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

[BillPeener]

I appreciate you carefully writing out your thoughts, but as a programmer, we see this from vastly different angles. So, with all due respect...

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

I say I'm a programmer because I am a programmer...

Based on the totality of your post, I feel it necessary to remind everyone that the significant majority of programmers are not good programmers. It's like English - people know how to write, but being a good writer is dramatically different.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

The point I was making is that visual issues are usually just a simple matter of updating the overlay for that particular part. The basic programming structure of the jersey is there, the colors are just simply overlays for those pieces. The issue of an incorrect uniform part could be as simple as changing one line of code. Instead of leftUniSleeve = "12345" it needed to be leftUniSleeve = "12346". Those types of programming issues are quick/easy related to visual aspects.

Yes, but someone has to program all of those sleeves. Sure, the underlying framework for visuals is probably as simple as assigning IDs to each entity. However, someone has to create the code that scans in those sleeves. Someone has to develop and maintain the engine that makes those sleeves look good in-game. The jerseys have to flap in the wind, they have to react to different lighting, and so on. SCEA might have a solid framework for adding more items, but it still requires designing and coding them. This isn't 1998 when jerseys were just bitmaps assigned to certain vertices on a polygon. There so much code that goes into realistically showing every piece of clothing and making sure all colors agree with lighting, getting dirty, and whatever else can affect the appearance. Grooves, bumps, and textures require programming to look realistic. I cannot believe you are a programmer yet feel like these things, in comparison to contract logic, are trivial to develop and maintain.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

Official uniform sock choices weren't in the game 10-15 years ago because of memory space. It's 2017, we have more space on things than ever before and can add in the little things that had to be omitted previously.

For the most part, that's either false or a bad excuse. Xbox and PS2 had limited memory, but there are countless sport games from that era, both PC and console, that had sufficiently detailed uniforms, jerseys, and other attire. The PC games especially had the memory to put in official apparel. Those games could have had official socks, for example, though they would've looked like low-res crap. Still, they could have been there.

The real reason is that developing the graphics engine and securing brands and official MLB licenses were difficult, slightly in part due to technological limitations. Yes, Xbox's 64 megs of ram forced developers to optimize, but official looking socks in MVP 2005 weren't impossible. But heck, they couldn't even convince MLB to let them put Barry Bonds into the game! They had so many issues to deal with back then. Those problems don't exist in the same capacity today.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

1) I'd say each year with each new iteration of MLB the Show they probably start with a bare bones template (for lack of a better term) and build from the ground up. If they were simply reusing all the code from last year and just updating rosters, then we'd get a new game every month, or not at all.

That's a big assumption, and we'd need a developer to confirm it. Either way, we basically get a new game every month already when you factor in patches, updated rosters, new DLC, and so on. And even if your assumption is correct, then are you suggesting that the trade system, for example, is always re-coded every year based on a barebones template? If so, how do you justify them re-coding it every year so that only 3 players can be traded? Seems odd that they re-code it every year to have the same extremely unrealistic design.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

2) There is turnover in any company. Maybe the same guys who worked on it last year aren't 100% the same guys who worked on it this year. Maybe they switched roles, who knows.

Come on. These are professional game companies who have the relatively easy task of creating the exact same game every year. All they have to do is make their previous baseball game more realistic. I'm not saying that's a piece of cake - there's a reason 60+ people are paid salaries to make this game - but it's not like we're talking about a brand new concept each and every year. Turnover is a real issue, but can you seriously blame a lack of in-season contract extensions on turnover? Who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe half the team switched over from last year. But logic is logic, and I figure SCEA has a flow-chart for each and every logical process. My point about it being the same game is that the conceptual flow-charts for baseball should follow the same basic pattern every year. Once you've developed the flow-chart for contract extensions, then it's a matter of coding it, which frankly, a friend and I could develop in a week or less. Now, imagine me working with a team on a salary.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

3) Sometimes in code you don't really know how adding in one thing may affect another. Or it changes it in a way you didn't expect. You can plan/code/test till you're blue in the face, but something seemingly trivial can greatly change something else and you may have never seen it coming. It happens.

So, therefore, be so conservative in writing code that you completely leave out in-season contract extensions; allow the archaic trade system to devolve into an even less realistic system (yes, it's worse in '17 than '16); and [insert one of a myriad other issues]? All you're saying is that programming is hard.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

4) Contract logic is infinitely more complicated than visual aspects. Logic in general is infinitely more complicated. The graphics are nothing but skins on top of 1's and 0's. The actual 1's and 0's themselves are the hard part. Putting a pretty bow on something in the programming world is a trivial task.

Correct, and it's the actual 1's and 0's that defeat your argument. I wasn't talking about applying skins to a polygons. I was talking about the fact that in today's world, visual graphics are insanely tied to the underlying logic, so much so that I don't see how you can even pretend that amending the contract code the game already has would be a taller order than continuing to maintain and improve the graphics logic. I'm talking about the programming that handles how skins are placed onto a jersey worn by a player of variable size in countless stadiums with different lighting, weather, and in-game situations like getting dirty.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

The visual aspects are far, far more complicated than you're giving credit to. To say that adding new and official jerseys, socks, gloves, and so on is simply a matter of 1's and 0's is like saying my iPhone is just a matter of 1's and 0's. Come on, man. If you're really a programmer, you know that the graphic engine is the #1 most challenging aspect of game design. Underlying logic that has 100% no connection to the graphics engine is vastly less complicated and less fragile.

You're right in that we often underestimate how difficult a seemingly simple feature is to implement. However, in regards to in-game contract extensions, which currently is my biggest franchise gripe, you already have the logic when it comes to off-season contracts. The logic is partly already in the system. You just have to extend it to in-season. I'd love to know exactly why that was neglected this year. Getting an explanation would be sufficient for me.

