Take input into account

I really hope the new game comes as advertised. Really take input into account. It is really hard to fight against a human players and the cpu at the same time. Really tired of losing games to poor input players all year. Still managed to have good record but, wow. Rewarding bad discipline, bad timing and bad input overall is a joke.

Hope you fix this in 20 and please, listen to your community. There’s no better feedback than us.

I really wish for some competition on the market for mlb the show.

@TeamPotro said in Take input into account:

I really hope the new game comes as advertised. Really take input into account. It is really hard to fight against a human players and the cpu at the same time. Really tired of losing games to poor input players all year. Still managed to have good record but, wow. Rewarding bad discipline, bad timing and bad input overall is a joke.

Hope you fix this in 20 and please, listen to your community. There’s no better feedback than us.

I really wish for some competition on the market for mlb the show.

They rewarded good input far more then bad input. Yes, it is clearly there and we have all lost games to it but ya can’t act like good input didn’t matter. Furthermore, i do hope 20 brings a bigger emphasis on user input but attributes still have to play a role. Like 50/50 role.

@cvogsfashow said in Take input into account:

@TeamPotro said in Take input into account:

I really hope the new game comes as advertised. Really take input into account. It is really hard to fight against a human players and the cpu at the same time. Really tired of losing games to poor input players all year. Still managed to have good record but, wow. Rewarding bad discipline, bad timing and bad input overall is a joke.

Hope you fix this in 20 and please, listen to your community. There’s no better feedback than us.

I really wish for some competition on the market for mlb the show.

They rewarded good input far more then bad input. Yes, it is clearly there and we have all lost games to it but ya can’t act like good input didn’t matter. Furthermore, i do hope 20 brings a bigger emphasis on user input but attributes still have to play a role. Like 50/50 role.

Input should be more important than 50/50. Imo good input should be rewarded consistently even with bad cards, but it should be so hard to achieve good input that it’s difficult to get rewarded. Make ratings matter for the ease to obtain good input, but make good input very rewarding regardless. That’s my take on it

I don’t understand. Do you mean it should be difficult for your pitcher to hit his spots?

@mitchhammond24 said in Take input into account:

Input should be more important than 50/50. Imo good input should be rewarded consistently even with bad cards, but it should be so hard to achieve good input that it’s difficult to get rewarded. Make ratings matter for the ease to obtain good input, but make good input very rewarding regardless. That’s my take on it

I'm not adding value by saying this is exactly how it should be. However, I can add value from a design and development perspective.

The problem is how to change the difficulty between a pitcher who has a very high 'rating' (after all the factors are taken into account: game difficulty, user input, pitcher's control rating, confidence, remaining stamina, quirks, whatever other ones there are - you get the idea) and a pitcher who has a high rating and how to squeeze that difference into the small amount of visual space and time available when inputting a pitch (Steve Gill I think it was nailed it when he said in the fielding stream that there's limited number of pixels in the fielding meter to be able to stop the meter on). Thumbstick pitching is the only input method that comes close to allowing that level of differentiation.

What can you do to make the others pitching interfaces harder? Speed definitely. Size of meter or pulse? Size of green area in meter? A good idea would be to use a gradient for the meter, instead of a 'green section', where there is a perfect, and the further away from perfect the button is hit the less perfect the throw is.

Lastly, add to the actual attributes and real factors mentioned above, the psychological impact on the user playing the game when they constantly get losses and the overall impact that has on whether they keep playing the game and the impact on revenue etc - ie the factors that really shouldn't have anything to do with the gameplay that are now considered when developing sports games.

@Red_Ted_is_back said in Take input into account:

The problem is how to change the difficulty between a pitcher who has a very high 'rating' (after all the factors are taken into account: game difficulty, user input, pitcher's control rating, confidence, remaining stamina, quirks, whatever other ones there are - you get the idea) and a pitcher who has a high rating and how to squeeze that difference into the small amount of visual space and time available when inputting a pitch (Steve Gill I think it was nailed it when he said in the fielding stream that there's limited number of pixels in the fielding meter to be able to stop the meter on). Thumbstick pitching is the only input method that comes close to allowing that level of differentiation.

These are very valid points that aren't brought up often.

The fact that there are so many different input options clearly creates significant issues. From a competitive perspective it would be best if pure analog was the only available pitching option and zone hitting the only available batting option. However, we know that that is not going to happen.

