Shallow Fly Balls Automatic Sac Fly

[Whompson77]

Ive noticed a massive uptick in very shallow fly balls caught with a runner on 3rd, resulting in pretty much an automatic sac fly. VERY shallow. The runner takes off in what should be an absurd attempt, but the OF does the ol' "Super Slow Motion Throw" and the runner easily scores.

I know you can adjust how often sac flies happen, but is there any way to adjust the depth of a ball hit at which the runner either attempts to run or is successful/unsuccessful?

I've come to just live with balls being held for 2 seconds before being thrown and cutoff men running backwards into the outfield and holding the ball when a runner(s) are in the process of advancing, but this seems to be the straw the broke the camel's back for me. I'm really hoping I just can't find a setting.

Also, the aforementioned plays have been going on for decades and so this is probably pointless, but PLEASE GOD JUST FIX LIKE ONE OF THEM. any help would be much much appreciated. I don't want to always just play on 2d

THANK YOU ALL

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Whompson77

Ive noticed a massive uptick in very shallow fly balls caught with a runner on 3rd, resulting in pretty much an automatic sac fly. VERY shallow. The runner takes off in what should be an absurd attempt, but the OF does the ol' "Super Slow Motion Throw" and the runner easily scores.

I know you can adjust how often sac flies happen, but is there any way to adjust the depth of a ball hit at which the runner either attempts to run or is successful/unsuccessful?

I've come to just live with balls being held for 2 seconds before being thrown and cutoff men running backwards into the outfield and holding the ball when a runner(s) are in the process of advancing, but this seems to be the straw the broke the camel's back for me. I'm really hoping I just can't find a setting.

Also, the aforementioned plays have been going on for decades and so this is probably pointless, but PLEASE GOD JUST FIX LIKE ONE OF THEM. any help would be much much appreciated. I don't want to always just play on 2d

THANK YOU ALL

"Patience, Grasshopper"... (look it up... it's from an old TV series Kung Fu starring David Carradine).
You will learn there are always some things in OOTP that are not perfect and you just have to learn to live with them to retain some semblance of sanity.
I think this is one of them.

Yep, it bothers the heck out of me, too... so does a center fielder throwing a fast runner out at home, tagging at third, from deep center field.

[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.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Pelican

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.

I think that's generally what this thread is for?

[MikeS369]

Those stinking animations cause me to fling expletives at my monitor.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by MikeS369

Those stinking animations cause me to fling expletives at my monitor.

Read your response too fast and thought it said "fling expletives at my mother."

[Pelican]

If somebody would give me a quick tutorial in editing the narratives, I would be happy to take on the discrepancies. But wait, the play result seems to be based on the narrative, not the screen animation, so that would make the situation worse! I’m afraid the task is much harder (and beyond my limited editing capabilities). Need to change the graphics to better conform to the narrative. Or change the play result to conform to the graphics. Ugh. I can see why this has not yet happened. I wish I had more understanding of how graphics are adapted to the actual play result. There seems to be a disconnect that traces back to the 3D being updated. Developers, how do we fix this, thoughts?

[Pelican]

If somebody would give me a quick tutorial in editing the narratives, I would be happy to take on the discrepancies. But wait, the play result seems to be based on the narrative, not the screen animation, so that would make the situation worse! I’m afraid the task is much harder (and beyond my limited editing capabilities). Need to change the graphics to better conform to the narrative. Or change the play result to conform to the graphics. Ugh. I can see why this has not yet happened. I wish I had more understanding of how graphics are adapted to the actual play result. There seems to be a disconnect that traces back to the 3D being updated. Developers, how do we fix this, thoughts?

[fredbeene]

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

[fredbeene]

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.

NO baserunning ability has little effect.
SPEED is a split attribute based on nothing but rate of stealing.
Speed is used on SF and has been confirmed by devs.
You can run all sorts of sims (10x games in seconds ) to prove how SPEED impacts SF flies and other attributes.

they are boxed in and will never split the attribute. same with Start and Rel stanima

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Pelican

If somebody would give me a quick tutorial in editing the narratives, I would be happy to take on the discrepancies. But wait, the play result seems to be based on the narrative, not the screen animation, so that would make the situation worse! I’m afraid the task is much harder (and beyond my limited editing capabilities). Need to change the graphics to better conform to the narrative. Or change the play result to conform to the graphics. Ugh. I can see why this has not yet happened. I wish I had more understanding of how graphics are adapted to the actual play result. There seems to be a disconnect that traces back to the 3D being updated. Developers, how do we fix this, thoughts?

pbp is sadly basically fluff. there has been no improvement in 20 years on pbp. no community collaborations.
just open the ENLISH.xxx file

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

pbp is sadly basically fluff. there has been no improvement in 20 years on pbp. no community collaborations.
just open the ENLISH.xxx file

None in 20 years? Really? The pbp I see in v23 is the same as I saw in v4, 5, or 6?

I hope the volunteers that spent countless hours adding to the pbp, over those 20 years, don't read your disrespectful post. Not only did these guys add plays to the file but also many different ways of describing the plays to avoid it becoming repetitive.

With the advent of the 3d game over the last few versions, yes the pbp has not seen much. When you can watch the plays there isn't going to be much time spent adding for the three players (maybe hyperbole, maybe not?) that still play "text only". There is some new pbp, ie 3b stepping on with 2 outs for the 3rd out and a few others, for newly added plays, have been added.

The fact is they add more sorts and stats to each version. Not at the pace you'd like, but that's the way it is. Baseball Reference and similar sites now offer "extra stats" for a subscription fee. Their sites area a full time business that operates for profit. To expect OOTP to completely cover everything those sites do at no additional cost is silly. Perhaps they should hire a coder to do that and offer the "super stat package" as download content? Yeah, that would go over well.

You don't like the visuals, fair enough. You're probably one of the users that "knew" going down that route would put OOTP out of business too. Right?
Seems to be working well at the moment for them, no reason to backoff or change now.

[Pelican]

I have seen many improvements in the pbp in the four years I have been playing. (I’ve also seen huge jumps in the animation; although that is no more than “eye candy” to me.) I enjoy the narrative and the hints it can give about things like the odds of taking an extra base. My observation, seconding the OP, was that the visual depictions don’t always track the narrative. To me, not a coder (but married to one), the animation should track the narrative; not the reverse. In other words, keep the narrative, and fix the animation to reflect what the narrative says.