what type of pitching interface?

[liftheavy]

I think I am goign to try classic instead of k-zone for a while

[GMF]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

Classic pitching is the way to go. It's close to the High Heat pitch interface...

[GMF]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

Classic pitching is the way to go. It's close to the High Heat pitch interface...

[baa7]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

I use Classic even though it’s the least feature-friendly (for lack of a better description). Example: there’s no speed variation with Classic, whereas with Classic-Effort you’ll see a big difference in the speed of the pitches according to the amount of effort. And you’ll see slower pitches with Classic-Effort than you can ever get with Classic. With Classic, fastballs might all travel 90-94. With Classic-Effort, they’ll travel 88-92 with low Effort and 91-94 with high Effort.

And K-zone is the only interface that displays an appreciable and realistic loss of Accuracy when the P tires (IMO). I’ve done a few tests, and it’s by far harder to hit your spots using K-zone than it is with Classic, once the P has run out of gas.

Nevertheless, I still use Classic because it just feels like pitching to me. And once my P starts tiring I just stick someone else in there anyway :-) Part of that though is that I’m convinced batters start teeing off on tired P’s, regardless of whether they’re still hitting their spots or not.

[baa7]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

I use Classic even though it’s the least feature-friendly (for lack of a better description). Example: there’s no speed variation with Classic, whereas with Classic-Effort you’ll see a big difference in the speed of the pitches according to the amount of effort. And you’ll see slower pitches with Classic-Effort than you can ever get with Classic. With Classic, fastballs might all travel 90-94. With Classic-Effort, they’ll travel 88-92 with low Effort and 91-94 with high Effort.

And K-zone is the only interface that displays an appreciable and realistic loss of Accuracy when the P tires (IMO). I’ve done a few tests, and it’s by far harder to hit your spots using K-zone than it is with Classic, once the P has run out of gas.

Nevertheless, I still use Classic because it just feels like pitching to me. And once my P starts tiring I just stick someone else in there anyway :-) Part of that though is that I’m convinced batters start teeing off on tired P’s, regardless of whether they’re still hitting their spots or not.

[Klownpoet]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

I use Classic even though it’s the least feature-friendly (for lack of a better description). Example: there’s no speed variation with Classic, whereas with Classic-Effort you’ll see a big difference in the speed of the pitches according to the amount of effort. And you’ll see slower pitches with Classic-Effort than you can ever get with Classic. With Classic, fastballs might all travel 90-94. With Classic-Effort, they’ll travel 88-92 with low Effort and 91-94 with high Effort.

And K-zone is the only interface that displays an appreciable and realistic loss of Accuracy when the P tires (IMO). I’ve done a few tests, and it’s by far harder to hit your spots using K-zone than it is with Classic, once the P has run out of gas.

Nevertheless, I still use Classic because it just feels like pitching to me. And once my P starts tiring I just stick someone else in there anyway :-) Part of that though is that I’m convinced batters start teeing off on tired P’s, regardless of whether they’re still hitting their spots or not.

I started with Kzone and still use Kzone. For me it offers the greatest level of variablity based on the skill of the user. Want to throw a nasty pitch? Well you better make sure you are alert because if you miss your spot you could be in for a nasty slamzone online, or at the very least you will tip the player off to where the pitch is coming.

[Klownpoet]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

I use Classic even though it’s the least feature-friendly (for lack of a better description). Example: there’s no speed variation with Classic, whereas with Classic-Effort you’ll see a big difference in the speed of the pitches according to the amount of effort. And you’ll see slower pitches with Classic-Effort than you can ever get with Classic. With Classic, fastballs might all travel 90-94. With Classic-Effort, they’ll travel 88-92 with low Effort and 91-94 with high Effort.

And K-zone is the only interface that displays an appreciable and realistic loss of Accuracy when the P tires (IMO). I’ve done a few tests, and it’s by far harder to hit your spots using K-zone than it is with Classic, once the P has run out of gas.

Nevertheless, I still use Classic because it just feels like pitching to me. And once my P starts tiring I just stick someone else in there anyway :-) Part of that though is that I’m convinced batters start teeing off on tired P’s, regardless of whether they’re still hitting their spots or not.

I started with Kzone and still use Kzone. For me it offers the greatest level of variablity based on the skill of the user. Want to throw a nasty pitch? Well you better make sure you are alert because if you miss your spot you could be in for a nasty slamzone online, or at the very least you will tip the player off to where the pitch is coming.

[liftheavy]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

what are your guys' take on classic effort pitching? It would seem a little more realistic to go with classic effort than just regular classic.

[liftheavy]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

what are your guys' take on classic effort pitching? It would seem a little more realistic to go with classic effort than just regular classic.

[baa7]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

what are your guys' take on classic effort pitching? It would seem a little more realistic to go with classic effort than just regular classic.

You would think so. Except I'm not convinced the difference in pitch speeds translates into improved game play. It seems like more work that it's worth at this point. If I can figure out a test to determine if varying pitch speeds makes a difference, and then see there IS a difference between it and Classic, I would no doubt switch to Effort.

[baa7]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

what are your guys' take on classic effort pitching? It would seem a little more realistic to go with classic effort than just regular classic.

You would think so. Except I'm not convinced the difference in pitch speeds translates into improved game play. It seems like more work that it's worth at this point. If I can figure out a test to determine if varying pitch speeds makes a difference, and then see there IS a difference between it and Classic, I would no doubt switch to Effort.

[liftheavy]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

You would think so. Except I'm not convinced the difference in pitch speeds translates into improved game play. It seems like more work that it's worth at this point. If I can figure out a test to determine if varying pitch speeds makes a difference, and then see there IS a difference between it and Classic, I would no doubt switch to Effort.

I see your point, I will try classic. I remember last year I used the classic effort and it just seemed like it was missing something. With regards to the k-zone, it takes to long to line up the bars.

[liftheavy]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

You would think so. Except I'm not convinced the difference in pitch speeds translates into improved game play. It seems like more work that it's worth at this point. If I can figure out a test to determine if varying pitch speeds makes a difference, and then see there IS a difference between it and Classic, I would no doubt switch to Effort.

I see your point, I will try classic. I remember last year I used the classic effort and it just seemed like it was missing something. With regards to the k-zone, it takes to long to line up the bars.

[baa7]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

I see your point, I will try classic. I remember last year I used the classic effort and it just seemed like it was missing something. With regards to the k-zone, it takes to long to line up the bars.

It's actually different than 2K3 Classic (I returned 2K4 and don't remember it). In 2K3, it was a two-step pitching process. In 2K5, it's one step only and feels more natural. And maybe the thing to do would be to try Effort for a while and see if it feels right. I've thought of using it just because it seems realisitic to be able to vary your pitch speeds. Same sort of logic behind why I prefer having a Contact AND Power swing -- except I know for sure those swings are different from each other.

[baa7]

Re: what type of pitching interface?

I see your point, I will try classic. I remember last year I used the classic effort and it just seemed like it was missing something. With regards to the k-zone, it takes to long to line up the bars.

It's actually different than 2K3 Classic (I returned 2K4 and don't remember it). In 2K3, it was a two-step pitching process. In 2K5, it's one step only and feels more natural. And maybe the thing to do would be to try Effort for a while and see if it feels right. I've thought of using it just because it seems realisitic to be able to vary your pitch speeds. Same sort of logic behind why I prefer having a Contact AND Power swing -- except I know for sure those swings are different from each other.