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@Red_Ted_is_back said in Take input into account:

The problem is how to change the difficulty between a pitcher who has a very high 'rating' (after all the factors are taken into account: game difficulty, user input, pitcher's control rating, confidence, remaining stamina, quirks, whatever other ones there are - you get the idea) and a pitcher who has a high rating and how to squeeze that difference into the small amount of visual space and time available when inputting a pitch (Steve Gill I think it was nailed it when he said in the fielding stream that there's limited number of pixels in the fielding meter to be able to stop the meter on). Thumbstick pitching is the only input method that comes close to allowing that level of differentiation.

These are very valid points that aren't brought up often.

The fact that there are so many different input options clearly creates significant issues. From a competitive perspective it would be best if pure analog was the only available pitching option and zone hitting the only available batting option. However, we know that that is not going to happen.

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

I respectfully disagree. Pure analog enables a much wider skill gap in terms of competitive play. Individual player attributes should, IMO and specifically with respect to pitching, only determine how difficult a perfect input is to achieve (and of course pitch velocity and break).

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

I respectfully disagree. Pure analog enables a much wider skill gap in terms of competitive play. Individual player attributes should, IMO and specifically with respect to pitching, only determine how difficult a perfect input is to achieve (and of course pitch velocity and break).

From a competitive standpoint, that eliminates a lot of options of what to look for in a pitcher. IMO skill gap in pitching should be more about sequence than specifically dotting than it is now. The main problem I have with The Show online in general is that too many people have the same approach on every at bat (whether pitching or hitting) and not enough caring about what type or where to expect the next pitch on the hitting side or thinking about what type of batter you are facing and situation on the pitching side.

Based on a lot of current thought (and your version of what the game should be geared towards), Greg Maddux, despite being a GOAT pitcher, is not somebody a "top player" can use because he didn't throw 100, his skill was in control and keeping hitters off balance. According to both of us, the later is something that is up to the user and according to you, that would be something a person with good "user input" can do with any pitcher and so therefore he would be automatically worse than, let's say, Nolan Ryan, a fireballer who somebody with good user input could completely override his lack of control.

This is a video game. As such, as with all great video games, you should be looking at as many attributes as possible when choosing what type of player to use. not just a few. Skill is not just about what you do "on the sticks" but also the strategy of why you chose the player you are pitching with in the first place.

It's the same thing with HR/9. We had a chance to have a game where you might choose a reliever based on game situation (I'm up by 3 so I'd rather have high H/9 than HR/9 and up by 1 I might want vis versa). Instead, instead of balancing HR/9 so it was less OP, it was just taken out of the game. This eliminated that aspect of strategy and made the game less competitive because now the choice was clear of which RP to choose or be in the pen at all. The game became "easier"/there was less of a skill gap.

For all of you complaining about input *me included * I am sorry to tell you that little Billy and all his friends pre-order The Show 20 and they are boycotting if they can't win. We are the minority and they represent the mass out there that's why this game will always have flaws build in, I've been playing this garbage since it came out on PS3 on 2008 I believe and every year is the same.

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

I respectfully disagree. Pure analog enables a much wider skill gap in terms of competitive play. Individual player attributes should, IMO and specifically with respect to pitching, only determine how difficult a perfect input is to achieve (and of course pitch velocity and break).

From a competitive standpoint, that eliminates a lot of options of what to look for in a pitcher. IMO skill gap in pitching should be more about sequence than specifically dotting than it is now. The main problem I have with The Show online in general is that too many people have the same approach on every at bat (whether pitching or hitting) and not enough caring about what type or where to expect the next pitch on the hitting side or thinking about what type of batter you are facing and situation on the pitching side.

Based on a lot of current thought (and your version of what the game should be geared towards), Greg Maddux, despite being a GOAT pitcher, is not somebody a "top player" can use because he didn't throw 100, his skill was in control and keeping hitters off balance. According to both of us, the later is something that is up to the user and according to you, that would be something a person with good "user input" can do with any pitcher and so therefore he would be automatically worse than, let's say, Nolan Ryan, a fireballer who somebody with good user input could completely override his lack of control.

