Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!
-
Unfortunately, RNG is here to stay in order to maintain artificial parity and prevent the unskilled ca$ual ba$e from abandoning the Show out of frustration. My only hope is that SDS goes the madden route and adds an additional input focused competitive mode...let the newbies play each other on simulation oriented online games
-
@Oachs83 said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
Many have experienced and commented how each year after 16/17 user input seems to be taken away bit by bit each year. RNG just feels a little stronger as each year goes on. Well it’s also no secret cross platform is next year and will be getting a slew of new players that love baseball but never justified a PS system for just one game.
Then here we are the diehards that play this game year round every year. I can imagine how many Xbox players etc. would just get destroyed if you had 2016 gameplay for 2021? We now live in times that everyone wants instant gratification, nobody has patience to work towards something and achieve goals, and it’s never my fault it’s your fault I lost.
SDS doesn’t want to scare away a whole wave of new customers so what do you do? Well what if they are slowly adding RNG more and more these past few years to groom us regulars and get numb to the decline of user input so the game is softer for the new platforms? Think about it, how often do you ten run rule opponents now? I remember 17 it happened way more than now.
So 2021 is a soft landing for new clients and then 2022 they slowly start to allow user input a bit more allowing everyone to ramp back up together and boom 2025 we have a great game where input matters!
Of course this is all me rambling with zero evidence and it’s due to work being slow and snow outside. My theory holds no water. But....
Can I get your weed guys number please
-
I had seen Shelfy say it will not be. But I don’t know how much more he will know than anyone else as I don’t follow any content creators. I hope it isn’t cross platform. Because I bought a PS4 only for this game when 2K was discontinued I don’t like the idea at all.
I’ve also grown to like PS4 a lot more than Xbox. Even though I only currently have 2 other games. -
@esmlb_rop said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
Unfortunately, RNG is here to stay in order to maintain artificial parity and prevent the unskilled ca$ual ba$e from abandoning the Show out of frustration. My only hope is that SDS goes the madden route and adds an additional input focused competitive mode...let the newbies play each other on simulation oriented online games
You newbies realize that true RNG would not give either player an advantage? The more skilled player would and does win against new/less skilled players. They also go 12-0 in BR and win World Series. Who are these skilled players that are losing? If you’re losing it is because you are not as skilled as you believe you are
-
@Vipersneak said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@esmlb_rop said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
Unfortunately, RNG is here to stay in order to maintain artificial parity and prevent the unskilled ca$ual ba$e from abandoning the Show out of frustration. My only hope is that SDS goes the madden route and adds an additional input focused competitive mode...let the newbies play each other on simulation oriented online games
You newbies realize that true RNG would not give either player an advantage? The more skilled player would and does win against new/less skilled players. They also go 12-0 in BR and win World Series. Who are these skilled players that are losing? If you’re losing it is because you are not as skilled as you believe you are
Im in between on this because I have seen first hand pitches morph and players ghost step and so on. But the other day I played en event game that should have been three innings but went 11 innings. I finally hit a HR top of the 11th. My opponent ended with 0 hits. I had an 11 inning no hitter and RNG was no where to be seen. I was begging for it because i dont like quitting
-
@lazy_toast said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@Vipersneak said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@esmlb_rop said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
Unfortunately, RNG is here to stay in order to maintain artificial parity and prevent the unskilled ca$ual ba$e from abandoning the Show out of frustration. My only hope is that SDS goes the madden route and adds an additional input focused competitive mode...let the newbies play each other on simulation oriented online games
You newbies realize that true RNG would not give either player an advantage? The more skilled player would and does win against new/less skilled players. They also go 12-0 in BR and win World Series. Who are these skilled players that are losing? If you’re losing it is because you are not as skilled as you believe you are
Im in between on this because I have seen first hand pitches morph and players ghost step and so on. But the other day I played en event game that should have been three innings but went 11 innings. I finally hit a HR top of the 11th. My opponent ended with 0 hits. I had an 11 inning no hitter and RNG was no where to be seen. I was begging for it because i dont like quitting
Yes. That stuff happens. But to everyone. It doesn’t happen to just good players to bring parity. Then again I do not own a tin foil hat.
