As a directional user who has cancer, just thought I'd throw out a special FU to the OP.

And enough with your no-skill nonsense; it's timing and choosing the right swing type, leaving placement to attribute-based chance, while zone is timing and placement, leaving swing type to attribute-based chance. I like it because it feels more like baseball to me, and it produces more realistic results. More opportunity to screw the pooch in zone, but those who know what they're doing are rewarded much more heavily (which leads me to think you got your a** handed to you by a better zone player).

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.

Palmer. Nice speed differentials between pitches, good slider, great hair.

Rod Carew... he’s got mad hits, you know.

So, I’m playing a little conquest on a Sunday morning, giving equal attention to my coffee and my happy pen, and my mind wanders to modes I’d like to see…

Suppose offline players—or those who need a break from online shenanigans—could enter into tournaments against CPU-controlled teams? Released with about the frequency of conquest, they could have variable reward structures; win the tournament on Allstar and receive 5000 stubs, 2 Headliner packs, yada yada. Win the tourney on Legend and receive 50k stubs, an ASG pack, a HR Derby pack, 5 headliners, yada yada. You lose, you start over. The actuals would need some work, but you get the idea.

Lots of variables to play with there, with some tournaments against all-time teams, others against current MLB; the tourneys themselves could be of varying lengths with regard to scheduled games, with games of varying length, designed to commemorate an historical event, etc. I’d love to just use my main squad, but could possibly be event-style entries…

Almost certainly not an original idea, but I just haven’t come across something like it yet.

Okay. Pardon my intrusion. Another sip… another puff… another game.

Just curious... from this thread, it seems like any bunt at all is cheese... Is it actually considered by players here bad form to bunt, but the goon-fest, flex-off, home run circle jerks at Shippett are cool?

@MaxHarvest said in Dashboarding - viable solution?:

Horrible idea, just let it be

You know, maybe on those mornings where you wake up and just decide to be a [censored], you should just go back to bed, instead, and let the world be a little better without your participation to weigh it down. You know, try again, tomorrow, where you just might make someone laugh, instead.

Not a horrible idea, and a lot of thought was obviously put into it. I do think it could be hard to pull off from the dev standpoint, with regard to the enforced delay, but I really like the idea of the dashboarding opponent being taken over by the CPU. For all the people who want to stat grind, that would save the lives of the countless, doomed un-homers that would now be allowed to land. Having the choice to forfeit and not play out the whole game against the CPU, but to still collect the fruits of what caused the fit is especially appealing.

I like it.

May your slow day not drag on forever, OP...

Maybe his wife was politely suggesting he get off his [censored] and do something more productive, so haste was necessary?

Obviously, there are improvements to be made and things to refine with The Show, but I remember how excited I was to finally get this game (I think I was 9 by the time I was lucky enough to get my hands on it). There were nine players on defense! And it talked!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1sWZCeCgw

@tngu834_psn said in Thank you SDS DEVs:

Thank you for the gameplay updates. You listened to the community and spent the time to update this. I don't play any other video games and I bought a PS5 to maximize this game too. Releasing this game on many consoles and have the additional features was super ambitious and I am sure people were forced to do A LOT more with a lot less during Covid-19 since this seems to be motto for corporations.

Refreshing to see a little positivity and gratitude... thanks for taking the time to post something that acknowledges the human element behind this game and doesn't carry the typical stink of entitled whining. Bottom line is that they didn't have to do a [censored] thing, but they did, and while I'm sure many would have liked to see it sooner, it's nice to see a little reason and understanding from someone who didn't get exactly what they wanted when they wanted it in this "all-things-right-now" world...

Sad that you feel like you need to apologize for it, because you don't. Good on you for showing some decency, which is really all you can do; let the quibblers do their thing and pay no mind.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend, OP.

@Bob_Loblaw1984 said in Help me choose a new outfielder/1B!!:

Carew at first. He’s the answer, it’s him.

He is, indeed. And he should be your wildcard. Forever.

@Xfoufoufou_PSN said in How to fix this game is real simple. Make RS appealing to the masses.:

1. Tone down the velocity to the real pitchers velocity .Why you give them a extra 3-5 MPH of velo ? The amount of pitchers that sit 101 are a handful in history ... Here that's all you face all game . Is this a Arcade or realistic baseball game . Makes a bunch of pitchers useless.

2. Reduce cutter / sinker breaks to a realistic amount . Cutter don't move much in real life here they break 20" .

3. Make it harder to throw offspeed exacly where you want . No MLB pitchers can dot offspeed over and over again. Thats why a 3-0 or 3-1
   is a fastball count.

4. Make every pitching interphase the same difficulty to use . There no reason should be easier to dot with analog than pinpoint .

5. Make a better program , weekly rewards , random rewards. BR is much more rewarding.

People like to hit that's the fun of the game. for alot of people they do not enjoy playing RS because it's just too many dominant pitchers playing matchups

The game is always at it's best at the beginning of the year.

Oh, man. Absolutely no disrespect, but what you're describing is a recipe for HR derby (more so than now), and I don't think that's what the masses want at all. That's assuming, of course, that you're talking about playing on All Star, because that's where we in the masses tend to live in RS...

