Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

[matthewk]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

You really want to know why you have lots of views, but few responses (other than the same few people arguing with you)? Because most were probably like myself. I saw the thread topic and thought this was a REAL a LEGIT post about what was going to be in the upcoming game, not some fantasy thesis you came up with.

I respect your desire to help make the game better, but if this is just your own dream and not the actual work of the developers, then most will not care, especially when your 'idea' takes 10,000 words to explain.

Just my 2 cents.

[bergie56]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

For instance, the person that I'm now working with took my ideas like this:

He neglected to mention the fact that when you sprint, you "lose sight of the ball" (the cursor disappears), and also that you can hold onto the Catch/Shade button from shading to catching for it to be a seamless act. But I think he got it right for the most part.

I would think that the cursor (or whatever you want to call it) shouldn't disappear per se while sprinting. IMO it should/would just become a larger area in which the ball will land. Of course the size would be determined by the ratings of each player. This would lead to having to make a decision to either play a ball safe and play the hop or go aggressively after the ball.

[Blzer]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

You really want to know why you have lots of views, but few responses (other than the same few people arguing with you)? Because most were probably like myself. I saw the thread topic and thought this was a REAL a LEGIT post about what was going to be in the upcoming game, not some fantasy thesis you came up with.

Really? Hmm... wow. Didn't think my thread title was misleading like that.

[Blzer]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I would think that the cursor (or whatever you want to call it) shouldn't disappear per se while sprinting. IMO it should/would just become a larger area in which the ball will land. Of course the size would be determined by the ratings of each player. This would lead to having to make a decision to either play a ball safe and play the hop or go aggressively after the ball.

Well, here is my idea on the cursor: It is how well somebody is able to track a fly ball. When they are poor at judging where the fly ball will go, the initial cursor will be quite large. When they're better, it will initially be smaller. It will begin to shrink from there (to anywhere inside the next instantaneously created circle), and may or may not appear random based on the outfielder's attribute that determines that (I don't know if I really explained that part on here, but I'm going to make a new thread about it anyway).

Anyway, like I said... the cursor is a determination of how well you can see/judge a ball. So, when you run back on a ball and have to change direction from right to left, your head has to turn and lose sight of the ball for just that split-second, and then it has to pick it up again. During that split-second, your cursor will disappear. That's because your head is "off the ball". Same with sprinting... you go head down and balls out as you sprint, which during the time your head will be off the ball.



Most people don't sprint to a ball unless they can't get to it anyway. But some people, like me... if it is just an absolutely high scorched ball, I may run back, pick up around the area where I think it's going to land, and then just sprint there. Or, at least sprint for a good second and a half. When I look up again, I'm still expected to be running to my spot and finding the ball. Normally I can pick it up in time, make the catch, and thank my sprinting efforts to find that ball again.

Since you do have a cursor to base your guess on the ball with, better outfielders won't give you as much trouble to: A) Go into a sprint without having a general (if not exact) sense of where the ball is going to land, or B) Pick up the ball as quickly after leaving the "sprint" and going heads up to find the ball again. This will separate the people to play in outfield from those that can, especially if they can sprint faster than them.


Remember... I'm doing this based on sight of the ball. I don't want sprinting to become another turbo, and in real life you can't sight or catch a ball when you're sprinting (otherwise you're doing something that may be even just a little bit slower, which may be your player's Top Speed while not sprinting).

[bergie56]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I must have misunderstood something then. We are thinking along very similar lines.

[Blzer]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

Oh, no doubt. But what I want is for the sprinting's advantage being your player gets to run faster. Almost everything else is a disadvantage: No sight of a fly ball, inability to catch a ball, wider turns, longer to decelerate. If the development team chooses to do turbo again like last year, it will be devastating cheese (I turn it off, but I wouldn't mind a sprint feature).

[PhantomPain]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I do like some of your ideas. However, I'm unsure how they would be able to get it to work for all fielding camera angles...

