Simple ball flight

[akw4572]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Cool... find me an investor with $5m in the pocket and I'll make that happen.

I was the original poster and you're totally misconstruing what I meant. See Bigcity's post.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Once you start down that graphics road this is guaranteed to happen.

Do you want a superb text sim or an inferior graphics game, given that if you choose the latter that the superb text sim is lost forever? That's an easy decision.

I don't see why it has to be either or. Graphics don't need to be amazing. These type of games will always be sim first, graphics second. I'm sure nearly everyone who buys these type of games knows that. I'm not going to speak for others but I feel that some sort of graphical representation is a natural progression for the game. I agree that if the sim engine suffers the game will suffer. But I don't believe that Markus would ever add a feature if it had a negative effect on the sim engine whether it's graphics or otherwise. I have faith that if Markus does add some sort of graphics he will maintain the same standards on the sim side.

To me it's a natural progression. Pure sim has it's ball flight, FM had its circle and ball animations and now graphics. EHM had it's animation. Pro Football simulator has basic animations and so does Draft Day Sports basketball etc. I don't think those animations make those games any less text sims. And I certainly don't think the games suffered because of it.

[oman19]

This all comes down to limited resources is what Markus is trying to say. They only have a very limited number of people working on OOTP. The opportunity cost of trying to work on something like this can't help but hinder the progress of other features they could be working on.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by oman19

This all comes down to limited resources is what Markus is trying to say. They only have a very limited number of people working on OOTP. The opportunity cost of trying to work on something like this can't help but hinder the progress of other features they could be working on.

Post of the week.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by ajsas01

I would 100% agree with you if adding graphics resulted in the play on the field being determined via ball/ball physics and not the simulating engine.

However, improving the in-game graphics to show what has already been simulated by the engine would not make the "text game" any less superb. It's not like the underlying OOTP simulating system goes "poof" if the in-game graphics are improved.

I normally agree with you on most things Wolf, but we seem to be at an impasse here.

There are a finite amount of OOTP resources and capital. Any resources and/or capital that are spent on graphics are not being spent on the simulation itself and therefore the simulation must suffer and be less than it otherwise could have been as a result.

I like baseball with graphics, too, but I get my fix by playing MLB: The Show and not by trying to change OOTP into a graphics-oriented game. Or even a game with graphics.

OOTP is the best baseball text simulation and it gets better every year. I want that to continue.

[The Wolf]

Plus there's the real risk that graphics could kill the game.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Plus there's the real risk that graphics could kill the game.

I'm not doubting you, I'm just wondering how that could happen?

[Honorable_Pawn]

I can answer that...well...what that means to me anyway.


Look at Railroad Tycoon II. Awesome game. What happened with Sid Meyers Railroads? They focused on graphics. They ignored their core strength--strategy. The game completely sucked after that.

Look at Civ V. They focused on war and graphics instead of their strength--strategy/micromanagement. Totally dumbed it down for the masses. Game sucks compared to Civ IV.

Look at Sim City 2013. Focused on graphics and multiplayer. Dumbed down. Only one tile, no terraforming. Game sucks compared to SIM 4. Why? They got away from their core strength--micromanagement for obsessive compulsive type players.

The point is that when you have a winning formula dont **** with it.

When developers start to focus on things that are not core strengths they then weaken the game as has been done sooooo many times. Who would want to play call of duty if they started focusing on strategy and supply chains? The time spent trying to focus on strategy would be time taken away from graphics. It would weaken the core strength.

Teflon is a company built on innovation and research & development. That is their core strength. If they started spending money on retail outlets that would be money that they would have to take out of the research budget. That would then weaken their core strength.

This is the point, IMO, that is being made by the opposition to graphics.

With all that said, I would like to see some basic graphics. But, first, I would rather see the strategy side of the financials improved. Spending time on graphics is time that is not spent on making the financial aspect more immersive. I want to see a tycoon-type improvement in the financials. To me that is much more in line with the core strengths than graphics.

Graphics are on the low end of importance, IMO. Improving AI roster management and improving the financials are highest priorities and...and...that is in line with the core strengths of OOTP.

[Up here in Canada]

Thank you for the response.

I’ve never been into the console type sim games so I personally have no desire to see a game of this nature go that route but it would be nice to see even a small improvement in the playing-out-the-game area.

[Honorable_Pawn]

agreed.


I will also concede that some folks opposed to graphics are a little "slippery slope" in their opposition too. I mean, a little shadow isn't going to break the bank as adding the ball flight didn't break the bank when it was introduced.

