MLB The Show 16 Twitch Stream - Gameplay and Animation (Archive Available)

[LastActionHero]

Whatsup fellow Dutchies! Good to see more "landgenoten" present on OS.

I believe during the last Haarlemse Honkbalweek (international baseball tournament over here) there was a booth where you could play The Show. Saw lots of kids playing it so there are definitely souls to win over here

[bukktown]

Quote: Originally Posted by LastActionHero

Whatsup fellow Dutchies! Good to see more "landgenoten" present on OS. I believe during the last Haarlemse Honkbalweek (international baseball tournament over here) there was a booth where you could play The Show. Saw lots of kids playing it so there are definitely souls to win over here

Please tell me the direct translation of baseball is "honkball"!!!

[LastActionHero]

Quote: Originally Posted by bukktown

Please tell me the direct translation of baseball is "honkball"!!!

Yup that's it

[CMH]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA

If affects humans in the way that a bad fielder will take an initial bad step or bad angle before you are given control over him. Then it's on you to make the adjustments needed.

Thanks for this information. I guess I'm still confused.

Only trying to understand the goal or the fix. Or is it not actually a fix and instead a way to garner more realistic results by essentially breaking the game?

Because this is how I'm seeing it and I'm assuming I'm wrong and don't understand.

If players were accomplishing their goal of getting to the ball quickly, realistic routes mean they are purposely being programmed to no longer do that so we can have more extra base hits.

But shouldn't the problem have been that we had too many doubles and realistic routes were created to "teach" gamers how to field the ball more appropriately so doubles decreased?

For example, if the game had too many home runs, a similar approach would be to make batters purposely miss. However, the game isn't programmed that way, or is it? It's programmed to include better bat to ball physics, a more detailed swing window for better variety, etc so there are less home runs.

Wouldn't the fielding fix be to improve ball physics so there are more variety in caroms, better speed of the ball off the bat, weird bounces off the grass so that the most direct route isn't always the best route. Taking a wider turn would then give you a better fielding radius to play the ball.

I don't know. Again, trying to understand.

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by CMH

Thanks for this information. I guess I'm still confused. Only trying to understand the goal or the fix. Or is it not actually a fix and instead a way to garner more realistic results by essentially breaking the game? Because this is how I'm seeing it and I'm assuming I'm wrong and don't understand. If players were accomplishing their goal of getting to the ball quickly, realistic routes mean they are purposely being programmed to no longer do that so we can have more extra base hits. But shouldn't the problem have been that we had too many doubles and realistic routes were created to "teach" gamers how to field the ball more appropriately so doubles decreased? For example, if the game had too many home runs, a similar approach would be to make batters purposely miss. However, the game isn't programmed that way, or is it? It's programmed to include better bat to ball physics, a more detailed swing window for better variety, etc so there are less home runs. Wouldn't the fielding fix be to improve ball physics so there are more variety in caroms, better speed of the ball off the bat, weird bounces off the grass so that the most direct route isn't always the best route. Taking a wider turn would then give you a better fielding radius to play the ball. I don't know. Again, trying to understand.

I would agree with you, but I hope they aren't making "worse" routes, I hope they're making better ones... and by doing so they are also more realistic.

A prime example is of balls hit down the line. Consider two different routes. One route will be the corner outfielder going in a straight line toward the ball, and another route will be an outfielder creating a deep angle to get behind the ball (courtesy of Paint).





If they are going by this second route, I'm okay with it. I recognize that they are technically "breaking" something in the game's current system, because until they create a momentum system of sorts (or animations that work against you for fielding the ball away from an intended throwing target), there is nothing wrong with going straight at a ball.

I have plenty of momentum system ideas, but am too busy to ever provide the art for it and I don't know how easy it is to make happen in-game. Regardless, at the very least, if they're creating the proper route now, at least this will be reserved for later when it comes to them creating such a system.

If they're talking about creating wrong routes on things like caroms, I'm hopeful for that as well. Too many times I see them standing away from the ball's flight path, and I'll go, "Now I wonder why they are standing there?" It's because they already knew where it was going to bank off the ball, what angle it was going to be at, etc. If some more aggressive outfielders play the flight then have to redirect because of the way it was hit, I would be in favor of that for sure.

But I thought they were talking more about the images I was referring to. Maybe it's just both.

[NEOPARADIGM]

I guess they're just never going to update the classic catcher's masks, huh?

I think this might be the 5th year a row I've made this post.



vs.



What is with that tan padding? When was the last time you saw a mask like that? Why are they STILL not color-coordinated with the uniform? Nobody wears that mask.



And yes, I'm aware of masks that look like this:



But that isn't what's being represented either.

You can select specific colors for six different parts of a batting glove, but you get one classic catcher's mask, and it's tan and tan only. I just don't get it. Year after year after year.

[thaSLAB]

Pre-order cancelled.

Spoiler

Anyway, do we know for certain this is the same this year? And technically, those real life examples are branded masks. MLBTS has been careful not to add anything that looks close to a branded product.

Sent from my HTC One [M8] Marshmallow 6.0 | Tapatalk

[CMH]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

I would agree with you, but I hope they aren't making "worse" routes, I hope they're making better ones... and by doing so they are also more realistic. A prime example is of balls hit down the line. Consider two different routes. One route will be the corner outfielder going in a straight line toward the ball, and another route will be an outfielder creating a deep angle to get behind the ball (courtesy of Paint). If they are going by this second route, I'm okay with it. I recognize that they are technically "breaking" something in the game's current system, because until they create a momentum system of sorts (or animations that work against you for fielding the ball away from an intended throwing target), there is nothing wrong with going straight at a ball. I have plenty of momentum system ideas, but am too busy to ever provide the art for it and I don't know how easy it is to make happen in-game. Regardless, at the very least, if they're creating the proper route now, at least this will be reserved for later when it comes to them creating such a system. If they're talking about creating wrong routes on things like caroms, I'm hopeful for that as well. Too many times I see them standing away from the ball's flight path, and I'll go, "Now I wonder why they are standing there?" It's because they already knew where it was going to bank off the ball, what angle it was going to be at, etc. If some more aggressive outfielders play the flight then have to redirect because of the way it was hit, I would be in favor of that for sure. But I thought they were talking more about the images I was referring to. Maybe it's just both.

We are on the same page in everything you wrote.

Regarding your last sentence, I think they are one in the same.

If better routes is a band aid (assuming it's being done for the reason I think it's being done) I'm okay with it so long as the end result is better ball to ground/air resistance, momentum, physics, etc.

I would like to see that ball down the line consistently get to the wall so that either route isn't the complete answer. The gamer that takes a direct line will see the ball zip by. And the one that takes the rounded route will need to take in things like the fielder's reaction time, acceleration, recovery, ability to play the ball off a hop (not bobble, drop), all the things that turn a triple into a double or a double into a single or vice versa if a poor fielder.