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.

Probably not the same, but I have an issue with that on occasion; mine is a TV game mode issue, where the low latency feature of that mode ceases to combat that (or so it seems)… the only fix is to switch to another mode and back to game mode, as just turning the TV off and back on or switching to a different input doesn’t help.

Might be unique to Hisense TVs - who knows- but thought I’d throw it out as I played a bunch today and all seemed good.

It’s rare that it happens to me; maybe a couple of times a month.

Good post. Not that I'm any authority, but I agree with just about everything you said... I'd used nothing but directional in well over 300 RS games last year and the first 100 or so this year, and found that without exceptional patience and a keen eye (the "one pitch, one spot" approach), you're doing next to nothing. I topped out in the low 700's using Directional, and found it extremely hard to stick around when I actually reached that HOF level.

It's funny that people say Directional is easy, and in the same breath go on to say that you won't find any success. Well, that's because it's hard. It's easy if you're getting a fair amount of meatballs like you do in moments (just wait out the other stuff) in the lower difficulties, which is likely why peole say it's easy, but it's actually very unforgiving when pitches start moving around a bit, even on All Star. I enjoyed it because it forced you to think about how you wanted to swing, not just when (the where obviously decided for you, unlike zone or even, to a degree, analog).

Personally, I hate the Zone interface, so I switched over to Pure Analog and have logged over 200 RS games using that this year; made it to 800 once, bounced immediately, but I can stick around in the 700s... I'm a pretty middling player, just about 40 games over .500, but I enjoy analog much more and have been having a better time playing because of it. I've found that there is a wider variety of hit types, and though I hit fewer HRs, I get more hits (so long as you pick the right third of the plate to swing at, it definitely gives you a better chance at contact than Directional).

While it likely doesn't make sense for SDS to invest a bunch of time into it as not many use it, it would provide for a better experience if you could reach all quadrants. Had I been able to get good wood on inside pitches and touch the high and inside, I'd probably still be using it.

@killerpresence4 said in This Game Became Biast Towards .....:

You are aware that the use of a comma in the statement that you’re criticizing would be considered optional between the word “Wow” and “You”. It’s not incorrect and you, sir, are just deflecting from the point. Have a good day, and maybe go brush up on your grammatical expertise.

I should let this go, but, since it appears lost on you, I'd like to point out that this little exchange is pretty typical of many of your posts. You jump in, say something dickish or demonstrably incorrect (but emphatically), and then just get loud about it if someone points out your folly. Instead, you just keep repeating what you've already said no matter how wrong or stupid. I guess that's your bag.

While I certainly could, you won't find me picking at peoples' grammar much. For you, I'll do so gladly; not just because you're such a toad, consistently, but because your poorly written insult specifically addressed language skills (which you clearly lack), and I found it amusing. So, shall we?

"Wow" is an interjection, and as such, you do not have the option of leaving it be without punctuation. Most people have it stand alone, typically by following it with an exclamation point (Wow! You have no idea what you're talking about). Others may prefer a period, as a stylistic understatement, if you will (Wow. You really know your stuff). You may also separate it with a comma, but an interjection absolutely requires some type of punctuation. You do, however, have the option to be incorrect and yet insist on being right. You'll look even more like an asshole, but you do have that option.

That also wasn't the only thing wrong with the sentence.

(Thought better of being nastier… can’t delete, so I guess this stays)

@killerpresence4 said in [This Game Became Biast

Perhaps you want to go back to third grade grammar class where you obviously struggled. The statement that you are criticizing is 100% grammatically correct but hey, anything to deflect from your lack of comprehension by criticizing someone’s grammar and still screwed it up. Congratulations clown!!!

You sure are confident in your grammatical mastery. Doubling down, even (oh my, a comma). Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

@killerpresence4 said in This Game Became Biast Towards .....:

Wow you don’t read too well do you or you just glance over what you want.

Perhaps you'd like another go at that sentence before using it to criticize someone's language skills?

How bout going back and re-read what I wrote where I specifically stated that the center pci is what actually represents the barrel.

I'd actually written this, in response to the person who stated that more clearly:

If those little symbols were all you had to work with, and anything off those symbols resulted in a big whiff, then you might have something there. Even still, those three symbols would be more than the equivalent of 2.75 inches, so still too big for a barrel.

Probably not fair, considering you had to mouth your way through so many words while dragging your finger along, but it seems that one of us does indeed have a comprehension problem.

@guccigangchuck said in This Game Became Biast Towards .....:

you realize the barrel is those diamonds/dots/sybols in the middle of the PCI right? When you are perfect, thats a perfect barrell.

So, first off, I owe you an apology... my last comment directed your way was written immediately after something at work put me in a foul mood and I ended up going a little ad hominem on you. I didn't like what you were saying, but the vitriol was a little much. I'm sorry.

Back to the subject at hand; I respectfully disagree. If those little symbols were all you had to work with, and anything off those symbols resulted in a big whiff, then you might have something there. Even still, those three symbols would be more than the equivalent of 2.75 inches, so still too big for a barrel.

