MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.03 Available Now, Here Are The Details

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

This thread is a perfect example of why gameplay doesn't get fixed. Search through the thread and you see people complaining about some teams road batting practice jersey, some other teams matte batting helmet, somebody using a gimmick mode - quick counts - complains it isn't realistic so now they have to spend time fixing a gimmick mode. There is a sticky about socks. The numbers of a uniform weren't the correct height. Last year a few people who must play with metal bats complained the ball on hits down the foul line didn't curve enough like they do with a metal bat - MLB uses wooden bats. Now balls curve foul like a Frisbee in a hurricane. I'm glad they fixed that. The devs have this long list of stuff to fix and gameplay issues frequently never get fixed. I play manage mode - the purest form with zero human input. CPU vs CPU. Full counts. There isn't enough offense. Not enough hits, not enough runs. That seems like kind of an important thing. When they determine the winner of a game they add up the runs to determine the winner. Call me crazy but it seems to me that's something they would have interest in getting right. I've never heard of socks determining the winner of a game. Are they going to fix it? If I was a gambling man I'd bet they won't.

It really baffles me as to how otherwise intelligent people can be so reductionist and closed-minded in their viewpoints. Why should everyone need to set their priorities as you do? There are thousands of customers all with their own set of likes/dislikes/preferences so statistically speaking some people will care about things that you don't and vice versa. How is it that people still are made incredulous by this notion? So what if someone worries about sock colors and someone else worries more about gameplay issues?

The best strategy to take around posts/threads/topics you don't care about is to avoid them and watch them sink to the bottom eventually. Do I think that some people on here are victims of moderate-to-severe OCD...probably? But, I am not a medical doctor. Is it right of me to belittle their interests at every turn because I don't share their interests? No, it isn't.

[PhlliesPhan6]

PS4 noob here. Are patches the same as PS3 where I get prompted to download it when I start the game? I didn't get asked to download it last night.

Sent from my VS987 using Operation Sports mobile app

[bcruise]

Quote: Originally Posted by PhlliesPhan6

PS4 noob here. Are patches the same as PS3 where I get prompted to download it when I start the game? I didn't get asked to download it last night. Sent from my VS987 using Operation Sports mobile app

It might have downloaded automatically. Highlight the Show 17 icon, press options and go to update history. If it says 1.03 you're good.

It does usually prompt you before you start a game if you have auto updating off.

[Critical Kills]

Quote: Originally Posted by bcruise

More realistic than ours. You don't know what their job entails if you aren't a programmer, so why speculate?

I'm not a programmer but I took programming in college so yeah, probably why I give games a little more slack. People don't realize just adding/changing one little thing can affect all sorts of other things. Things don't get programmed in a vacuum.

[underdog13]

Quote: Originally Posted by BillPeener

Contracts affect player morale, which affects gameplay in Franchise mode because it influences player ratings. And of course, offering contracts is part of being a realistic GM. Yes, that doesn't apply to arcade mode, so what I'm hearing you say is that you don't count Franchise mode as part of gameplay. Do I have that correct? How are extensions harder to implement than correct socks? I'm a programmer, so I know how changing even a small feature can break the game. However, offering extensions in-season has been done by many other baseball games, ones that never had official socks. Programming the extension logic would take some time, but once it's coded, it can be mostly re-used in subsequent years. Those socks, however, need to be updated every year to comply with new graphic upgrades and whatever legal rights Sony must secure to use brand names. Not to mention, players often change sponsors, and developers surely have to keep up with apparel changes every year. On the flip side, Extension logic never depends on brand rights or ever-increasing fidelity. Comparably, the trade system has been basically the same format for years now - I'm guessing they've made minimal changes over the years to it, and the same can happen with extensions. Once the system is in place, for the most part it only needs tweaking. Socks need far more than tweaking, but maybe you have better reasons for your claims. I'm definitely interested in your explanation. And of course, socks and contracts extensions are just one dimension of this "what the fans want" / gameplay dilemma.

I consider contract extensions to be a franchise feature not a gameplay feature.

As for other Mlb games having mid season contract extensions, I remember mvp 05 having midseason contract extensions but don't recall​ if the cpu ever did them. Either way that would be a requirement now if implemented, and that would be the hardest part.

Things that are factors in midseason contract extensions that aren't there for offseason extensions.

