DBC 17 - The Complete Review! Please Answer the Poll!

[Alberts]

Keep rambling and defending sans logic....maybe there is something in it for you

So you concede you have no evidence to back your claim of "50% of the field" there then. Good oh.

 

[varunschuey]

So you concede you have no evidence to back your claim of "50% of the field" there then. Good oh.

Read the OP and the thread on DBC Batting where @cricket_online has discussed this in great detail along with wagon wheels.

 

[Alberts]

Read the OP and the thread on DBC Batting where @cricket_online has discussed this in great detail along with wagon wheels.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the specific claim of 50%. Do you have evidence to back this very specific claim, or is it a number you (or someone else) just made up?

 

[varunschuey]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the specific claim of 50%. Do you have evidence to back this very specific claim, or is it a number you (or someone else) just made up?

LOL....looking at the large swathe of areas inaccessible...see wagon wheels and the charts that are posted.....it is around 50%........give or take 0.5 percent.....so may be 49.5% or 50.5%.....wait let me put it under a microscope.....ah it is actually 49.992.....sorry I am off by 0.008%.....you win.

 

[Alberts]

LOL....looking at the large swathe of areas inaccessible...see wagon wheels and the charts that are posted.....it is around 50%........give or take 0.5 percent.....so may be 49.5% or 50.5%.....wait let me put it under a microscope.....ah it is actually 49.992.....sorry I am off by 0.008%.....you win.

So, not only is this a very poorly defined concept, but you have no evidence to claim the numbers you're claiming. Good to know.

There are shots that can't be triggered, there are shots that are hard to play, but this 50% number has just been made up. From what I can tell it started as a concern about the leg glace and "nearly 50% of the onside being inaccessible". This figure alone of course is nonsense because there are other shots, including sweeps, etc., that are very possible in the game. From here though it appears that you just decided to take it as a given that it must be 50%. Going on about 0.5% though is pretty funny, because it either means you lack basic numeracy (which I hope you don't), or you've cottoned on to your own nonsense and are trying to make a joke of it.

 

[varunschuey]

So, not only is this a very poorly defined concept, but you have no evidence to claim the numbers you're claiming. Good to know.

There are shots that can't be triggered, there are shots that are hard to play, but this 50% number has just been made up. From what I can tell it started as a concern about the leg glace and "nearly 50% of the onside being inaccessible". This figure alone of course is nonsense because there are other shots, including sweeps, etc., that are very possible in the game. From here though it appears that you just decided to take it as a given that it must be 50%. Going on about 0.5% though is pretty funny, because it either means you lack basic numeracy (which I hope you don't), or you've cottoned on to your own nonsense and are trying to make a joke of it.

Oh....look gears 1, 2 and 6 are not accessible....but hey the AI can use these....and wait....if the player contorts himself and uses trail braking, opposite lock and the handbrake together....he can still engage the 1st gear....wow and I thought 1st gear was inaccessible

 

[Alberts]

Oh....look gears 1, 2 and 6 are not accessible....but hey the AI can use these....and wait....if the player contorts himself and uses trail braking, opposite lock and the handbrake together....he can still engage the 1st gear....wow and I thought 1st gear was inaccessible

...still not seeing any evidence of your 50% figure. From my own tests the only spots you can't hit are the cover region and fine behind square; that's not 50% of the field, that's not even 50% of the onside. If you think you can demonstrate 50%, then go right ahead.

Most people agree with most of your original complaints, I don't know why you're so desperate to exaggerate so much. It only makes it harder for developers when people like you act this way, as it becomes hard to trust reports if some small-minded dishonest people are reporting problems to be bigger than they are.

 

[varunschuey]

...still not seeing any evidence of your 50% figure. From my own tests the only spots you can't hit are the cover region and fine behind square; that's not 50% of the field, that's not even 50% of the onside. If you think you can demonstrate 50%, then go right ahead.

Most people agree with most of your original complaints, I don't know why you're so desperate to exaggerate so much. It only makes it harder for developers when people like you act this way, as it becomes hard to trust reports if some small-minded dishonest people are reporting problems to be bigger than they are.

Can moderators please look into this....I don't think people can call one another dishonest and small minded.

 

[Alberts]

Can moderators please look into this....I don't think people can call one another dishonest and small minded.

I never said you were dishonest or small-minded.

What I am yet to see is evidence of your 50% claim. I'm guessing you have none at this point.

 

[varunschuey]

I never said you were dishonest or small-minded.

What I am yet to see is evidence of your 50% claim. I'm guessing you have none at this point.