My opposition would be to full-out graphics, cut scenes, commentary, etc. Not a real basic 2-D representation.

[MizzouRah]

I had a thread on this for v14 suggestions.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

CBSSports.com GameTracker - Baseball

That's all this game needs in the graphics department, IMHO. It would also fit nicely in another tab inside the game play screen when managing/playing out a game.

For those that didn't want to see it, they could just use webcast/one of the other screens.

I also love how you can go back and view any play for that game.. sort of like an instant replay!

It's time... good thing is Markus knows this.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

agreed.


I will also concede that some folks opposed to graphics are a little "slippery slope" in their opposition too. I mean, a little shadow isn't going to break the bank as adding the ball flight didn't break the bank when it was introduced.

My opposition would be to full-out graphics, cut scenes, commentary, etc. Not a real basic 2-D representation.

It is a slippery slope. Once graphics has its head under the tent suddenly the number one demand becomes and stays better graphics.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I had a thread on this for v14 suggestions.



It's time... good thing is Markus knows this.

Yes, Markus knows. Markus cares. Markus will work it out. Stay tuned.

[Up here in Canada]

See Markus run.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yes, Markus knows. Markus cares. Markus will work it out. Stay tuned.

Just please work it out so that the simulation itself does not suffer.

[BigCity]

I feel compelled to clarify after seeing the discussion again turn into what most perceive as a High Heat type animation...

NOTE: This is my rough understanding of the process. I'm sure I am not totally correct, but I do not think my description is any less valid if I've missed a few points of accuracy.

The game at present goes through a complex formula to determine the play outcome between the pitcher and batter. It might have also determined at this point how the fielder fits into the play - or it might be doing that next - neither of which effects the graphics question because this part of the game is not going to be changed.

This code is the "holy grail" of the game defenders of the Text Game want to protect, and I agree.

Let's use, as an example, a high fly ball to left center field. This means a fly ball is on its way to "W LC", a point already defined for each ballpark which is at the top of the fence in left center field.

The "current" game animates the ball from home plate toward the "W LC" position in a straight line - stopping short of the fence - describing the play in text.

The "change" those of us in Group #2 are asking for is to replace the current animation with one that shows the "arched flight" of the ball from home plate to the "W LC" point on the fence with the "same text" timed to tell us the result as the ball reaches the fence (or close to it).

Nothing changes except the representation of the ball. Right now, everything is a "line drive". The new concept would differentiate grounders from line drives from fly balls and popups from bunts.

To make this palatable to those not interested, put the ball animation on an on-off switch so it can be turned off for those that do not wish to use it.

As a side note; I have to admit, it feels a little insulting to offer a game change with a design constructed to acknowledge the wishes of those that do not agree (the on-off option), and be responded to with an accusation we are somehow trying to destroy the core game. We're simply asking that the current animation (yes, it is an animation) be replaced with a more accurate animation.

We ALL love this game, and NONE of us wish "change it" into something else. This is an embellishment, nothing more - and would provide a little bit of anticipation on individual plays.

[Bobble]

I think we've hashed through all of this before but we need to do SOMETHING while we wait for OOTP 14 so...

Seems like Markus dipped his toe in the graphics pool with FaceGen. I think that's a great test-case for this conversation. Is OOTP better with or without FaceGen? Has FaceGen derailed the OOTP's focus? Was all the effort that went into implementing FaceGen "worth it"?

[mculberson1973]

What about Curt Schilling? Heard he was a big fan...oh wait, nevermind

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Bobble

I think we've hashed through all of this before but we need to do SOMETHING while we wait for OOTP 14 so...

Seems like Markus dipped his toe in the graphics pool with FaceGen. I think that's a great test-case for this conversation. Is OOTP better with or without FaceGen? Has FaceGen derailed the OOTP's focus? Was all the effort that went into implementing FaceGen "worth it"?

No, I don't think it was.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BigCity

As a side note; I have to admit, it feels a little insulting to offer a game change with a design constructed to acknowledge the wishes of those that do not agree (the on-off option), and be responded to with an accusation we are somehow trying to destroy the core game.

You can feel insulted if you choose to, but no one was insulting you. It's just that Oman19 is correct about this, and more graphics effort automatically means less simulation effort.

Originally Posted by oman19

They only have a very limited number of people working on OOTP. The opportunity cost of trying to work on something like this can't help but hinder the progress of other features they could be working on.