Can someone explain pitching to me
-
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
So you're saying they broke it intentionally. Bold strategy Cotton. What I'm suggesting is that they have no idea what the right amount of rng is for this particular part of the game, so it seems altogether random in its outcomes because of that.
No, if it were broken it wouldn’t work as intended. I was responding to your opening sentence about the devs not being able to explain pitching which I disagree with. I should have edited the rest out because it wasn’t relevant to my reply. My apologies.
I honestly don't think they could in a way that would satisfy the laymen.
The problem with the entire game is that they are trying match it up with realistic stats, but this not real life, this is a game where user input should matter more than actual rng.
Pitching is simply a mathematical roll of the dice as it stands, as is hitting.
If I wanted a casino game, that's where I'd go.
I have no beef with you at all, but if they have indeed programmed it this way, they have intentionally broken it (layman's term) to take out the human input factor, or at least lessen it.
Either way, it's all broken and not very satisfying the way it plays now.
-
@onnagood1 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@seannydrama7 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@onnagood1 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@dark_Jsaac said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
How does a perfect release go down the middle 6 times in one game
How incompetent can creators be for this to happen? 6 times in one game!!!
This game is garbage.
Then go play COD...the hell are you all still moping around here if you hate it so much?
Oh tough guy, that's not so tough LMAO. Scrub.
You’re right - crying about something in an online video game forum that A) you have no ability to change but B) could absolutely avoid if you wanted to...THAT’S where it’s at.
Keep up the good work, hardo!
-
It would be nice if SDS implemented a PCI like on screen display for pitchers that would change in size depending on the control/ break/ pitcher confidence of the individual pitches. small green circle for perfect pitch inputs, larger yellow area for good and massive red area for bad so that we would have a better understanding of the possibilities of where a given pitch will end up base on our inputs.
It would also be nice if the attributes affected the input, bad control should mean a sporadic or jumpy meter which would make it more difficult to execute, smoother and bigger targets for higher control pitches.
-
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
So you're saying they broke it intentionally. Bold strategy Cotton. What I'm suggesting is that they have no idea what the right amount of rng is for this particular part of the game, so it seems altogether random in its outcomes because of that.
No, if it were broken it wouldn’t work as intended. I was responding to your opening sentence about the devs not being able to explain pitching which I disagree with. I should have edited the rest out because it wasn’t relevant to my reply. My apologies.
I honestly don't think they could in a way that would satisfy the laymen.
The problem with the entire game is that they are trying match it up with realistic stats, but this not real life, this is a game where user input should matter more than actual rng.
Pitching is simply a mathematical roll of the dice as it stands, as is hitting.
If I wanted a casino game, that's where I'd go.
I have no beef with you at all, but if they have indeed programmed it this way, they have intentionally broken it (layman's term) to take out the human input factor, or at least lessen it.
Either way, it's all broken and not very satisfying the way it plays now.
I agree with you for the most part. Not with the use of the word broken, but I’m old and a programmer so I’ll never bend on that one
Your second sentence is the most agreeable part. It’s a difficult balance to get right because the slider^ for more user input vs more simulation (which is mathematical) is unfortunately a different slider to the conceptual slider for more fun vs less fun (which is subjective). My assumption is that the majority of players (casual) are either ok with or simply don’t notice the influence of simulation.
I have another theory also in that pure input may not be as fun as we think it is, and another one that pure input simply isn’t viable due to some players being simply too good, and others being simply too bad.
^ this slider may not actually exist, but if I were making a game like this I’d put it in there even if I didn’t intend to use it and set its value to 1. I’m using the word ‘slider’ as a visual aid, in the code it would simply be a variable.
-
Lol it’s not broken...it’s designed exactly how they want it to work. The developers want directional to be a viable user input online.
Pitches floating down the middle are so directional guys can get pitches to hit.
Why do you think 95% of all pitches that hit the edge are balls? Same reason.
If pure analogue always put pitches where you wanted it, directional hitters would hit sub .100 and SDS would lose a lot of their online players.
-
@soreal35 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
Lol it’s not broken...it’s designed exactly how they want it to work. The developers want directional to be a viable user input online.
Pitches floating down the middle are so directional guys can get pitches to hit.
Why do you think 95% of all pitches that hit the edge are balls? Same reason.