BLZR: I think what Rainey is trying to say is that some of your ideas (i.e. shading the sun) sound as though you would be in a first person view or 3rd person from behind the fielder (Rainey: Please correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise if you have an animation to shade the sun and you are looking down on the player (regular fielding camera) then I don't think you would know or feel the need to shade your eyes as you would not see the sun. Do you understand what I am saying?

I have read every post in this thread (took me a week...jk) and everytime I read your posts about the features my initial thought is a 3rd person view like the Road to the Show. And to be honest a lot of these features/ratings sound like they would make that fielding view very intuitive and fun, but from a standard view, I am not sure some things like shading the sun would actually help the game as you don't see the sun. Also you have to take into consideration of the reaction time you get from going from pitcher view to fielding view. If the view was like Road to the Show, then you can react the second the bat hits the ball because you will be focusing on that, ready and in position. If the view is standard fielding view, after the pitching view, then you have to switch views and a lot of times the ball is already 30-50 feet from the plate, which leads to less reaction time to be able to say "catch" or "strafe" with an infielder and also to properly take the first and second steps in the outfield.

With all that said I do like your ideas and think that some can be automatic and others can be implemented nicely, while some may not work so well due to the camera angles.

On a somewhat personal note, Blzr, there were more than 2 quality posts, they were just criticizing or just not what you wanted to hear. You have to be able to take criticism along with praise. Because you can get positives from the criticism as that might make you think a little further outside the box that could potentially make the naysayers agree. I think everyone knows by now that you have all the ins and outs about baseball downpat, so much so that regardless of how your baseball career goes, I think one day you would do well as a coach. And I applaud your diligence with promoting this series as you are 100% in support of it and show as much on the boards.

[Blzer]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

BLZR: I think what Rainey is trying to say is that some of your ideas (i.e. shading the sun) sound as though you would be in a first person view or 3rd person from behind the fielder (Rainey: Please correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise if you have an animation to shade the sun and you are looking down on the player (regular fielding camera) then I don't think you would know or feel the need to shade your eyes as you would not see the sun. Do you understand what I am saying?

Well, I do understand that you may need to do that to get the "feeling", but I think the third person view wouldn't exactly work, just because your glove may be protecting the sun for the player, but not necessarily for the camera. Make sense?

In any sense, you will feel the need to shade the sun, because when you see a glowing red landing spot that's 20 feet in diameter, you're in trouble if you don't shade. :wink:

I have read every post in this thread (took me a week...jk) and everytime I read your posts about the features my initial thought is a 3rd person view like the Road to the Show. And to be honest a lot of these features/ratings sound like they would make that fielding view very intuitive and fun, but from a standard view, I am not sure some things like shading the sun would actually help the game as you don't see the sun. Also you have to take into consideration of the reaction time you get from going from pitcher view to fielding view. If the view was like Road to the Show, then you can react the second the bat hits the ball because you will be focusing on that, ready and in position. If the view is standard fielding view, after the pitching view, then you have to switch views and a lot of times the ball is already 30-50 feet from the plate, which leads to less reaction time to be able to say "catch" or "strafe" with an infielder and also to properly take the first and second steps in the outfield.

The third baseman is the only fielder I've been afraid of this whole time, especially with the pitcher view. But hey... it's possible to do. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but the camera change is actually pretty instantaneous. I don't think it's a 30 - 50 foot thing, but it can rocket at times.

Let's just pray that third basemen have terrific first-step/second-step animations.

With all that said I do like your ideas and think that some can be automatic and others can be implemented nicely, while some may not work so well due to the camera angles.

Thanks.