This is a video game. As such, as with all great video games, you should be looking at as many attributes as possible when choosing what type of player to use. not just a few. Skill is not just about what you do "on the sticks" but also the strategy of why you chose the player you are pitching with in the first place.

It's the same thing with HR/9. We had a chance to have a game where you might choose a reliever based on game situation (I'm up by 3 so I'd rather have high H/9 than HR/9 and up by 1 I might want vis versa). Instead, instead of balancing HR/9 so it was less OP, it was just taken out of the game. This eliminated that aspect of strategy and made the game less competitive because now the choice was clear of which RP to choose or be in the pen at all. The game became "easier"/there was less of a skill gap.

Against good players someone having a overpowering fastball is irrelevant, you need players with good break more so than an overpowering fastball, every good player can hit a 100mph fastball.

Saying that pulse and it’s heavy reliance on simulation factors is the most competitive interface is just wrong

Why do you think Sergio Romo is so effective?

@skepple15 said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

I respectfully disagree. Pure analog enables a much wider skill gap in terms of competitive play. Individual player attributes should, IMO and specifically with respect to pitching, only determine how difficult a perfect input is to achieve (and of course pitch velocity and break).

From a competitive standpoint, that eliminates a lot of options of what to look for in a pitcher. IMO skill gap in pitching should be more about sequence than specifically dotting than it is now. The main problem I have with The Show online in general is that too many people have the same approach on every at bat (whether pitching or hitting) and not enough caring about what type or where to expect the next pitch on the hitting side or thinking about what type of batter you are facing and situation on the pitching side.

Based on a lot of current thought (and your version of what the game should be geared towards), Greg Maddux, despite being a GOAT pitcher, is not somebody a "top player" can use because he didn't throw 100, his skill was in control and keeping hitters off balance. According to both of us, the later is something that is up to the user and according to you, that would be something a person with good "user input" can do with any pitcher and so therefore he would be automatically worse than, let's say, Nolan Ryan, a fireballer who somebody with good user input could completely override his lack of control.

This is a video game. As such, as with all great video games, you should be looking at as many attributes as possible when choosing what type of player to use. not just a few. Skill is not just about what you do "on the sticks" but also the strategy of why you chose the player you are pitching with in the first place.

It's the same thing with HR/9. We had a chance to have a game where you might choose a reliever based on game situation (I'm up by 3 so I'd rather have high H/9 than HR/9 and up by 1 I might want vis versa). Instead, instead of balancing HR/9 so it was less OP, it was just taken out of the game. This eliminated that aspect of strategy and made the game less competitive because now the choice was clear of which RP to choose or be in the pen at all. The game became "easier"/there was less of a skill gap.

Against good players someone having a overpowering fastball is irrelevant, you need players with good break more so than an overpowering fastball, every good player can hit a 100mph fastball.

Saying that pulse and it’s heavy reliance on simulation factors is the most competitive interface is just wrong

But then you're talking about break, once again not Greg Maddux's strong suit. Anything that eliminates an attribute's effectiveness eliminates skill gap in that strategic aspect.

Yes, simulation factors is part of competitive gameplay. It's like the fielding stream we just had. It's going to be a simulation factor that determines if the "extreme catch indicator" gives you the catch or doesn't if you decide to go for the catch. It is up to you to pick players that are more likely to give you that catch and/or decide to play more conservatively rather than take that chance based on the game situation. These are all part of competitive gameplay.

@skepple15 said in Take input into account:

Why do you think Sergio Romo is so effective?

not to mention wainwright that tops out around 95 and also hershiser has been effective all year
for me also. great movement and speed differentials.

@Rusty-_-Rod said in Take input into account:

For all of you complaining about input *me included * I am sorry to tell you that little Billy and all his friends pre-order The Show 20 and they are boycotting if they can't win. We are the minority and they represent the mass out there that's why this game will always have flaws build in, I've been playing this garbage since it came out on PS3 on 2008 I believe and every year is the same.

Not intending to be rude but 12 years is a lot of time gone to waste to be playing a game that is garbage. Surely you gleaned some enjoyment from it to keep coming back?

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

@skepple15 said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

I respectfully disagree. Pure analog enables a much wider skill gap in terms of competitive play. Individual player attributes should, IMO and specifically with respect to pitching, only determine how difficult a perfect input is to achieve (and of course pitch velocity and break).