Baseball is hard. It shouldn't be easy to hit, so less zip on good fastballs is no bueno, for me. And I, like others, I'm sure, like to play defense, so I think the answer is two-fold: more hit variety, and tighten up the timing windows. If you don't have "good" timing, you shouldn't get anything more than an occasional bloop hit or grounder with eyes. No early swing HRs, no late swing HRs (opposite field shots and pulled long balls should be good timing on inside or outside pitches, driven from whence they came, not early or late with questionable placement), and, for the love of god, please do away with the ability of zone hitters to pull down-and-away sliders for HRs.

I'm with you on #4, though.

I'm enjoying my Betts arm accuracy build... currently a weak spot in LF, but that new Yordan card has 96 Arm Accuracy.

+15 to both contact L and R, +15 Clutch, and +10 Fielding.

@wildthingwilly_PSN said in Borderline pitches:

Bc a game can't truly be competitive where rng exists. I throw it in the same spot and it results as a walk where another guy got a k and the walk turns into a run where I possibly lose a run. Vs cpu I'm all for random results, but pvp should always be user input rules

A game absolutely can be competitive while allowing for random chance. Considering your specific example but substituting real, professional baseball players for you and your opponent, and an umpire instead of this game's strike zone, is it your position that Major League Baseball isn't a competitive game?

@TexasTauper_PSN said in [Ranked and BR Change Explanation]

Again, these cards aren't hand outs. They take time and effort to obtain. If you think it's greedy to want to sell something I worked for, then let's agree to disagree. I feel then those that obtain them by making WS or a 12-0 run shouldn't be able to obtain them twice. Because why should they get to be " greedy " and sell one and keep one where I can't sell any?

You're right. They aren't handouts. You played 200+ innings, and you earned a non-sellable card. That it was non-sellable wasn't a surprise, and if you didn't want that non-sellable card, you didn't have to spend the time playing 200+ innings.

Those that earn the sellable cards are better at this game than we are, and they should be able to do as they please with their sellable rewards. They also, by virtue of playing those modes, likely earn the non-sellable versions along the way... they, too, cannot sell those cards.

@Firestormx_MLBTS said in [Ranked and BR Change Explanation]

If you can't even acknowledge that going from one console to 3 significantly increased SDS revenue then how can anything you say be taken seriously?

First off, I didn't say that; I'm sure it did increase their revenue significantly. I also know that raw revenue numbers are only part of the story... what I don't know--and neither do you--is how much that increase in revenue cost them.

Again, personal examples, but when my company went from one hospital to three, if you looked solely at revenue numbers, they increased astronomically. But the cost to expand was staggering, particularly in the short term, and it took some time to realize any benefit, profit-wise, after making that move.

But, I digress. I know you have this all figured out, so no need to pay me any more mind.

@TexasTauper_PSN said in [Ranked and BR Change Explanation]

I don't think it's greedy to sell the cards I spent my time obtaining. If they just want to give them to me with no effort I'm good with them not being sellable. If I spend my free time playing a mode to get a card it should be sellable. I'm even ok with rewind packs not being sellable because 5 wins in events isn't difficult. It bothers me and a lot of people that in Ranked will need to play 200+ innings online to not have a sellable card is dumb.

Sorry, but I think it is kind of greedy to complain about being given a free path to earning a card you can use, if you want it, and then complaining that you can't sell it for something else.

I get that the ranked situation bothers you, but no one is making you do that. if you don't want to use any of the cards they're offering you for playing 200+ innings, and you don't enjoy playing RS just to play RS, then... don't?

@Firestormx_MLBTS said in [Ranked and BR Change Explanation]

Does that question really hold a lot of water since in the past 2 years they opened the game to Xbox and switch?

Yeah, I'm sure there are no ongoing costs to support a game on three different platforms. Probably all the same code and no repetition of work, no extra staff, no licensing fees...

You know what, they actually did all of this just to make you angry. Just you. I mean, that's what I get paid for, anyway.

@TexasTauper_PSN said in [Ranked and BR Change Explanation]

I never said it was evil or a bait and switch tactic. We aren't going to agree on this and that's fine. I don't know how much it cost to create content but neither do you. I think the idea that this is all done so they stay just profitable is ignorant as well. All corporations go this route eventually. Greed gets them all.

You didn't say those things... I'm taking in other arguments as well and throwing it out there in a response quoting you, so that's probably not fair. And, look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; I even agree that many corporations go the route you say (not all--and I also started my little missive here by saying I didn't know the answers to the questions I'm posing).

Greed does indeed prevail quite often. And complaining that rewards can't be sold is pretty f****** greedy.

@yankblan_PSN said in Ranked and BR Change Explanation:

I mean, they monetize more and more, and invest less and less time to make the game better. It's just same things year in and year out with different names they call "new content".

Seems to me that expanding the game to different platforms would require an investment. I'm pretty sure that including the Negro Leagues story lines and rights to new legends cost them some money. Aside from game related things, I know the cost of everything in my life has gone up considerably from year-to-year, and from managing my company I've seen that it has had to spend a considerable amount to keep up with health care costs, employee salaries, overhead, etc... why does everyone seem to think that video game companies can get by without increasing revenue?

To do that in a way that seems pretty [censored] voluntary for those who pay in seems like a decent way to do it. Everything has unintended consequences, everything must change, and nothing will make everyone happy... I just don't understand the mindset of people who are unable to think beyond themselves and expect everything to improve without them paying for it in some way.