On a somewhat personal note, Blzr, there were more than 2 quality posts, they were just criticizing or just not what you wanted to hear. You have to be able to take criticism along with praise. Because you can get positives from the criticism as that might make you think a little further outside the box that could potentially make the naysayers agree. I think everyone knows by now that you have all the ins and outs about baseball downpat, so much so that regardless of how your baseball career goes, I think one day you would do well as a coach. And I applaud your diligence with promoting this series as you are 100% in support of it and show as much on the boards.

There's a difference between criticism with features that you have actually read about, and criticism with features that you didn't read about.


I would have posted more, but my concentration is focused more or less on other things at the moment. But I appreciate you reading this, and I hope that you come back when I make a new thread that completely organizes all of this plus the controls when you have the ball.

Just remember that I'm more focused on the features/attributes than the controls, but I personally would have a lot of fun with advanced controls (and there's always the basic control scheme option).

[Heelfan71]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I entered this thread because I thought it was something actually about the game.

They cannot be addressed unless they go about how I'm suggesting

[Blzer]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I'm not saying it's because I addressed it. An untrained monkey could have addressed them. But if you can tell me another way that they can fix momentum (without canning it), by all means let me know before I post my official control scheme thing. Don't worry, you'll get credit and I'll throw in a bar of soap. But, honestly, nothing is going to help it if we don't have a way to correct our first step, or if we can only cut and not angle our turns.

[baa7]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I'm not saying it's because I addressed it. An untrained monkey could have addressed them. But if you can tell me another way that they can fix momentum (without canning it), by all means let me know before I post my official control scheme thing.

The momentum in 2K6 was fine - it just needed to be toned down a bit. It was too... momentus, is all.

[bigmoe]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

[I]m just hoping we have a camera angle where we can actually see a fly ball in flight. I refuse to buy another baseball game which we watch a cursor on the ground..I hate that!

[jim416]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

The momentum in 2K6 was fine - it just needed to be toned down a bit. It was too... momentus, is all.

This is all they need to hear. We have no idea how you actually program a baseball game and what is involved. I'm sure it's quite complicated. They are working with computers, not real grass, not real players arms. If it wasn't difficult it would (probably) all have been fixed.

Like the strikezone, too big? I'm sure not everyone at Kush is as unfamiliar with baseball as some, but I'm sure they know how big the strikezone should be. I'm sure there are some avid baseball people working on the game.

[Blzer]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

The momentum in 2K6 was fine - it just needed to be toned down a bit. It was too... momentus, is all.

This is all they need to hear. We have no idea how you actually program a baseball game and what is involved. I'm sure it's quite complicated. They are working with computers, not real grass, not real players arms. If it wasn't difficult it would (probably) all have been fixed.

Like the strikezone, too big? I'm sure not everyone at Kush is as unfamiliar with baseball as some, but I'm sure they know how big the strikezone should be. I'm sure there are some avid baseball people working on the game.

I never said the strike zone was too big. I said it was too high. And yes... it is too high. Any avid baseball player could tell you that.



The three major problems with momentum last year were:

1) There wasn't really any turning, only cutbacks. Instead of running and making a wide 90* turn, your player would plant and make a direct 90* cut which gave an animation that slowed you down and didn't allow you to make another turn if you needed to on the spot. This is where the Angling feature comes in.

2) Once you started in a direction, it went in a second-long animation where you couldn't change directions until that animation was completed. This was extremely tough for the infield with a ball hit in the hole that you thought you were controlling one player when you ended up actually controlling the other. This is where the first-step/second-step features come in.

3) You overran balls that you didn't want to overrun, be it a ground ball, line drive, or fly ball. This is where strafing comes in.

[jim416]

Re: Pro Control Defense (the ULTIMATE defensive simulation experience... LONG READ)

I never said the strike zone was too big. I said it was too high. And yes... it is too high. Any avid baseball player could tell you that.

Geez man, too high, too big, too little, too wide, did I say you said it? Quit being so sensitive. I was making the point that these devs know what is wrong with the game. Giving them elaborate fixes based on real life videos, real life physics, or whatever, might not transfer to programming these games.