If pure analogue always put pitches where you wanted it, directional hitters would hit sub .100 and SDS would lose a lot of their online players.
Perhaps that’s the answer, stream online players based on their hitting interface.
Button pitching vs button hitting
pulse pitching vs directional hitting
Meter pitching vs zone hitting
Analog pitching vs analog hittingI know this could force some to use an unwanted interface however if that’s the compromise to make analog more input-based so be it.
-
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
So you're saying they broke it intentionally. Bold strategy Cotton. What I'm suggesting is that they have no idea what the right amount of rng is for this particular part of the game, so it seems altogether random in its outcomes because of that.
No, if it were broken it wouldn’t work as intended. I was responding to your opening sentence about the devs not being able to explain pitching which I disagree with. I should have edited the rest out because it wasn’t relevant to my reply. My apologies.
I honestly don't think they could in a way that would satisfy the laymen.
The problem with the entire game is that they are trying match it up with realistic stats, but this not real life, this is a game where user input should matter more than actual rng.
Pitching is simply a mathematical roll of the dice as it stands, as is hitting.
If I wanted a casino game, that's where I'd go.
I have no beef with you at all, but if they have indeed programmed it this way, they have intentionally broken it (layman's term) to take out the human input factor, or at least lessen it.
Either way, it's all broken and not very satisfying the way it plays now.
I agree with you for the most part. Not with the use of the word broken, but I’m old and a programmer so I’ll never bend on that one
Your second sentence is the most agreeable part. It’s a difficult balance to get right because the slider^ for more user input vs more simulation (which is mathematical) is unfortunately a different slider to the conceptual slider for more fun vs less fun (which is subjective). My assumption is that the majority of players (casual) are either ok with or simply don’t notice the influence of simulation.
I have another theory also in that pure input may not be as fun as we think it is, and another one that pure input simply isn’t viable due to some players being simply too good, and others being simply too bad.
^ this slider may not actually exist, but if I were making a game like this I’d put it in there even if I didn’t intend to use it and set its value to 1. I’m using the word ‘slider’ as a visual aid, in the code it would simply be a variable.
Good post, but the part where I get lost is users who are too good or too bad. In an online format, wouldn’t that essentially create better matchups overall?
More similarly skilled players would be playing against each other more often. There would be balanced matchups that naturally occur without having code determine how to balance the game.
There are too many input types in this game online. Some that require controller skills and some that are just the touch of a button. This seems to be a hell of a problem when it comes to coding a game.
To me they should create online leagues based on input style. Simulation (directional, classic pitching, etc) and Hardcore (zone, pure analogue pitching, etc. Level the playing when it comes to input. Define the playing experience and make both groups happy.
-
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@soreal35 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
Lol it’s not broken...it’s designed exactly how they want it to work. The developers want directional to be a viable user input online.
Pitches floating down the middle are so directional guys can get pitches to hit.
Why do you think 95% of all pitches that hit the edge are balls? Same reason.
If pure analogue always put pitches where you wanted it, directional hitters would hit sub .100 and SDS would lose a lot of their online players.
Perhaps that’s the answer, stream online players based on their hitting interface.
Button pitching vs button hitting
pulse pitching vs directional hitting
Meter pitching vs zone hitting
Analog pitching vs analog hittingI know this could force some to use an unwanted interface however if that’s the compromise to make analog more input-based so be it.
Yup. Level the playing field with user input. Too much going on under the hood when you get all inputs funneled into one experience.
-
Maddux balls goes exactly where you throw them so I stick with him over any other pitcher
-
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@PAinPA said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
Until it decides it doesn't need us and we get thrust into a real life terminator movie.
I was thinking I, Robot but then I realised that would be incorrect because those robots were behaving exactly as they were programmed to. As Cromwell said, ‘the three laws are perfect’.
I’ve not seen beyond T2, now I want to watch the rest. I’ve heard some bad reviews, but you can’t possibly compare them to the first two and not have exceedingly high expectations. If you’ve seen any of the others, would you recommend them? Thanks
Salvation was good, 3 was ok bordering on good, liked the action of genesis but not the plot, and dark fate was about 3/4 of good as T2, which makes it the 2nd best in the series- had the feel of 2, almost as good,but 2 was magical
-
@soreal35 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
So you're saying they broke it intentionally. Bold strategy Cotton. What I'm suggesting is that they have no idea what the right amount of rng is for this particular part of the game, so it seems altogether random in its outcomes because of that.
