Four Keys to Success for MLB '11: The Show

[ryan36]

Hey guys...let's recognize that people can have different opinions on the same game.... I feel like the hitting is very responsive and realistic...but when it says timing "perfect" location "meatball" or whatever it is (Can't remember the words right now) , and I hit a long fly ball and it's "swung on and belted deep to 2nd base" I too get a little confused.

Either way, keep things simple, I'd like to keep this thread open. Thank you

[Pared]

Quote: Originally Posted by swaldo

How can you call this lies, have you ever looked at a replay? -SNIP-

Sorry, but replays don't accurately portray your point at all.

We've been told time and time again that the replays can't show EXACTLY what happens (bat to ball) because of how they are done. Have you ever played online and seen a replay of a ball go at a batters head after he obviously made contact?

Same concept.

Believe what you will, but please stop using this as "evidence."

Quote: Originally Posted by HustlinOwl

I was stating lies because you PYS players come in here and stating that The Show hitting system is all random which it is not.

This is completely unnecessary.

[cardsleadtheway]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Then why have ratings? Ratings have to account for something and my guess is that you're using that as the catapult for this "randomness" idea that you're chasing. If the sole purpose is to have the user's input dictate the outcomes of the action, then how are we to differentiate the difference between a good player and a poor player? The answer, you can't. Ratings have to account for something. The user's input dictates how well those ratings are represented in any given situation. The argument that the cpu/game randomly chooses outcomes can be argued to death in any video game. The fact of the matter is that the cpu/game has to determine the outcome to a certain degree, especially in sports games, where we as fans want to differentiate the difference between Albert Pujols and Brendan Ryan. The expression of ratings is what influence the game has over the outcome of any given situation. Its like that in the Show, NHL, NBA 2K, PYS, FIFA, Madden, UFC, Smackdown vs Raw, in any game where ratings are accounted how well an individual does in any given situation, the game has to have some influence over the outcome. Again, if its strictly user determined, then there is no need for ratings which means there is no way to differentiate between good players and bad.

Nicely put. The one thing that I would like to see different, however, would be to make a good a great pitcher good or great by location, break, speed, etc of pitches rather than using their ratings to determine what happens to the ball. What I mean is that if the same batter has the exact same timing and location against two different caliber pitchers, there will be a vast difference in the result. A perfect/meatball against Cliff Lee may result in a weak fly out whereas the same thing from a middle reliever would be a long jack. That is where ratings take a hit in the reality department. I would rather strike out all day long against Lee because he is painting the hell out of the corners than to hit pop ups and ground outs on pitches down the middle because Lee is rated highly.

As for the randomness of batting, anyone who has played baseball at any competitive level knows that 99% of the time the batter knows exactly where the ball will go as soon as he makes contact. I am at 50% or even less on this game. The physics just seem to be a little off. I have never had a ball come off of the top of my bat in real life and end up a ground out for a double play. I have also never popped up a pitch that was below my knees by swing over the top of it, not matter how early or late I was.

Even still, I would rather have the ratings play the effect they do than to have RBI baseball where anyone 1-9 can put up the same numbers. I like knowing that I am paying over $10 mil a season for that star batter or pitcher for a reason. There may be a lot of head scratching moments or frustration due to the mechanics of the game, but all in all you can't deny that it plays a pretty damn good game/franchise of baseball. The results are the most realistic I have personally ever seen in a baseball game.

[MLB01]

The ratings are there to keep the stats in line. I mean - they gotta keep the stats in line somehow or it won't be a simulation anymore.

[Heroesandvillains]

Quote: Originally Posted by swaldo

Wow, so basically I've been accused of implying comeback code and being a PYS fanboy but I didn't mention one word of either. This thread is neutral - the purpose being to find out what The Show can do to improve the game for 2011. All ideas and discussion should be welcome, and the fact is that I like the Show, care about it's future and want to make it known that I want more contol. If someone comes in and says "Hey, 2K does this right and should be implimented in The Show"' why put them down, attack them and call them liars? I will just leave quietly and report your posts. Whether you're Pro-Show or anti-Show, putting someone down who's just trying to add their input and have an open dialog is now considered a violation of forum rules.

Whoa whoa whoa...hang on a sec. I never said you meant comeback code. I meant that it sounded as if you were refering to something that you simply weren't saying. You're response to me cleared that up. I never meant to imply that comeback code was your theory. I was just wondering if that was what you meant. You said NO. I believe you.

Sorry Swaldo for any confusion. I probably didn't explain my post very well.