[HustlinOwl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

I understand your frustration. I get it. You paid 60 bucks for something and it's not working the way you want and you can't really do much about it. I get that. But I also think you may not quite realize how much more difficult something is than what you think.

$150 and if it's a half finished product, then lower the price. No way I should be paying full price for a game that its entire online content does not work as advertised

[BillPeener]

Quote: Originally Posted by HustlinOwl

$150 and if it's a half finished product, then lower the price. No way I should be paying full price for a game that its entire online content does not work as advertised

I agree that online play should work, but as someone who didn't own a baseball game from 2005-2015, I love how I can play online for free. I love how they update official rosters and allow for 3rd party rosters. It's a dream-come-true getting patches and updates automatically installed. No trying to find the patch, updating the game, hoping it doesn't crash...

This is the best baseball game I've ever played, so I don't regret my $60. That's a fair price, and I look forward to the upcoming patches. But as a franchise guy, I'm determined to do whatever I can to make '18 much better.

[Mav3rek7]

Quote: Originally Posted by BillPeener

I appreciate you carefully writing out your thoughts, but as a programmer, we see this from vastly different angles. So, with all due respect... Edited for space

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or the other way around...

I'm not saying that programming the way a jersey moves in the wind, reacts to environments, etc is the easy part. I'm saying that fixing an incorrect sleeve color would be infinitely easier than reprogramming a logic component. The underlying 1's and 0's part, sure, it's more difficult, but not correcting it post release.

As for why socks weren't in the game 10-15 years ago, I stand by what I said. MVP 2005 let you select different jerseys, yes. But it wasn't a mix/match of jerseys. You could select Home... Away... 1970 Home. Not 2015 home jersey, 1970 away pants, 2005 socks, 1999 hat. It was a one shot deal. Unless I'm just remembering that incorrectly. Then when you consider the space to program all the different combos, it adds up quickly.
Maybe memory space wasn't the only aspect of it(I'm sure it wasn't) but it was definitely a limiting factor.

Programming/Coding is a mindset. Programming is hard, it's complicated.
You have to think in a different manner. I respect your opinion and all, but it appears there are things that you just won't understand about coding/programming.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

[Mav3rek7]

Quote: Originally Posted by HustlinOwl

$150 and if it's a half finished product, then lower the price. No way I should be paying full price for a game that its entire online content does not work as advertised

I'm sure that the online issues weren't foreseen. There wasn't an open Beta, so they had some server problems when the world got access to the game.

They are working on them, I would assume.

As for the price, you had a choice and chose to spend more than double what the game itself costs. Yes, I realize that you wanted some additional things that go with the higher price tag, but still, it was a choice, so the amount you paid is irrelevant.

Let's say you walk in to a store and buy a toaster that only toasts from one slot and the other one isn't working. What do you do? You take said toaster back to the store and either a)return it and get your money back and go home with no toaster or b)exchange it for a working toaster and go home and make toast.

They're working on issues, you'll end up with your working toaster.

[HustlinOwl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

I'm sure that the online issues weren't foreseen. There wasn't an open Beta, so they had some server problems when the world got access to the game. They are working on them, I would assume. As for the price, you had a choice and chose to spend more than double what the game itself costs. Yes, I realize that you wanted some additional things that go with the higher price tag, but still, it was a choice, so the amount you paid is irrelevant. Let's say you walk in to a store and buy a toaster that only toasts from one slot and the other one isn't working. What do you do? You take said toaster back to the store and either a)return it and get your money back and go home with no toaster or b)exchange it for a working toaster and go home and make toast. They're working on issues, you'll end up with your working toaster.

so Sony will refund my digital deluxe edition?

[Mav3rek7]

Quote: Originally Posted by HustlinOwl

so Sony will refund my digital deluxe edition?

Sure, talk to them and see what they say, then return(delete) the game.

[BillPeener]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

No, sir. You are not allowed to get away with that. You can't just do a drive-by-insult using fallacies and then say "let's just agree to disagree".

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

I'm not saying that programming the way a jersey moves in the wind, reacts to environments, etc is the easy part. I'm saying that fixing an incorrect sleeve color would be infinitely easier than reprogramming a logic component. The underlying 1's and 0's part, sure, it's more difficult, but not correcting it post release.

What evidence do you have that it's not difficult to add a new sleeve or update an old one post-release?

What evidence do you have that this difficulty is "infinitely" easier than reprogramming a logic component?

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

Unless I'm just remembering that incorrectly.

You're right - that's how MVP did it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

Maybe memory space wasn't the only aspect of it(I'm sure it wasn't) but it was definitely a limiting factor.

Now you're moving the goal posts, saying that memory space was but one factor. Setting aside that you haven't even proved that the Xbox / PS2 didn't have enough memory to add official accessories, it's a trivial issue.

My point was that one of the major reasons why games a generation ago had franchise logic - contracts, trades, player progression - and not Adidas batting gloves - is because coding logic that's entirely unrelated to the graphics / physics engine was doable on a computer made in 1990. What I'm saying is that these graphic upgrades are unnecessary thrills. It never breaks the game if your player doesn't have his Nike socks. It does break the game if you can't offer contract extensions mid-season, causing your players to see drops in morale and thus lower player ratings. My experience while playing the game is worsened far more from unnecessarily, unrealistically low player ratings than from not having the Nike socks I hardly notice.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mav3rek7

Programming/Coding is a mindset. Programming is hard, it's complicated. You have to think in a different manner. I respect your opinion and all, but it appears there are things that you just won't understand about coding/programming. Programming is hard, it's complicated.

Who are you talking to? What are you trying to teach anybody? For all the non-programmers out there, I guess you've successfully convinced them that programming is hard, except for when it's just visual stuff.