Strike zone camera: cheap?

[skrody]

how do you guys feel about the 'strike zone' camera angle for hitting?

is it cheap? does it feel like cheating?

i watched a bunch of streams on twitch of guys playing, boasting their rank and whatever - and when i saw them hit it was zoomed in, only in the strike zone, and i wondered - how good would you be if you that camera angle didnt exist.

do you use it? what are your thoughts?

[NewNapkin]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

I used it for a bit last year, but I found it waaaay too easy to read pitches. I would draw a ton of walks and never strike out.

[ObviouslyConnor]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

If you can perfect strike zone camera with zone hitting and wedge PCI it's pretty unstoppable

[Stolm]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

Aesthetically I dislike it, so I don't use it. I never found I hit that much better with it anyway, and it's far from a realistic view of the ball.

But, if they are going to allow it in online play, they should go ahead and allow Custom Catcher Cameras already. Once they fix it with a patch of course, because custom cams are currently broken.

[RockPowderDownLoL]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

not cheap at all. i find it can be harder to read changeups, also, if my batter is too tall or i can't see his body on the screen then i find it harder to time.

[bcruise]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

I can't read low pitches at all from this camera. And I don't believe any camera is "cheap", aside from the way Broadcast/Pitcher/etc used to be where you could see the catcher's hand signals.

[Syce]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

well considering i think that majority of the top online players such as cardinalbird use this camera, there is something about it that helps them become top online players. may not be cheap but it is odd that the best of the best use this camera.

[cardinalbird5]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

Well i used the def camera in mlb 12 and did fine personally.

Aesthetically people hate on strike zone but I dont care about looking at my batter personally. Plus this camera takes awhile to get used to.

My problem is they out all the good zoom cameras and added alot views that distort the pitcher so you can have a wider view. I really get no advantage of using those.

I personally find strikezone to be closest to the most realistic too and dont buy the argument that other cams are more realistic.

Its all personal preference though. If you play online and you do best with strikezone why would you change? Its mostly salty people who complain about it just to make excuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

Well i used the def camera in mlb 12 and did fine personally.

Aesthetically people hate on strike zone but I dont care about looking at my batter personally. Plus this camera takes awhile to get used to.

My problem is they out all the good zoom cameras and added alot views that distort the pitcher so you can have a wider view. I really get no advantage of using those.

I personally find strikezone to be closest to the most realistic too and dont buy the argument that other cams are more realistic.

Its all personal preference though. If you play online and you do best with strikezone why would you change? Its mostly salty people who complain about it just to make excuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am with you on this. I use Zoom offset and the last two versions used Catcher Zoom 3. Being a ball player I want to feel like I am standing in the box seeing the pitches. Strike Zone does exactly that. I like zoom offset though to read pitches a little better for my taste.

But I know exactly what you mean. It is the most authentic way to hit as if "your" in the box.

Maybe people should learn to hit better and have a great approach at the dish before calling a camera cheap because coincidentally a top player uses a certain angle.

Ridiculous.

[KBLover]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

what are your thoughts?

Only thing cheap is trying to diminish someone's skills and results because of a camera view.

Not saying you're doing that, but it's not the camera that makes the player.

Calling any of them realistic is a stretch, though. Until they invent a "like you're the batter" view...

[skrody]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

Only thing cheap is trying to diminish someone's skills and results because of a camera view.

Not saying you're doing that, but it's not the camera that makes the player.

Calling any of them realistic is a stretch, though. Until they invent a "like you're the batter" view...

i don't know what camera angle people are using when i play against them and i am doing just fine i feel. i use the mlb 15 camera, but thats cuz it works for me. im 12-8, which is right where i should be, but i dont blame camera angles when i lose.

i was just curious on the communitys thoughts if they view it as cheap or not.

[Neil33]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

I am with you on this. ... Being a ball player I want to feel like I am standing in the box seeing the pitches. Strike Zone does exactly that....
But I know exactly what you mean. It is the most authentic way to hit as if "your" in the box.

Maybe people should learn to hit better and have a great approach at the dish before calling a camera cheap because coincidentally a top player uses a certain angle.

Ridiculous.

I agree. Being a ball player this offers me the best view as if I "were in the box".

[Stolm]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

I agree. Being a ball player this offers me the best view as if I "were in the box".

I'm interested to hear how a camera in the middle of the plate at your knees, gives you a view as if you were actually batting.

[Jr.]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

I am with you on this. I use Zoom offset and the last two versions used Catcher Zoom 3. Being a ball player I want to feel like I am standing in the box seeing the pitches. Strike Zone does exactly that. I like zoom offset though to read pitches a little better for my taste.

But I know exactly what you mean. It is the most authentic way to hit as if "your" in the box.

Maybe people should learn to hit better and have a great approach at the dish before calling a camera cheap because coincidentally a top player uses a certain angle.

Ridiculous.

I'd say a camera zoomed in only on the strike zone doesn't really replicate hitting in real life. Your eyes aren't over the plate, in the zone when you're actually hitting.

[Stolm]

Re: Strike zone camera: cheap?

I made a thread a few years ago talking about Batting Cameras and where I thought they should head with them:

Let's Talk **Batting Cameras**

I like that for most of them this year, they have slightly offset them to give a more realistic angle on the ball. But they all still suffer from unrealistically low eyelines, replicating the view of the Catcher rather than the actual batter.

I want more realistic cameras, where the outside and inside of the plate actually feel like they should. Where pitches low, actually look low and you are looking down on them to an extent. You do not get that without angles.

Fish Eye is the first Camera they have done in years that is interesting at all, and breaks the super low, big incline view that has dominated the Cameras for so long. Though the super-exaggerated distance to the pitcher really is awful. And it sounds like it was cobbled together fairly quickly without much design time, so I really don't expect more like these in the future.

If they are not going to continue to innovate with the Cameras, they need to allow Custom Catcher Cameras through all modes. Catcher Cameras are all locked to a certain extent, and their isn't a way to see around a pitchers glove and see what they are throwing, unlike those that hit from Pitcher Cams, so I fail to see what kind of issue there would be.