Fielding Radar

[79cricket]

I love Bigant for trying without a radar and it works ok for most as we are the cricket nuts but for casual fans it needs to change is my view. If Bigant do this for patch 3 or the next game is fine for me.

 

[ellgieff]

I think when 77% of the polled come as either yes, or open to it being optional, you really have to consider the possibility that it's the minority "whining" that it shouldn't be there in any circumstances.

Personally I think it's key: pressing L2 and looking around the field every time is time consuming, sometimes I fail to get there before the bowler starts running. A radar is the game equivalent of a "quick glance around" before setting yourself for me.

Another possibility is something I've toyed with before, not having a cut away in between balls: no replays or cut-scenes. That would give the batsman time to look around properly and notice fielders moving into new positions. THAT would be the closest thing I can think of to "realistic" you could get whilst maintaining the necessary mechanics...

Chief, we've already discussed at the top why this poll is flawed. As an example, I could easily suggest that 59% come out as either no, or I'll deal with it if you have to add one.

It's not conclusive, largely because the poll is poorly constructed.

In the meat, you don't have to have a "quick glance around" - the bowler has to wait until you are ready. In fact, if he's not in his delivery stride you can pull away at any moment and it will be a dead ball.

So the issue is the time-limit factor (which I believe is introduced purely to cater to online multiplayer). Just turn that off for single player.

A radar is just another thing to go wrong, just another source of potential bugs. For those that want it, it's a nice-to-have. No one could argue that it's necessary - and adding nice-to-haves before the core is solid is asking for trouble, yeah?

 

[zimrahil]

A radar is just another thing to go wrong, just another source of potential bugs. For those that want it, it's a nice-to-have. No one could argue that it's necessary - and adding nice-to-haves before the core is solid is asking for trouble, yeah?

Not sure about that - playing cricket games for years and don't recall there ever being a buggy radar?

 

[ellgieff]

Not sure about that - playing cricket games for years and don't recall there ever being a buggy radar?

Anything you add is another source of potential problems, whether these things have caused problems before or not. The issue is always whether the new feature adds enough to be worth the potential issues.

I've been playing cricket games for years and I don't recall there ever being one without bugs. The possibility is there (probably very small, but a possibility nevertheless) that every bug in every cricket game (so, for instance, the problems with wides in BLC/SWC) was actually caused by a buggy implementation of a radar.

Put it this way: I'm not convinced that the Big Pitch display is entirely reflective of where deliveries have pitched. It's not a big deal, because it's a display of what has occurred previously and doesn't impact the game - but fielders being displayed in "not quite right" positions on the radar could impact the game.

More than anything, my position on the radar is that it's not needed, and that I'd rather the game impacting bugs are sorted first, before they start tacking on extensions.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Okay replying to this is going to take some work.

Chief, we've already discussed at the top why this poll is flawed. As an example, I could easily suggest that 59% come out as either no, or I'll deal with it if you have to add one.

It's not conclusive, largely because the poll is poorly constructed.

If you want to talk about a flawed poll, we could talk about this flawed post. Your statistic is wrong as people voting in the poll are aware that a radar would be a "switched off" option, which would need to be switched on to be used, so only those who really want it would be using it. So, how would they have to "deal with it if you have to add one"?

No one was forced to vote in the poll and the highest number (86 now) believe it should be added. There's (76 now) for "Maybe or should be added and optional", that means they're okay with it being there (switched off) at least, not that they don't want it secretly. That's bizarre. Of course only (46 now) say that it should never be there. The poll if flawed at all, has only very, very small flaws. It proves a good point.

In the meat, you don't have to have a "quick glance around" - the bowler has to wait until you are ready. In fact, if he's not in his delivery stride you can pull away at any moment and it will be a dead ball.

Not sure what "in the meat" means, but "you don't have to have a "quick glance around" - the bowler has to wait until you are ready? What Chief is saying that a radar is the equivalent of a quick glance around and then you can get on with the game. In about one second. People who would like a radar option are suggesting it only pops up if switched on for 2 seconds a ball.

Using the L2 method takes 6-7 seconds to sweep around the entire outfield and I have used many people to test, recognising short, medium and long distances when looking through this method is very problematic in haste.