No, if it were broken it wouldn’t work as intended. I was responding to your opening sentence about the devs not being able to explain pitching which I disagree with. I should have edited the rest out because it wasn’t relevant to my reply. My apologies.
I honestly don't think they could in a way that would satisfy the laymen.
The problem with the entire game is that they are trying match it up with realistic stats, but this not real life, this is a game where user input should matter more than actual rng.
Pitching is simply a mathematical roll of the dice as it stands, as is hitting.
If I wanted a casino game, that's where I'd go.
I have no beef with you at all, but if they have indeed programmed it this way, they have intentionally broken it (layman's term) to take out the human input factor, or at least lessen it.
Either way, it's all broken and not very satisfying the way it plays now.
I agree with you for the most part. Not with the use of the word broken, but I’m old and a programmer so I’ll never bend on that one
Your second sentence is the most agreeable part. It’s a difficult balance to get right because the slider^ for more user input vs more simulation (which is mathematical) is unfortunately a different slider to the conceptual slider for more fun vs less fun (which is subjective). My assumption is that the majority of players (casual) are either ok with or simply don’t notice the influence of simulation.
I have another theory also in that pure input may not be as fun as we think it is, and another one that pure input simply isn’t viable due to some players being simply too good, and others being simply too bad.
^ this slider may not actually exist, but if I were making a game like this I’d put it in there even if I didn’t intend to use it and set its value to 1. I’m using the word ‘slider’ as a visual aid, in the code it would simply be a variable.
Good post, but the part where I get lost is users who are too good or too bad. In an online format, wouldn’t that essentially create better matchups overall?
More similarly skilled players would be playing against each other more often. There would be balanced matchups that naturally occur without having code determine how to balance the game.
There are too many input types in this game online. Some that require controller skills and some that are just the touch of a button. This seems to be a hell of a problem when it comes to coding a game.
To me they should create online leagues based on input style. Simulation (directional, classic pitching, etc) and Hardcore (zone, pure analogue pitching, etc. Level the playing when it comes to input. Define the playing experience and make both groups happy.
We’re on the same wavelength.
By too good, I mean users who have the potential to get hit after hit after hit. I’m thinking back to my days playing Triple Play 96 where I’d score 99 runs in one game while hitting 15 homers with Ken Griffey Jr before quitting in the 6th inning. The game didn’t have the capability to challenge me. Fast forward 25 years and there are some play were s who would be like that with The Show if it were pure user input. That’s my theory. So match these guys up together and potentially they would be running up infinite scores because they are flawless nearly every time. On the opposite end where both players suck, strikeout after strikeout or walk after walk...
Now if you combine one with the other, neither player is having a good experience.
I definitely think streaming is the answer to minimise the simulation factor for the more challenging inputs, and being open and transparent about the simulation factor for all is important too.
The players who suck can be encouraged to try a more forgiving input method.
Now to work on a solution to challenging the ‘too good’ players.
-
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@soreal35 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
So you're saying they broke it intentionally. Bold strategy Cotton. What I'm suggesting is that they have no idea what the right amount of rng is for this particular part of the game, so it seems altogether random in its outcomes because of that.
No, if it were broken it wouldn’t work as intended. I was responding to your opening sentence about the devs not being able to explain pitching which I disagree with. I should have edited the rest out because it wasn’t relevant to my reply. My apologies.
I honestly don't think they could in a way that would satisfy the laymen.
The problem with the entire game is that they are trying match it up with realistic stats, but this not real life, this is a game where user input should matter more than actual rng.
Pitching is simply a mathematical roll of the dice as it stands, as is hitting.
If I wanted a casino game, that's where I'd go.
I have no beef with you at all, but if they have indeed programmed it this way, they have intentionally broken it (layman's term) to take out the human input factor, or at least lessen it.
Either way, it's all broken and not very satisfying the way it plays now.