I referred you to the evidence multiple times....I guess you can only see what you want to see

 

[Alberts]

I referred you to the evidence multiple times....I guess you can only see what you want to see

When did you refer to any evidence? You posted a diagram on page 2:

The problem there being two fold:

1. That's not 50% of the field.
2. You can hit large parts of what you're claiming you can't.

So again, you've not posted any evidence of anything from what I can tell. Again, either you've made up the 50% figure, or you've got evidence of it that you're not showing. At this point in time the only conclusion we can come to is that you made it up. Considering that it's pretty self evident that it isn't the case (the only parts of the field that can't readily be hit are fine behind square and through cover), it's hard to not conclude that this isn't just a mistake, but you're outright lying for effect.

 

[varunschuey]

When did you refer to any evidence? You posted a diagram on page 2:



The problem there being two fold:

1. That's not 50% of the field.
2. You can hit large parts of what you're claiming you can't.

So again, you've not posted any evidence of anything from what I can tell. Again, either you've made up the 50% figure, or you've got evidence of it that you're not showing. At this point in time the only conclusion we can come to is that you made it up. Considering that it's pretty self evident that it isn't the case (the only parts of the field that can't readily be hit are fine behind square and through cover), it's hard to not conclude that this isn't just a mistake, but you're outright lying for effect.

Sir Alberts....that is just one post from me....and this graph does not even reflect that the Third Man region is out of bounds. Read the detailed thread on this with lots of posts from @cricket_online which also showcases wagon wheels directly from the game.

You can in fact access these areas in rare cases through edges or some unorthodox shots.....like I said....its akin to engaging 1st gear through trail braking, opposite lock and handbrakes. These areas should be properly accessible.

There have been games in the past where you could only hit to the 8 different axis points on a D PAD......that by itself provided better coverage of the field as opposed to DBC 17's proclaimed 360 degree analog batting controls.

To Bigant's defence DBC 14 gave access to the entire field and also had working stroke variation (although not completely 360). This game has drastically regressed in that area and around 50% of the field is.....I again reiterate.....AROUND (don't want to get into decimals) 50% of the field is inaccessible through proper strokes.

 

[Redfive]

Would it be off topic if I posted a picture of some kittens to break the monotony?

Only if you posted a picture of 50% of a kitten

 

[Alberts]

Sir Alberts....that is just one post from me....and this graph does not even reflect that the Third Man region is out of bounds. Read the detailed thread on this with lots of posts from @cricket_online which also showcases wagon wheels directly from the game.

You can in fact access these areas in rare cases through edges or some unorthodox shots.....like I said....its akin to engaging 1st gear through trail braking, opposite lock and handbrakes. These areas should be properly accessible.

There have been games in the past where you could only hit to the 8 different axis points on a D PAD......that by itself provided better coverage of the field as opposed to DBC 17's proclaimed 360 degree analog batting controls.

To Bigant's defence DBC 14 gave access to the entire field and also had working stroke variation (although not completely 360). This game has drastically regressed in that area and around 50% of the field is.....I again reiterate.....AROUND (don't want to get into decimals) 50% of the field is inaccessible through proper strokes.

You really don't get it do you. You can't just state "50%" when even your own justifications don't say it. Nothing in this post even suggests 50% either. At this point I dare say that you're outright lying for effect. For example, I just booted up the game and tested out the trouble areas with a few left handers (the straight drives are just because they're tempting). This was in Test match, all batsmen used were left handed, the AI had set a field to stop shots through midoff and point:

From this image here we can actually create a more accurate version of your previous estimate of how much of the field you can't target:

Here kittens represent areas you can't target with normal shots. I have previously send some shots nearly straight backwards with things like ramp shots, and of course you can get edges there, but that's not what we're interested in. You can see that cover area there pretty clearly, and the behind square issue is also apparent. Nobody is disputing these points. What is clear here however is that it's not 50% of the field. The cover area represents about 35° that you can't hit and behind square there is about 90°. Together this would be 125° that can't be hit with standard shots, or about 34.7% of the way around the pitch (not 34.7% of the area, it's quite a bit less than that as you can see there). The thing is though that a good fraction of that (behind the keeper) is an area that you shouldn't be able to hit with standard shots. As an absolute maximum estimate of shots you should be able to play that you can't though, 34.7% is about as extreme a figure as you can go, and that is considerably less than the 50% you keep banging on about.

 

[varunschuey]

Dude.....seriously.....you just don't get it? Do you? Proper Cricketing Shots....Not Edges....Not Younis Khan Cover Drives.....Not that dribble (with R1) behind square.

If you can post a video or direct me to one where players have hit to Cover, Thirdman and Fineleg using orthodox cricket shots....I will accept that my assertion of these areas being inaccessible was wrong.

Even your own conservative summary....90 degrees on the leg side and 35 degrees through Cover....125 degrees in total.....does not include another 25 degrees through Thirdman.....which is also inaccessible and evident from your own wagon wheel. That makes it 150 degrees and that in itself amounts to more than 41% of the field.