From a competitive standpoint, that eliminates a lot of options of what to look for in a pitcher. IMO skill gap in pitching should be more about sequence than specifically dotting than it is now. The main problem I have with The Show online in general is that too many people have the same approach on every at bat (whether pitching or hitting) and not enough caring about what type or where to expect the next pitch on the hitting side or thinking about what type of batter you are facing and situation on the pitching side.

Based on a lot of current thought (and your version of what the game should be geared towards), Greg Maddux, despite being a GOAT pitcher, is not somebody a "top player" can use because he didn't throw 100, his skill was in control and keeping hitters off balance. According to both of us, the later is something that is up to the user and according to you, that would be something a person with good "user input" can do with any pitcher and so therefore he would be automatically worse than, let's say, Nolan Ryan, a fireballer who somebody with good user input could completely override his lack of control.

This is a video game. As such, as with all great video games, you should be looking at as many attributes as possible when choosing what type of player to use. not just a few. Skill is not just about what you do "on the sticks" but also the strategy of why you chose the player you are pitching with in the first place.

It's the same thing with HR/9. We had a chance to have a game where you might choose a reliever based on game situation (I'm up by 3 so I'd rather have high H/9 than HR/9 and up by 1 I might want vis versa). Instead, instead of balancing HR/9 so it was less OP, it was just taken out of the game. This eliminated that aspect of strategy and made the game less competitive because now the choice was clear of which RP to choose or be in the pen at all. The game became "easier"/there was less of a skill gap.

Against good players someone having a overpowering fastball is irrelevant, you need players with good break more so than an overpowering fastball, every good player can hit a 100mph fastball.

Saying that pulse and it’s heavy reliance on simulation factors is the most competitive interface is just wrong

But then you're talking about break, once again not Greg Maddux's strong suit. Anything that eliminates an attribute's effectiveness eliminates skill gap in that strategic aspect.

Yes, simulation factors is part of competitive gameplay. It's like the fielding stream we just had. It's going to be a simulation factor that determines if the "extreme catch indicator" gives you the catch or doesn't if you decide to go for the catch. It is up to you to pick players that are more likely to give you that catch and/or decide to play more conservatively rather than take that chance based on the game situation. These are all part of competitive gameplay.

Simulation factors are not part of competitive gameplay but the exact opposite. In fact, the more arcade the gameplay is, the more competitive it is as that is how you create a skill gap.

The more simulation/rng the more you take factors out of the users' hands. This creates more randomness, which works to level the playing field.

Clearly, on this specific question we are not going to see eye-to-eye.

@Ryan_2713 said in Take input into account:

@skepple15 said in Take input into account:

Why do you think Sergio Romo is so effective?

not to mention wainwright that tops out around 95 and also hershiser has been effective all year
for me also. great movement and speed differentials.

They are good because of their speed differentials and how the card plays, not because of their control. Ryan would be better with his differentials and top speed but right now the game makes his control a problem. Not due to how easy/hard it is to hit the meter but because his pitches just don't go where you want them to. Some want to take that out of the game and allow "user input" to override attributes completely.

You guys are also bringing up the other problem with the game right now. The fact that there are "glitch cards" that are OP and play above their attributes. This is more of a problem with hitters with "glitch swings" or other hitters that have swings that aren't as good.

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

@skepple15 said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

@SefarR said in Take input into account:

@ag1982 said in Take input into account:

From a competitive perspective, the best pitching option would be pulse. That is an option that takes player attributes as well as user input into account and doesn't use things like windup as any kind of factor. It also is a format that you can tell a real difference when the pitcher gets tired.

I respectfully disagree. Pure analog enables a much wider skill gap in terms of competitive play. Individual player attributes should, IMO and specifically with respect to pitching, only determine how difficult a perfect input is to achieve (and of course pitch velocity and break).

From a competitive standpoint, that eliminates a lot of options of what to look for in a pitcher. IMO skill gap in pitching should be more about sequence than specifically dotting than it is now. The main problem I have with The Show online in general is that too many people have the same approach on every at bat (whether pitching or hitting) and not enough caring about what type or where to expect the next pitch on the hitting side or thinking about what type of batter you are facing and situation on the pitching side.