-
It's interesting to me that people describe the addition of more random chance as the game being "dumbed down," or in any number of ways that suggest that making it a factor in outcomes has somehow "broken" the game. Considering how outcomes in the real game of baseball depend more on random chance than any other sport, this, to me, makes it feel more real.
I don't want to denigrate the OP (your post is well written and well thought out) or anyone else who feels that all video games should strive to have results determined 100% by input-based skill, as that's obviously the reigning sentiment of those who write in these forums, but that certainly isn't how most people feel. I'd venture to guess that most people who buy this game don't think like that; they want to enjoy a simulated baseball experience where, on any given day, a little bit of luck may allow them to beat a far superior opponent.
I've been playing this game ever since it was a thing, religiously, and this year, with the pandemic conditions and a super fun neck dissection that gave me far too much time to play video games, I've logged thousands of hours over the years. I say that only to make the point that I'm not a "casual" player, and, with that, if I were to posit a theory as to what has "broken" this game, it would be the introduction of the reticle and the resulting mindset that "skill" must trump all else. By allowing users to line up the ball in crosshairs, it has introduced the feeling that successfully accomplishing that should result in a hard base hit at the very least, probably a home run, and anything undesirable is interpreted as the user not being "rewarded" appropriately. Granted, lining it up is very difficult to do, but not so difficult that it doesn't produce very unrealistic results with regard to frequency of hits and, in particular, home runs. The only way to tamp that down is to negate it through RNG, which clearly drives people mad.
Personally, with regard to the reticle, I say just get rid of the [censored] thing, already. If showing how "skilled" you are at lining up your crosshairs on a target is that important to you, play Call of Duty or some other FPS, because that's where that skill belongs. It doesn't have any place in a baseball game (ever used a bat with a scope on it, or know anyone who has?), and working around the mistake of its introduction has resulted in all kinds of weirdness to make the rest of the game work around it.
-
@The_Joneser said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
It's interesting to me that people describe the addition of more random chance as the game being "dumbed down," or in any number of ways that suggest that making it a factor in outcomes has somehow "broken" the game. Considering how outcomes in the real game of baseball depend more on random chance than any other sport, this, to me, makes it feel more real.
I don't want to denigrate the OP (your post is well written and well thought out) or anyone else who feels that all video games should strive to have results determined 100% by input-based skill, as that's obviously the reigning sentiment of those who write in these forums, but that certainly isn't how most people feel. I'd venture to guess that most people who buy this game don't think like that; they want to enjoy a simulated baseball experience where, on any given day, a little bit of luck may allow them to beat a far superior opponent.
I've been playing this game ever since it was a thing, religiously, and this year, with the pandemic conditions and a super fun neck dissection that gave me far too much time to play video games, I've logged thousands of hours over the years. I say that only to make the point that I'm not a "casual" player, and, with that, if I were to posit a theory as to what has "broken" this game, it would be the introduction of the reticle and the resulting mindset that "skill" must trump all else. By allowing users to line up the ball in crosshairs, it has introduced the feeling that successfully accomplishing that should result in a hard base hit at the very least, probably a home run, and anything undesirable is interpreted as the user not being "rewarded" appropriately. Granted, lining it up is very difficult to do, but not so difficult that it doesn't produce very unrealistic results with regard to frequency of hits and, in particular, home runs. The only way to tamp that down is to negate it through RNG, which clearly drives people mad.
Personally, with regard to the reticle, I say just get rid of the [censored] thing, already. If showing how "skilled" you are at lining up your crosshairs on a target is that important to you, play Call of Duty or some other FPS, because that's where that skill belongs. It doesn't have any place in a baseball game (ever used a bat with a scope on it, or know anyone who has?), and working around the mistake of its introduction has resulted in all kinds of weirdness to make the rest of the game work around it.
You wrote that much better than I could have. 100% agree.
