopped downloading patches once i was consistently getting the results i wanted, and didn't care for the direction the patches were going anyway. So there is a possibility that could make a difference also - however - i have a buddy that uses my settings with the latest patch and he still gets very comparable stats to mine)

If you are enjoying classic/directional i don't think i have any more to offer than what those guys have offered. If you're wanting to use zone hitting i will be glad to share my settings/sliders. No guarantees it will play the same though (most people play handful of games and think that is enough to know how sliders are performing. But outside of noticeably glaring issues, sample size is key. Like real baseball, it usually will take a lot more than a handful of games for everything to stabilize. But, immediately most people start tweaking and changing things every few games, being fooled by the ebbs and flows of baseball. These people wil be on a never-ending chase for a good set, or they just give up on meter/zone completely and some even blame the game.)

Since i am not near my PS4 atm, maybe drop me a PM so i don't forget to give them to you and so I don't blast everyone in this thread with my own MLB 18 slider set.

[stealyerface]

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

My pitchers miss that memo. In fact, they do worse in Pulse than Classic. Leaving my sliders the same, if all I do is change interface, they all do objectively worse. Whiff rate drops, runs go up, CPU chase rate drops, etc.

I even tracked how many Good/Perfect I got. It was like 93%. So I wasn't misusing the interface.

The thing I dislike most about Classic is it's very hard to pitch with a good zone %.

Real pitchers put strikes in the zone less than 50% in most cases. They try to induce chases. Classic just ruins that because mistakes on pitches I want out of the zone don't just become obvious balls enough. Instead they become either borderline strikes or worse.

It's like "mistake" has to equal "crushable pitch". A lot of times it just means "easy take".

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?

~syf

[sbmnky]

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?