- At what point in the season does a contract get signed? Is it more likely to get done in the spring or later in mid summer
- How does a player morale adjust during a season he expects to get a contract extensions.
- How does a players performance adjust how much a player/team want to sign an extension? Does a player decide not to sign if he is having a great season?
- If a team isn't going to sign a guy, do they trade him at the deadline or do they trade for someone to replace him?
- If they don't get a contract done during the season, how does that impact chances of getting one done during offseason?
-What about if a player gets injuried? Does the team stop wanting to sign him, or just lower his value?


All these make it way more complicated, I for one would be very disappointed if midseason contract extensions were the main addition feature of Franchise mode.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[BillPeener]

Quote: Originally Posted by underdog13

I consider contract extensions to be a franchise feature not a gameplay feature. As for other Mlb games having mid season contract extensions, I remember mvp 05 having midseason contract extensions but don't recall​ if the cpu ever did them. Either way that would be a requirement now if implemented, and that would be the hardest part. Things that are factors in midseason contract extensions that aren't there for offseason extensions. - At what point in the season does a contract get signed? Is it more likely to get done in the spring or later in mid summer - How does a player morale adjust during a season he expects to get a contract extensions. - How does a players performance adjust how much a player/team want to sign an extension? Does a player decide not to sign if he is having a great season? - If a team isn't going to sign a guy, do they trade him at the deadline or do they trade for someone to replace him? - If they don't get a contract done during the season, how does that impact chances of getting one done during offseason? -What about if a player gets injuried? Does the team stop wanting to sign him, or just lower his value? All these make it way more complicated, I for one would be very disappointed if midseason contract extensions were the main addition feature of Franchise mode. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

You did a good job explaining why contract extension logic can be so complicated. But even then, we're talking about a game designed to emulate reality. Is it more realistic to not be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with authentic socks, or is it more realistic to be able to offer a mid-season contract to a player with generic socks?

Again, it's not just a matter of socks - there's so many more visual aspects the devs would have to get right to make the game look realistic. But here's the other thing - I don't know about you, but the game itself doesn't really look all that real. It's called the Uncanny Valley effect, and boy does it affect this year's game. Players are becoming so realistic that I'm starting to see how unrealistic they actually are. After playing '16, seeing '17's pitcher deliveries and batter swings made me cringe. The swinging motions, the way the bat hits the ball, and those darn pitchers...

It looked really bad until I got used to it. But here's the thing, I don't care about that because I don't expect the developers to make the game look as realistic as real life. That's unbelievably hard to do and will never be perfect. In fact, I bet the Uncanny Valley problem only gets worse as the game becomes more realistic. You liked that one guy's post bashing people who aren't programmers and thus can't comprehend the magnitude of the problem, but visual realism is a major programming dilemma that hasn't even come close to satisfying the naked eye.

My argument is that they should put less programming effort into socks and more programming effort into actual MLB mechanics. This is not just a baseball game - it's an MLB game, and thus ought to have MLB likeness. For me, contract extensions go far more towards depicting reality than batting gloves on a player who swings so unrealistically.

Also, as long as contracts affect player morale and thus player ratings in Franchise mode, then you simply can't justify saying extensions are merely a feature and not a gameplay issue. If the developers added the option to disable player morale, then yes, contracts would no longer affect gameplay.

Finally, despite the complications with contract extensions, OOTP has had them for years. No other game has ever had truly realistic socks. So, one could argue that extensions are by default easier to program, seeing as they already have been. (and to critical acclaim)

[Mav3rek7]

As a programmer, I can tell you that changing a visual aspect should be a super simple and quick/easy fix. Changing the way something behaves programmatically is a much more time consuming/deeper issue.

I understand people upset that uni-fixes are done before gameplay fixes. But the simple fact of the matter is, that a gameplay fix that would alter the way the game behaves would take a little time to re-program, debug, test, tidy up the programming, and then test again, and then post.

It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process.

Trust the process.

[dalger21]

Quote: Originally Posted by BillPeener

And what about people who are programmers? How does their attitude usually go?

People that are programmers know how these things go. I'm not saying you can't be upset about something you want implemented and it hasn't been added. All I'm saying is that it's not as easy as "putting it in".

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

It's not just as simple as typing "make (x) do (y) when (z) happens". When you are trying to correct a programming/logic/behavior issue you end up throwing a lot of programming bandaids/bad code at it. Once you have the issue fixed, you have to go back and tidy up the programming. It's a time consuming/involved process.

Explained better.