-
@The_Joneser said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
It's interesting to me that people describe the addition of more random chance as the game being "dumbed down," or in any number of ways that suggest that making it a factor in outcomes has somehow "broken" the game. Considering how outcomes in the real game of baseball depend more on random chance than any other sport, this, to me, makes it feel more real.
I don't want to denigrate the OP (your post is well written and well thought out) or anyone else who feels that all video games should strive to have results determined 100% by input-based skill, as that's obviously the reigning sentiment of those who write in these forums, but that certainly isn't how most people feel. I'd venture to guess that most people who buy this game don't think like that; they want to enjoy a simulated baseball experience where, on any given day, a little bit of luck may allow them to beat a far superior opponent.
I've been playing this game ever since it was a thing, religiously, and this year, with the pandemic conditions and a super fun neck dissection that gave me far too much time to play video games, I've logged thousands of hours over the years. I say that only to make the point that I'm not a "casual" player, and, with that, if I were to posit a theory as to what has "broken" this game, it would be the introduction of the reticle and the resulting mindset that "skill" must trump all else. By allowing users to line up the ball in crosshairs, it has introduced the feeling that successfully accomplishing that should result in a hard base hit at the very least, probably a home run, and anything undesirable is interpreted as the user not being "rewarded" appropriately. Granted, lining it up is very difficult to do, but not so difficult that it doesn't produce very unrealistic results with regard to frequency of hits and, in particular, home runs. The only way to tamp that down is to negate it through RNG, which clearly drives people mad.
Personally, with regard to the reticle, I say just get rid of the [censored] thing, already. If showing how "skilled" you are at lining up your crosshairs on a target is that important to you, play Call of Duty or some other FPS, because that's where that skill belongs. It doesn't have any place in a baseball game (ever used a bat with a scope on it, or know anyone who has?), and working around the mistake of its introduction has resulted in all kinds of weirdness to make the rest of the game work around it.
I've got to say this is definitely a perspective that I hadn't thought of before and its valuable one.
-
Well written Jonser and I can agree with much of it. I want to say I’m not against RNG it needs to be in the game otherwise some of these players will be having 65-62 scoring games with each other. SDS first and foremost is a business and they need to make money and having Xbox coming on basically doubles possible revenue and DD is where it is and keeping customers engaged is how you do it. Heck the best average in baseball only got on base 4 out of 10 times.
My post was a bit tongue and cheek but you have to admit the gap in the scores of games narrow each year.
-
I hear you, Oachs, and I certainly agree with your take on the business model. It would be silly to cut out a huge segment of the player base by making them feel it was impossible to have a good experience when playing online. I just don't know that I agree that RNG is being added for that reason alone (if that's what you're saying - I could be misinterpreting that). I really do think that the reticle is the reason for all of the nonsense, because it's overpowered in addition to being just flat-out weird in a baseball game. The extra helping of RNG, in my baseless opinion, is to produce a more baseball-like product to counter the unintended consequences of allowing a targeting system into the game... the positive effects in terms of expanding the market for the game is gravy.
Baseball has a natural parity because it's so hard to find success in playing it. I mean, anyone who's seen Bull Durham knows that the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is one hit a week... trying to give this game that parity is a good thing, I think, so I'm glad that score gap is narrowing.
-
First it’s refreshing to have an actual constructive conversation on a topic like this, thank you.
I just feel the RNG (that has always been in the game) has slowly been ramped up a little more each year and I guess the question is why? It just seems like they’re trying to create that game 7 of the WS bottom 9, 2 outs, down by 3, bases loaded scenario with every game to cause excitement. It’s similar why your always one number away on a scratch off from the grand prize.
I’m actually optimistic that we will get closer to 16 or 17 hitting in a couple more years and this game will be better than ever!
-
@The_Joneser said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
It's interesting to me that people describe the addition of more random chance as the game being "dumbed down," or in any number of ways that suggest that making it a factor in outcomes has somehow "broken" the game. Considering how outcomes in the real game of baseball depend more on random chance than any other sport, this, to me, makes it feel more real.