I agree with you for the most part. Not with the use of the word broken, but I’m old and a programmer so I’ll never bend on that one
Your second sentence is the most agreeable part. It’s a difficult balance to get right because the slider^ for more user input vs more simulation (which is mathematical) is unfortunately a different slider to the conceptual slider for more fun vs less fun (which is subjective). My assumption is that the majority of players (casual) are either ok with or simply don’t notice the influence of simulation.
I have another theory also in that pure input may not be as fun as we think it is, and another one that pure input simply isn’t viable due to some players being simply too good, and others being simply too bad.
^ this slider may not actually exist, but if I were making a game like this I’d put it in there even if I didn’t intend to use it and set its value to 1. I’m using the word ‘slider’ as a visual aid, in the code it would simply be a variable.
Good post, but the part where I get lost is users who are too good or too bad. In an online format, wouldn’t that essentially create better matchups overall?
More similarly skilled players would be playing against each other more often. There would be balanced matchups that naturally occur without having code determine how to balance the game.
There are too many input types in this game online. Some that require controller skills and some that are just the touch of a button. This seems to be a hell of a problem when it comes to coding a game.
To me they should create online leagues based on input style. Simulation (directional, classic pitching, etc) and Hardcore (zone, pure analogue pitching, etc. Level the playing when it comes to input. Define the playing experience and make both groups happy.
We’re on the same wavelength.
By too good, I mean users who have the potential to get hit after hit after hit. I’m thinking back to my days playing Triple Play 96 where I’d score 99 runs in one game while hitting 15 homers with Ken Griffey Jr before quitting in the 6th inning. The game didn’t have the capability to challenge me. Fast forward 25 years and there are some play were s who would be like that with The Show if it were pure user input. That’s my theory. So match these guys up together and potentially they would be running up infinite scores because they are flawless nearly every time. On the opposite end where both players suck, strikeout after strikeout or walk after walk...
Now if you combine one with the other, neither player is having a good experience.
I definitely think streaming is the answer to minimise the simulation factor for the more challenging inputs, and being open and transparent about the simulation factor for all is important too.
The players who suck can be encouraged to try a more forgiving input method.
Now to work on a solution to challenging the ‘too good’ players.
I would think making pcis the size of the barrel of the bat and having pitches go where intended would be a good start.
Right now the pci is probably way too big for people who are terrific with placement and timing.
Attributes of the card could determine how big the pci is and how hard it is to use to pinpoint control.
Too me, it seems unacceptable to have “skilled” inputs be so inaccurate at times with proper input.
Wasn’t Triple Play 96 the one with Erik Kiss
? -
@soreal35 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@soreal35 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Red_Ted_is_back said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@Scarletgospel said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
No one can explain pitching, not even the developers.
It's like a roulette table. You know where you want it to go, but it doesn't go there as often as you would like. That's the rng for you. Some days it feels like you'd have more luck on the roulette table, though.
If it is random, it’s because the developers programmed it that way. The code doesn’t take on a mind of its own and write itself. Although that would be a seriously cool concept.
So you're saying they broke it intentionally. Bold strategy Cotton. What I'm suggesting is that they have no idea what the right amount of rng is for this particular part of the game, so it seems altogether random in its outcomes because of that.
No, if it were broken it wouldn’t work as intended. I was responding to your opening sentence about the devs not being able to explain pitching which I disagree with. I should have edited the rest out because it wasn’t relevant to my reply. My apologies.
I honestly don't think they could in a way that would satisfy the laymen.
The problem with the entire game is that they are trying match it up with realistic stats, but this not real life, this is a game where user input should matter more than actual rng.
Pitching is simply a mathematical roll of the dice as it stands, as is hitting.
If I wanted a casino game, that's where I'd go.
I have no beef with you at all, but if they have indeed programmed it this way, they have intentionally broken it (layman's term) to take out the human input factor, or at least lessen it.
Either way, it's all broken and not very satisfying the way it plays now.
I agree with you for the most part. Not with the use of the word broken, but I’m old and a programmer so I’ll never bend on that one
Your second sentence is the most agreeable part. It’s a difficult balance to get right because the slider^ for more user input vs more simulation (which is mathematical) is unfortunately a different slider to the conceptual slider for more fun vs less fun (which is subjective). My assumption is that the majority of players (casual) are either ok with or simply don’t notice the influence of simulation.
