[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by bcruise

I feel like if the momentum was made too realistic we'd run into the same problem as the basketball game with the players feeling too "weighty" and experiencing loss of control. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but there's a very vocal section of OS that wants more control over their player movement, not less. Even if it means the game looking less "sim". We get to some degree already in this game with the canned animation complaints. It's one thing if the CPU used momentum correctly, but I guarantee we'd be hearing the same complaints if the user was bound by it too. It's a tough dilemma for the devs, for sure. At the end of the day it's a video game, and it can't be everything for everyone. ...

I think I should clarify what I mean by the better momentum system... I would actually want to clearly distinguish it from "canned animation" system, which is more like the current system used by The Show, and ideally I don't think that's the way things like this should be implemented.

What I mean is that you are in total control of the motion of your body, but the body movement is susceptible to inevitable effect of momentum, so you have to control your body movement in such a way that you have to take into account that your body has some weight.

I am awfully embarrassingly dating myself, but the following two retro shooting games illustrate my point well:

Movement without any concept of momentum (Xevious):

Spoiler

Movement with a proper concept of momentum (Exerion):

Spoiler

Now, with Exerion, the gamer is still in total control of the fighter jet, but he simply must control it anticipating the effect of momentum. None of the jet's movement is canned, and the game isn't losing control at any moment.

Of course these are flying objects so the effect of momentum is much more exaggerated, but even though baseball players feel this to a lesser extent, they still move taking into account the effect of momentum.

Quote: Originally Posted by bcruise

Now.....THIS one looked pretty good IMO. The "bracing" animation fits because the RF was on a dead sprint towards the wall. Batter has good speed but not top-level, and this is still a triple regardless. Spoiler It's hit and miss. A lot of times you'll get ones that look wrong or get cut off by the fielder, other times you'll get ones like this.

So with the example in this video, what I would think a real-life RF would have done is to (1) start sprinting as fast as possible right off the contact, (2) as he approaches the landing position he decelerates significantly, making sure he doesn't crash into the wall or overshoot the ball landing spot (which the CPU controlled fielder does), (3) slow down enough while evaluating which way the ball actually bounces off the wall (4) and then literally go pick up and throw it back to the infield.

That is a significant slower play than what CPU fielder did here... In the end, it was likely a triple either way, but the difference is that CPU went into that canned "sucked-in" animation which everyone hates to go into and that took time allowing the runner to take an extra base, but in real-life the whole sequence slows down because he has to control his own momentum.