I don't want to denigrate the OP (your post is well written and well thought out) or anyone else who feels that all video games should strive to have results determined 100% by input-based skill, as that's obviously the reigning sentiment of those who write in these forums, but that certainly isn't how most people feel. I'd venture to guess that most people who buy this game don't think like that; they want to enjoy a simulated baseball experience where, on any given day, a little bit of luck may allow them to beat a far superior opponent.
I've been playing this game ever since it was a thing, religiously, and this year, with the pandemic conditions and a super fun neck dissection that gave me far too much time to play video games, I've logged thousands of hours over the years. I say that only to make the point that I'm not a "casual" player, and, with that, if I were to posit a theory as to what has "broken" this game, it would be the introduction of the reticle and the resulting mindset that "skill" must trump all else. By allowing users to line up the ball in crosshairs, it has introduced the feeling that successfully accomplishing that should result in a hard base hit at the very least, probably a home run, and anything undesirable is interpreted as the user not being "rewarded" appropriately. Granted, lining it up is very difficult to do, but not so difficult that it doesn't produce very unrealistic results with regard to frequency of hits and, in particular, home runs. The only way to tamp that down is to negate it through RNG, which clearly drives people mad.
Personally, with regard to the reticle, I say just get rid of the [censored] thing, already. If showing how "skilled" you are at lining up your crosshairs on a target is that important to you, play Call of Duty or some other FPS, because that's where that skill belongs. It doesn't have any place in a baseball game (ever used a bat with a scope on it, or know anyone who has?), and working around the mistake of its introduction has resulted in all kinds of weirdness to make the rest of the game work around it.
I'll edit this to a more cordial response:
I disagree 3 million percent with the notion of the reticle ruining anything. I'd also kindly suggest that perhaps you'd enjoy playing this game on directional.
-
@Jeviduty said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@The_Joneser said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
It's interesting to me that people describe the addition of more random chance as the game being "dumbed down," or in any number of ways that suggest that making it a factor in outcomes has somehow "broken" the game. Considering how outcomes in the real game of baseball depend more on random chance than any other sport, this, to me, makes it feel more real.
I don't want to denigrate the OP (your post is well written and well thought out) or anyone else who feels that all video games should strive to have results determined 100% by input-based skill, as that's obviously the reigning sentiment of those who write in these forums, but that certainly isn't how most people feel. I'd venture to guess that most people who buy this game don't think like that; they want to enjoy a simulated baseball experience where, on any given day, a little bit of luck may allow them to beat a far superior opponent.
I've been playing this game ever since it was a thing, religiously, and this year, with the pandemic conditions and a super fun neck dissection that gave me far too much time to play video games, I've logged thousands of hours over the years. I say that only to make the point that I'm not a "casual" player, and, with that, if I were to posit a theory as to what has "broken" this game, it would be the introduction of the reticle and the resulting mindset that "skill" must trump all else. By allowing users to line up the ball in crosshairs, it has introduced the feeling that successfully accomplishing that should result in a hard base hit at the very least, probably a home run, and anything undesirable is interpreted as the user not being "rewarded" appropriately. Granted, lining it up is very difficult to do, but not so difficult that it doesn't produce very unrealistic results with regard to frequency of hits and, in particular, home runs. The only way to tamp that down is to negate it through RNG, which clearly drives people mad.
Personally, with regard to the reticle, I say just get rid of the [censored] thing, already. If showing how "skilled" you are at lining up your crosshairs on a target is that important to you, play Call of Duty or some other FPS, because that's where that skill belongs. It doesn't have any place in a baseball game (ever used a bat with a scope on it, or know anyone who has?), and working around the mistake of its introduction has resulted in all kinds of weirdness to make the rest of the game work around it.
There's something called 'Directional' hitting for folks like you...
No need for cutting people down in this thread and he actually makes a valid argument and another perspective.
