Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican
I’ve learned from these forums to ignore the visual and rely on the narrative for the accurate description of the play. As the 3D animation improves, that’s harder to do. Agree with OP that it is confusing and wrenching to have the animation make no sense, in terms of play result.
In those cases where I’m given a choice as Manager (or 3B Coach, actually) whether to send the runner, I have learned to pay no attention to the visual on the screen, but rather listen carefully to the narrative for hints on depth of the fly ball, whether the outfielder is backpedaling, his angle and location. Then I factor in the runner’s speed (technically, his baserunning ability in OOTP) and the arm strength of the outfielder, and of course the number of outs.
Agree with EC that I takes time to synchronize the player movement with the text of the narrative. My impression is that the 3D movement got out ahead of the play calls, in terms of development. I can imagine that it is a painstaking and laborious task to go back and synch the two, for each suspect play result in the game. Maybe in future years we can have a thread devoted to the discrepancies between the play call narrative and the movement depicted in 3D visuals? That would give the developers a list from which to work in correcting the flaws.
|
they have put a ton of money in visuals and it is all fluff, sadly.
i am sure you can run a report on SF vs depth of flyballs and include arm and that rate of stealing speed into the equation