OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Anyone · 03-06-2017, 03:02 AM

I remember Earl Weaver Baseball, one of the very first computer games I played-- and yeah...just getting it to that level would add a ton to my enjoyment. Anything beyond that (except to also have, based on the variable in the file, the players having different skin tones) would still be appreciated, but there are diminishing returns after that.

EWBB, as I recall, was already able to show great plays as great plays, realistic close plays, etc..

It also had a working park editor. Silvam does a great job making 3D parks for people, including me (though he misread how I wanted the foul territory, and if 18 lacks a good in-game park editor I'll end up asking him to alter mine for small infield foul territory but big outfield rather than the reverse)...but Silvam's work ideally shouldn't be necessary.

It also would be nice if the park's dimensions affected where things happened (it's okay if we have to manually input the park factors, but with my park having a close CF fence and deep fences down the lines relative to most, more HR's should go to CF relative to down the lines compared to an average part: The total number of HR's in the park can still be just based on the park factors we input, but just more of the deep flyouts going down the lines and more of the HR's going to CF than one would expect).

While I expect the outcome derived from the stats and the "dice roll" will always determine the play outcome (a good thing, because I like most OOTP players prize statistical accuracy), it probably also did in Earl Weaver, but as I recall it in EW it didn't look like it. The infielder wouldn't hold the ball longer on an infield hit, nor would the runner run faster. It would simply make the ball move slowly to the fielder or take a high hop, so that the batter would beat it out.

That should be very possible. When the formulae determine there's an infield hit, they takes into account the batter's speed, the fielder's range and arm, and all that. So, showing what happened and essentially why the computer determined the batter could beat the ball out shouldn't be too hard.

This may strike people as a complaint post, but it isn't. 3D has advanced so much each year that we may have what I'm asking this year if it takes as big a step forward as from 16 to 17. I am arguing against those who say graphics don't matter, though. I do want to be able to "watch" the game, and feel like I'm watching a real baseball game. It doesn't take The Show level graphics to do that. EWBB did that well enough, so that should be the target and, in my view, a high priority (fortunately the devs do seem to prioritize it).

03-06-2017, 03:02 AM	#35
Anyone Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 405	I remember Earl Weaver Baseball, one of the very first computer games I played-- and yeah...just getting it to that level would add a ton to my enjoyment. Anything beyond that (except to also have, based on the variable in the file, the players having different skin tones) would still be appreciated, but there are diminishing returns after that. EWBB, as I recall, was already able to show great plays as great plays, realistic close plays, etc.. It also had a working park editor. Silvam does a great job making 3D parks for people, including me (though he misread how I wanted the foul territory, and if 18 lacks a good in-game park editor I'll end up asking him to alter mine for small infield foul territory but big outfield rather than the reverse)...but Silvam's work ideally shouldn't be necessary. It also would be nice if the park's dimensions affected where things happened (it's okay if we have to manually input the park factors, but with my park having a close CF fence and deep fences down the lines relative to most, more HR's should go to CF relative to down the lines compared to an average part: The total number of HR's in the park can still be just based on the park factors we input, but just more of the deep flyouts going down the lines and more of the HR's going to CF than one would expect). While I expect the outcome derived from the stats and the "dice roll" will always determine the play outcome (a good thing, because I like most OOTP players prize statistical accuracy), it probably also did in Earl Weaver, but as I recall it in EW it didn't look like it. The infielder wouldn't hold the ball longer on an infield hit, nor would the runner run faster. It would simply make the ball move slowly to the fielder or take a high hop, so that the batter would beat it out. That should be very possible. When the formulae determine there's an infield hit, they takes into account the batter's speed, the fielder's range and arm, and all that. So, showing what happened and essentially why the computer determined the batter could beat the ball out shouldn't be too hard. This may strike people as a complaint post, but it isn't. 3D has advanced so much each year that we may have what I'm asking this year if it takes as big a step forward as from 16 to 17. I am arguing against those who say graphics don't matter, though. I do want to be able to "watch" the game, and feel like I'm watching a real baseball game. It doesn't take The Show level graphics to do that. EWBB did that well enough, so that should be the target and, in my view, a high priority (fortunately the devs do seem to prioritize it).