-
@Oachs83 said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@Jeviduty said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@The_Joneser said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
It's interesting to me that people describe the addition of more random chance as the game being "dumbed down," or in any number of ways that suggest that making it a factor in outcomes has somehow "broken" the game. Considering how outcomes in the real game of baseball depend more on random chance than any other sport, this, to me, makes it feel more real.
I don't want to denigrate the OP (your post is well written and well thought out) or anyone else who feels that all video games should strive to have results determined 100% by input-based skill, as that's obviously the reigning sentiment of those who write in these forums, but that certainly isn't how most people feel. I'd venture to guess that most people who buy this game don't think like that; they want to enjoy a simulated baseball experience where, on any given day, a little bit of luck may allow them to beat a far superior opponent.
I've been playing this game ever since it was a thing, religiously, and this year, with the pandemic conditions and a super fun neck dissection that gave me far too much time to play video games, I've logged thousands of hours over the years. I say that only to make the point that I'm not a "casual" player, and, with that, if I were to posit a theory as to what has "broken" this game, it would be the introduction of the reticle and the resulting mindset that "skill" must trump all else. By allowing users to line up the ball in crosshairs, it has introduced the feeling that successfully accomplishing that should result in a hard base hit at the very least, probably a home run, and anything undesirable is interpreted as the user not being "rewarded" appropriately. Granted, lining it up is very difficult to do, but not so difficult that it doesn't produce very unrealistic results with regard to frequency of hits and, in particular, home runs. The only way to tamp that down is to negate it through RNG, which clearly drives people mad.
Personally, with regard to the reticle, I say just get rid of the [censored] thing, already. If showing how "skilled" you are at lining up your crosshairs on a target is that important to you, play Call of Duty or some other FPS, because that's where that skill belongs. It doesn't have any place in a baseball game (ever used a bat with a scope on it, or know anyone who has?), and working around the mistake of its introduction has resulted in all kinds of weirdness to make the rest of the game work around it.
There's something called 'Directional' hitting for folks like you...
No need for cutting people down in this thread and he actually makes a valid argument and another perspective.
Nah, he won't take offense, seems like a smart enough dude to know it was coming.
-
@Jeviduty said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
I disagree 3 million percent with the notion of the reticle ruining anything. I'd also kindly suggest that perhaps you'd enjoy playing this game on directional.
I actually enjoy this game very much... I'd be a strange glutton for punishment if I didn't, considering the amount of my time I spend playing it. And, yes, I know people love their reticle and will dutifully defend it against me and the brethren of "unskilled" directional players who bemoan its existence (yes, I believe directional with analog input provides a better experience).
Here's even more speculation: I think a person's opinion on that also has something to do with how they choose experience the game. Some like to make it about themselves, and their skill. Me, I like to think of the the little people I help along with my controller as having minds and actions of their own... you know, so when George Brett chokes and pops up a hanger that he otherwise times nicely, that's on him for being distracted by his hemorrhoids, not on me for failure to execute the proper input. Don't even get me started on that head case Vlad out there in right...
-
@The_Joneser said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
@Jeviduty said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
I disagree 3 million percent with the notion of the reticle ruining anything. I'd also kindly suggest that perhaps you'd enjoy playing this game on directional.
I actually enjoy this game very much... I'd be a strange glutton for punishment if I didn't, considering the amount of my time I spend playing it. And, yes, I know people love their reticle and will dutifully defend it against me and the brethren of "unskilled" directional players who bemoan its existence (yes, I believe directional with analog input provides a better experience).
Here's even more speculation: I think a person's opinion on that also has something to do with how they choose experience the game. Some like to make it about themselves, and their skill. Me, I like to think of the the little people I help along with my controller as having minds and actions of their own... you know, so when George Brett chokes and pops up a hanger that he otherwise times nicely, that's on him for being distracted by his hemorrhoids, not on me for failure to execute the proper input. Don't even get me started on that head case Vlad out there in right...
Perhaps it would be more healthy for myself to adopt your perspective, I'd probably be much happier. Of course I am a glutton for punishment as well (albeit in a different way) so here we are, lol.