Based on a lot of current thought (and your version of what the game should be geared towards), Greg Maddux, despite being a GOAT pitcher, is not somebody a "top player" can use because he didn't throw 100, his skill was in control and keeping hitters off balance. According to both of us, the later is something that is up to the user and according to you, that would be something a person with good "user input" can do with any pitcher and so therefore he would be automatically worse than, let's say, Nolan Ryan, a fireballer who somebody with good user input could completely override his lack of control.

This is a video game. As such, as with all great video games, you should be looking at as many attributes as possible when choosing what type of player to use. not just a few. Skill is not just about what you do "on the sticks" but also the strategy of why you chose the player you are pitching with in the first place.

It's the same thing with HR/9. We had a chance to have a game where you might choose a reliever based on game situation (I'm up by 3 so I'd rather have high H/9 than HR/9 and up by 1 I might want vis versa). Instead, instead of balancing HR/9 so it was less OP, it was just taken out of the game. This eliminated that aspect of strategy and made the game less competitive because now the choice was clear of which RP to choose or be in the pen at all. The game became "easier"/there was less of a skill gap.

Against good players someone having a overpowering fastball is irrelevant, you need players with good break more so than an overpowering fastball, every good player can hit a 100mph fastball.

Saying that pulse and it’s heavy reliance on simulation factors is the most competitive interface is just wrong

But then you're talking about break, once again not Greg Maddux's strong suit. Anything that eliminates an attribute's effectiveness eliminates skill gap in that strategic aspect.

Yes, simulation factors is part of competitive gameplay. It's like the fielding stream we just had. It's going to be a simulation factor that determines if the "extreme catch indicator" gives you the catch or doesn't if you decide to go for the catch. It is up to you to pick players that are more likely to give you that catch and/or decide to play more conservatively rather than take that chance based on the game situation. These are all part of competitive gameplay.

Simulation factors are not part of competitive gameplay but the exact opposite. In fact, the more arcade the gameplay is, the more competitive it is as that is how you create a skill gap.

The more simulation/rng the more you take factors out of the users' hands. This creates more randomness, which works to level the playing field.

Clearly, on this specific question we are not going to see eye-to-eye.

How is choosing a which player to use based on their attributes not part of competitive gameplay? It's strategy 101! There are many competitive strategy games and strategy is an important and essential aspect of sports games. The better strategy you have, the more you put yourself in a greater position to win. Skill gap is more than just user input on the field but also using players that will give you the most likely ideal outcomes when it comes to simulation factors.

One of the big problems of this game is the fact that you can be good at it without knowing anything about baseball. It's like those people that complain about auto shifts. You don't want as many shifts? Stop using so many pull hitters!

@mitchhammond24 said in Take input into account:

@cvogsfashow said in Take input into account:

@TeamPotro said in Take input into account:

I really hope the new game comes as advertised. Really take input into account. It is really hard to fight against a human players and the cpu at the same time. Really tired of losing games to poor input players all year. Still managed to have good record but, wow. Rewarding bad discipline, bad timing and bad input overall is a joke.

Hope you fix this in 20 and please, listen to your community. There’s no better feedback than us.

I really wish for some competition on the market for mlb the show.

They rewarded good input far more then bad input. Yes, it is clearly there and we have all lost games to it but ya can’t act like good input didn’t matter. Furthermore, i do hope 20 brings a bigger emphasis on user input but attributes still have to play a role. Like 50/50 role.

Input should be more important than 50/50. Imo good input should be rewarded consistently even with bad cards, but it should be so hard to achieve good input that it’s difficult to get rewarded. Make ratings matter for the ease to obtain good input, but make good input very rewarding regardless. That’s my take on it

110% agree.

@Red_Ted_is_back said in Take input into account:

@Rusty-_-Rod said in Take input into account:

For all of you complaining about input *me included * I am sorry to tell you that little Billy and all his friends pre-order The Show 20 and they are boycotting if they can't win. We are the minority and they represent the mass out there that's why this game will always have flaws build in, I've been playing this garbage since it came out on PS3 on 2008 I believe and every year is the same.

Not intending to be rude but 12 years is a lot of time gone to waste to be playing a game that is garbage. Surely you gleaned some enjoyment from it to keep coming back?

Sure, I play franchise against the cpu when bored. Against the cpu the game is almost perfect but online is a different thing. When people complain about this game is mainly online gameplay.

Log in to reply