I have another theory also in that pure input may not be as fun as we think it is, and another one that pure input simply isn’t viable due to some players being simply too good, and others being simply too bad.
^ this slider may not actually exist, but if I were making a game like this I’d put it in there even if I didn’t intend to use it and set its value to 1. I’m using the word ‘slider’ as a visual aid, in the code it would simply be a variable.
Good post, but the part where I get lost is users who are too good or too bad. In an online format, wouldn’t that essentially create better matchups overall?
More similarly skilled players would be playing against each other more often. There would be balanced matchups that naturally occur without having code determine how to balance the game.
There are too many input types in this game online. Some that require controller skills and some that are just the touch of a button. This seems to be a hell of a problem when it comes to coding a game.
To me they should create online leagues based on input style. Simulation (directional, classic pitching, etc) and Hardcore (zone, pure analogue pitching, etc. Level the playing when it comes to input. Define the playing experience and make both groups happy.
We’re on the same wavelength.
By too good, I mean users who have the potential to get hit after hit after hit. I’m thinking back to my days playing Triple Play 96 where I’d score 99 runs in one game while hitting 15 homers with Ken Griffey Jr before quitting in the 6th inning. The game didn’t have the capability to challenge me. Fast forward 25 years and there are some play were s who would be like that with The Show if it were pure user input. That’s my theory. So match these guys up together and potentially they would be running up infinite scores because they are flawless nearly every time. On the opposite end where both players suck, strikeout after strikeout or walk after walk...
Now if you combine one with the other, neither player is having a good experience.
I definitely think streaming is the answer to minimise the simulation factor for the more challenging inputs, and being open and transparent about the simulation factor for all is important too.
The players who suck can be encouraged to try a more forgiving input method.
Now to work on a solution to challenging the ‘too good’ players.
I would think making pcis the size of the barrel of the bat and having pitches go where intended would be a good start.
Right now the pci is probably way too big for people who are terrific with placement and timing.
Attributes of the card could determine how big the pci is and how hard it is to use to pinpoint control.
Too me, it seems unacceptable to have “skilled” inputs be so inaccurate at times with proper input.
Wasn’t Triple Play 96 the one with Erik Kiss
?If it was in the MLB in 1994, it’s in the game (it was EA Sports, after all!)
I’m all for an overhaul of the pitching, hitting, throwing and base running UIs using such methods as you described and for the very subsequent reason you described.
-
@seannydrama7 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@onnagood1 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@seannydrama7 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@onnagood1 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@dark_Jsaac said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
How does a perfect release go down the middle 6 times in one game
How incompetent can creators be for this to happen? 6 times in one game!!!
This game is garbage.
Then go play COD...the hell are you all still moping around here if you hate it so much?
Oh tough guy, that's not so tough LMAO. Scrub.
You’re right - crying about something in an online video game forum that A) you have no ability to change but B) could absolutely avoid if you wanted to...THAT’S where it’s at.
Keep up the good work, hardo!
I wasn't crying, nor do I hate the game. I simply said the game was garbage in response to the thread, which it is.
But for some reason, you decided to single me out and take on the tough guy role telling me to go play COD. LMAO. So why don't you send that same message to everybody else in this forum complaining about pitching doofus?
-
It’s sad anyone that defends pitching this year. I’ve played DD for years and it’s never been this bad. Most of the time pitch locating would be a few inches here and there. This year it legit hangs right over the middle. No excuses for pitching or hitting this year. The game is just bad.
-
@seannydrama7 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@onnagood1 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
@dark_Jsaac said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
How does a perfect release go down the middle 6 times in one game
How incompetent can creators be for this to happen? 6 times in one game!!!
This game is garbage.
Then go play COD...the hell are you all still moping around here if you hate it so much?
Cod is way worse off that the show. They can’t even get aim assist right and have 350ms forced input lag .... how would you like that if your swing in the show was forced to have 350ms input lag... talk about frustrating lolol
-
@Hikes83 said in Can someone explain pitching to me:
You know each pitch has its individual attributes right. Even if the Newhouser has 81 control, his primary (4sb) might have 95 control while his 4th/5th pitch might be 55
This should be accessible in the game. If I know Oswalt's 12-6 curve has 30 control, I'm not going to throw it very much if any.
-
A admin locked this topic on