Considering the size of the reticle as it appears and the fact that contact can be made anywhere within it (and often outside of it), if it were a bat, the barrel would be about the equivalent of a foot and a half thick, and about as long--insisting on it being a barrel, you'd have to accept that as good contact is likely with the ball on any part of that massive "barrel." As anyone who has played this game for more than 20 minutes can clearly find for themselves, it's possible to hit fly balls when the ball is lower than the top symbol, and, conversely, ground balls higher than the low symbol. Left/right seem to matter less than swing timing in determining direction.

Considering that, how can it not be interpreted as an odds generator? The closer you get to the middle, the better the odds are of getting solid contact, and the closer to the top symbol, the better your odds of getting hard contact on a fly. Again, though, we all know that result is not a given. We've all seen a contact point lower than the middle symbol and way to one side of the reticle result in a ball being launched way over the wall... how do you explain that? Well, you can either whine and complain about "bad placement" and "broken" mechanics because the contact didn't match the barrel position, or you can give up the ghost on the whole reticle-as-barrel theory and accept that while the odds of that happening were lower than they would have been had the ball been center-up, the possibility of that particular roll was there all along.

The PCI allows you to better your odds in a more manual way than other interfaces, but it's still a roll of the dice. There's no way around that without slowing pitches down to a snail's crawl and chasing the ball with a reticle that is representative of the width and length of an actual barrel; creating a true input-based result in a hitting engine would make for a terrible game. For all the fast-twitch junkies that need to feel that their stick skills are not muted by RNG, perhaps a baseball game isn't the place to scratch that itch.

Back to the OP's point - I think he's absolutely correct that Directional got the screw, and it's my contention that Zone is ridiculously overpowered. Sure, get a little boost by controlling your odds a bit more in exchange for the difficulty, but it doesn't have to be like it is now. I don't think I'm the only one who feels like this.

Nope. Clearly not the barrel of the bat. The barrel of a bat is less than 3” wide, and the reticle covers a third of the strike zone. You can try to explain how it ought to behave, if that were the case, but it isn’t at all consistent, hence all the bad placement HRs and “no reward” contact with good placement.

It’s an odds generator, based on where the batter is looking to cover the plate (it’s in the name, for Christ’s sake - plate coverage indicator). Sometimes you get good contact, and sometimes you don’t. A barrel is real and solid and precise; that reticle is not.

@guccigangchuck said in This Game Became Biast Towards .....:

if they are better why arent they using the better input, usually the better players make adjustments and learn new things rather then complain and doing the same old thing over and over. Definition of insanity.

Not only is that regurgitated stupidity and not the definition of insanity (rolling dice--same thing, different results), this comment is purely subjective [censored]; some people think a reticle has no place in a baseball game, especially as it represents nothing useful. If learning new things means taking the enjoyment out of something I love, then it ceases to be something I love.

This is a game. Games are made to be fun. For those who find enjoyment chasing little targets around with a reticle, there's a whole genre built around that, but some of us want a baseball simulation, and really don't feel that controlling the batter's eyes adds realism or enjoyment. Sure, it makes it harder, but I really don't need a contrived system of control to make things unnecessarily difficult so I can tell myself I'm better than someone else.

If someone actually likes that system, great. But forcing it on others who find it ridiculous isn't the answer.

I agree with some of the OP's post in that certain input schemes simply do not perform as well (but there are some pretty crazy statements in there), and I think there are some things the developers can do to remedy that to a degree. For instance, there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to hit a pitch high-and-in using Directional if you time it well and use the appropriate type of swing for that location (in my experience, very few cards can touch that pitch). In that sense, it is exploitable, and that makes it needlessly difficult to find success. It's also more complicated than just timing (you do choose a swing type, and what works and what doesn't differs with pitch location), but you'll never convince the type of person who feels they must do the hardest possible thing, even when it doesn't fit the context of baseball, because that's what makes them feel better about themselves.

On the other side of the equation, I feel Zone provides some absolutely stupid advantages; no other hitting interface allows you to produce the ridiculous, physics-bending results that Zone does... I cannot count how many low and outside (like off-the-plate outside) pitches I have seen pulled for home runs. Sometimes, it's as if the bat is somehow freed from the digital human to whom it is purportedly attached, and that type of nonsense allows players to get away with some otherwise shoddy play.

People are very quick to seize on this idea of "it's harder, so if I can do it, I should be rewarded," but there's no need to have a reticle in a baseball game. Period. Why would you need to control the batter's eyes? Clearly, that thing isn't the bat (it's [censored] huge), and despite people's best attempts to explain how it should behave relative to contact, it doesn't behave in any consistent way, or there wouldn't be so many posts about poor-placement HRs and not being rewarded for proper placement. In reality, the PCI is just an odds generator; put it around the ball and your odds of better contact are increased, miss your spot and your odds are decreased. Nothing is guaranteed, and, especially in this sport, it shouldn't be.

Granted, if you can influence your odds to some degree, then of course you'd expect to have better results, but I agree with the OP insomuch as the swing in odds from Directional to Zone (I think analog falls in the middle, and I happen to find the most enjoyment there) is too great. Tamp the [censored] physics for Zone, let Directional users cover the whole plate, and perhaps people who prefer Directional will be able to have a better experience. Zone will still outperform other interfaces, but it doesn't need to be by the leaps and bounds it does now.