MLB 14 The Show Video and Developer Blog - Quick Counts and Player Lock

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

So Classic and Timing?!?! Those are used in Player vs Player "competitive" games. I assume you all have a problem with those control schemes entirely? My point is you can't use the "I dont want luck in my game!" argument because luck is a fundamental part of the game, both on a real field, and on a virtual one. Of course I think there should be filters and such, for people who don't want to play against QC users. But to suggest they be banned outright? That's very inconsistent reasoning.

If you looked at my previous posts I'm all for QC to be available for online. But I am still against it for ranked games as it shortens game times. That is unfair for the rankings I feel as people can exploit that and potentially double (or more) the number of wins over someone who doesn't use QC's.

I'm merely looking at it from someone else's perspective. The same people who don't want QC used in ranked games also don't want timing/classic used there as well.

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

If you looked at my previous posts I'm all for QC to be available for online. But I am still against it for ranked games as it shortens game times. That is unfair for the rankings I feel as people can exploit that and potentially double (or more) the number of wins over someone who doesn't use QC's. I'm merely looking at it from someone else's perspective. The same people who don't want QC used in ranked games also don't want timing/classic used there as well.

But they'd double the losses too. It wouldn't actually affect their ranking or win percentage.

[Curahee]

Quote from Lance:

Quote: Originally Posted by LanceL_86

It's all about options. Some people will enjoy QC while others will not. Chance and randomness will potentially be greater influences in the outcomes of games, but there's always an element of chance involved at a very basic level throughout the game of baseball. For me, I like the ability to play 2-3 games in the same time span that it would normally take to play 1 game. Further, if I only have ~20 minutes to spare, I can now squeeze in an online game, whereas in the past, that would have been impossible.

[cardinalbird5]

If I could have played 2,000+ games with a 96 winning pct then I'd be ranked higher.

[HustlinOwl]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

If I could have played 2,000+ games with a 96 winning pct then I'd be ranked higher.

Which equals more XP and new for 14 stubs towards DD budget

Sent from my LG-L40G using Tapatalk

[Qb]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into things, but how did using quick counts become associated with lacking skill/patience/discipline as it relates to playing The Show? Seems to me it's almost entirely about lacking time (or wanting to play more games in the same time).

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

If I could have played 2,000+ games with a 96 winning pct then I'd be ranked higher.

Are you implying you already have a 96% now?

Quote: Originally Posted by HustlinOwl

Which equals more XP and new for 14 stubs towards DD budget Sent from my LG-L40G using Tapatalk

Oh wow you're right. I'm sure no one at SCEA thought of that while creating this feature. This is new and compelling information that needs to be relayed as soon as possible.

Now tell me more about how it's a problem if you let people bunt with 2 strikes, without penalty.

[HustlinOwl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

Oh wow you're right. I'm sure no one at SCEA thought of that while creating this feature. This is new and compelling information that needs to be relayed as soon as possible. Now tell me more about how it's a problem if you let people bunt with 2 strikes, without penalty.

considering they knew nothing about several inner workings in online leagues/DD Im holding out hope