[swaldo]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Then why have ratings? Ratings have to account for something and my guess is that you're using that as the catapult for this "randomness" idea that you're chasing. If the sole purpose is to have the user's input dictate the outcomes of the action, then how are we to differentiate the difference between a good player and a poor player? -SNIPPET-

I don't know why you say I'm "chasing" a randomness theory when there's obviously some sort of dice roll going on under the hood (based on various ratings of the players involved etc.) You even confirmed that in your posts and is similiar to text based games - the only difference being you do have some control over the outcome.

Anyway, you can have more user control and still have ratings. It would go something like this.

Batters Vision rating: You're going to need to bring in something similiar to MVP's "Hitters Eye" system which turns the baseball different colors in the pitcher's hand and leaves a trail as the ball flies through the air toward the plate to aid in hitting. Good hitters would be able to see the colors longer than poor hitters - and some hitters won't be able to see it at all.

Batters Contact rating: This one is simple, you increase or decrease the size of the PCI to reflect their rating. For example pitchers (at bat) will have a tiny PCI while Ichiro types will have a large PCI.

Batters Power rating: This will be smaller than the contact PCI and will effect distance and trajectory.

Batter Discipline rating: This one is tough because the user is basically in contol of discipline. However, you could tie in check swings here. Good hitters would easily be able to check swing while poor hitters would rarely be able to pull it off. Check swings are best with fully loaded swing animations (ala MVP) that's why 2K initially didn't have CW's this year (because their swings are pre-loaded so it was tough to program in check swings.) So maybe you'd have fully loaded swing animations for good hitters who can easily check swing, and pre-loaded animations for poor hitters. Of course there are compications with this but I'm just throwing this out there as an idea.

Pitcher ratings: tweaking the fastball is the key since over 90% have that listed as thier #1 pitch in the game. Talk to baseball players and they'll tell you ace pitcher's fastballs "Are hard to see" or "Have extra pop" or "Have excellent or sinking movement." In The Show all fastballs look and act the same. So they need to make it harder to hit highly rated fastballs, so maybe make it so you can't see the ball out of the hand, or add some movement, or a little extra zip, or make the ball smaller thus harder to hit. Now do the opposite with poorly rated pitches and if you apply this concept to all pitch types you'll have a real challenge at the plate.

And good pitchers in general should be painting corners more often, while poor pitchers should be throwing more over the plate or lose control and issue walks. Meanwhile, stamina ratings could stay the same and you can throw out all those other ratings such as H/9, W/9, SO/9 etc.

If you throw in true bat/ball physics what you'll have is a system where the user is in control of his own destiny. Players will still have ratings and will perform as they do in real life without all the dice rolls. Yes this would entail a ton of tweaking and adjusting but it can be done.

[cardsleadtheway]

I was thinking this morning about the contact rating and how pointless it seems on this game. I remember MVP 05 had this system where a highly rated contact player had a bigger zone while swinging (there were these red and green balls on replay), thus equating to a better chance to make solid contact.

I disagree with you that all fastballs are the same on this game. I have had pitchers throwing in the high 90's that I was able to get around on and crush, while some pitchers with high ratings can throw in the mid 80's and still get me to swing late on it.

[swaldo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

Sorry, but replays don't accurately portray your point at all. We've been told time and time again that the replays can't show EXACTLY what happens (bat to ball) because of how they are done. Have you ever played online and seen a replay of a ball go at a batters head after he obviously made contact? Same concept. Believe what you will, but please stop using this as "evidence."

This quote is from Wikipedia regarding video compression:

"The only difference between one frame and another is the result of either the camera moving or an object in the frame moving. In reference to a video file, this means much of the information that represents one frame will be the same as the information used in the next frame."

So if you look at a static camera replay of a flat fastball morphing straight through a bat (which basically has a flat swing as it crosses the plate) I don't understand how this can be skewed? If you're looking at the full information every 4th frame you'd still see the ball on a collision course with the bat.

I'm not saying you or countryboy are wrong, but one thing I'd like to know is if the devs confirmed there is absolutely 100% no morphing in the game - or did they just say replay's are at times are inaccurate? I just have a gut feeling that if someone who's a videophile (I'm not) reduced the contact slider all the way down and recorded live action they'd find morphing. It's off topic anyway so we should probably save the whole thing for another day.

Quote: Originally Posted by heroesandvillians

Whoa whoa whoa...hang on a sec. I never said you meant comeback code. I meant that it sounded as if you were refering to something that you simply weren't saying. You're response to me cleared that up. I never meant to imply that comeback code was your theory. I was just wondering if that was what you meant. You said NO. I believe you. Sorry Swaldo for any confusion. I probably didn't explain my post very well.

No problem, I just wanted to make it clear to not imply that I was implying something else. Just read it for what it is, an agenda free post.