-
I just started playing this game last year and im 43 honestly had not played any video games for well over 10 years but I love baseball and have a son who plays baseball in the spring and fall basketball in the winter. I started buying the Show for him in 17 probably a little early for him but he played it some he is 10 now and uses his ps4 time exclusively to play DD and with guys from his team. I started playing last year because a guy from work explained how DD worked and that as a big baseball fan I would love how it combined players from different generations etc. I talk with him a little more to get a basic idea of how to start and made a team. I knew pretty quick I had a lobg way to go if I wanted to beat anyone much less be good, as bad as I was initially I do know the game of baseball and I knew like most things the more you do it the better you get, team building was cool I was given challenges that once complete gave me players to use on my team to make it better. Initially what I would consider to be a easy task like hit 1 homer moments would be hard but it made you get better by doing them. When I played RS I would get matched against someone of similar skill. I remember playing in an event early on just getting destroyed by a guy who hit everything I pitched and as green as I was I was sequencing pitches good I was still using meter pitching, it had been a long time off video games but I could time the meter good it reminded me of Tiger Woods golf from back in the day at the time and I thought wow that guy is a beast and I immediately wanted to hit bombs like he did. Long story short I was hooked and like any sport there are different tiers of players and you dont move up those tiers and get to the top of them with out a lot of hard work and simply time playing the sport learning the game. That is why there are players with nasty stuff that can throw as hard or make a ball break as good or better than any Big Leaguer in the minors, they are learning how to play at the highest level. So late in the games cycle of my second season I am completely hooked for life and I remember how awesome a feeling it was and is as you reach another milestone, late in the year last season I had a run to CS it was short lived but when I hit 800's it was a rush I had not felt since actually playing sports. I I havent been back and thats ok currently I'm 112-99 for the year I love using all the players and hopefully 1 day I will make WS and get that Choice pack but its hard and it should be otherwise it wouldn't be so cool when you made it. I have followed the RNG conversation since I started reading this forum and I agree there needs to be some because like someone mentioned 65 to 64 games really could happen the way some of these guys play but this game should not be based on luck or easy. I see a lot of talk about people wanting things easy and blaming others for failure its a real thing and as a parent Im responsible for making my kids understand the value of hard work and teaching them failure should be used as time to for me to teach and them to learn not a time to give up. Hopefully the game will always be based on skill with just enough RNG to keep it baseball. I know personally if I was not so challenged by the game I would have stopped a long time ago.
-
I feel like most of the complaints over the years have been focused on hitting and how good swings are outs which in turn makes the game “bad”. In my view the truly “bad” aspects to the gameplay over the last few years have emerged as a direct result of SDS attempting to appease these complainers by rewarding good swings at a higher rate, but not making it harder to actually execute those good swings. The game, as is, is wildly unbalanced in favour of hitting until you get to legend difficulty, at which point the pendulum swings too far the other way and it’s too difficult to hit with any consistency. Balance would be nice. Pitching used to be fun. It was as much a part of the battle as making solid contact with the bat. Hopefully that will be the case again, but I, for one, am not holding my breath based on the decline and imbalance we’ve seen cultivated over the last three iterations of DD.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Here’s a theory, grab your tinfoil hat!:
I feel like most of the complaints over the years have been focused on hitting and how good swings are outs which in turn makes the game “bad”. In my view the truly “bad” aspects to the gameplay over the last few years have emerged as a direct result of SDS attempting to appease these complainers by rewarding good swings at a higher rate, but not making it harder to actually execute those good swings. The game, as is, is wildly unbalanced in favour of hitting until you get to legend difficulty, at which point the pendulum swings too far the other way and it’s too difficult to hit with any consistency. Balance would be nice. Pitching used to be fun. It was as much a part of the battle as making solid contact with the bat. Hopefully that will be the case again, but I, for one, am not holding my breath based on the decline and imbalance we’ve seen cultivated over the last three iterations of DD.
Yep, I feel like the saying should be changed to "Gamers dig the longball", because that's mostly what everyone is concerned about when giving criticism or complaining.