6-7 (let's say 6) seconds a ball added to the running time of a T10 game, adds up to (counting both innings) 720 seconds or 12 minutes. Why would anyone check every ball?

Right now, fields sometimes change without a cut-scene randomly.

When not playing career, you have to watch out for batsmen changing strike, new batsmen coming to the crease after a dismisal and trying to remember what field is set for which batsman.

Memory of where fielders are.

Let's say people only check every second ball, that's still 6 minutes of extra time just glancing around.

So the issue is the time-limit factor (which I believe is introduced purely to cater to online multiplayer). Just turn that off for single player.

Can you also turn off real life responsibilities, appointments, jobs to do around your house, when this simple thing would make the game play faster especially for a bigger game like a T20, 40 or 50 over?

A radar is just another thing to go wrong, just another source of potential bugs. For those that want it, it's a nice-to-have. No one could argue that it's necessary - and adding nice-to-haves before the core is solid is asking for trouble, yeah?

Yeah? No. For all the reasons I've had to outline above, it's would be more than slightly useful for those who need it. You could argue that anything being added to the game ever could add bugs, so we'd be arguing against anything like new stadiums or the like if there was to be a dlc or whatever.

As said above, radars have been used in games for a long time and even back to megadrive games with Brian Lara on there, they could've allowed you to move the fielding camera all around the overhead view and let you waste time finding out where everyone was, but they didn't.

It was and still can be a very useful idea.

 

[ellgieff]

Okay replying to this is going to take some work.

If you want to talk about a flawed poll, we could talk about this flawed post. Your statistic is wrong as people voting in the poll are aware that a radar would be a "switched off" option, which would need to be switched on to be used, so only those who really want it would be using it. So, how would they have to "deal with it if you have to add one"?

They'd have to know it was there. My point is that the poll, as it stands, doesn't say 77% support the radar. Someone could answer with that third one meaning exactly what I said they meant - and it's flawed to assume what they actually meant.

Which is likely to be "don't care". Don't care isn't "yes", and it's not "no".

Not sure what "in the meat" means, but "you don't have to have a "quick glance around" - the bowler has to wait until you are ready? What Chief is saying that a radar is the equivalent of a quick glance around and then you can get on with the game. In about one second. People who would like a radar option are suggesting it only pops up if switched on for 2 seconds a ball.

Using the L2 method takes 6-7 seconds to sweep around the entire outfield and I have used many people to test, recognising short, medium and long distances when looking through this method is very problematic in haste.

6-7 (let's say 6) seconds a ball added to the running time of a T10 game, adds up to (counting both innings) 720 seconds or 12 minutes. Why would anyone check every ball?

Right now, fields sometimes change without a cut-scene randomly.

When not playing career, you have to watch out for batsmen changing strike, new batsmen coming to the crease after a dismisal and trying to remember what field is set for which batsman.

Memory of where fielders are.

Let's say people only check every second ball, that's still 6 minutes of extra time just glancing around.

In the meat is a phrase to distinguish between online reality and flesh reality. It's a William Gibson/cyberpunk nerd thing, sorry.

The fact that you don't have a quick look around is what I was saying, I apologise if that wasn't clear.

Yes, I understand that those are all reasons you want a radar. They're fair enough reasons. I don't think you're a bad person for having those reasons. They're just, to me, not compelling enough to support the idea of a fielding radar.

Can you also turn off real life responsibilities, appointments, jobs to do around your house, when this simple thing would make the game play faster especially for a bigger game like a T20, 40 or 50 over?

No, but I can pause and/or save the game when meat responsibilities (aside: this is exactly why I use the "in the meat"/"on the net" dichotomy, because the net is real, and one can have responsibilities on the net too) intrude.

I have to do it now.

Yeah? No. For all the reasons I've had to outline above, it's would be more than slightly useful for those who need it. You could argue that anything being added to the game ever could add bugs, so we'd be arguing against anything like new stadiums or the like if there was to be a dlc or whatever.

As said above, radars have been used in games for a long time and even back to megadrive games with Brian Lara on there, they could've allowed you to move the fielding camera all around the overhead view and let you waste time finding out where everyone was, but they didn't.

It was and still can be a very useful idea.

Yeah, Brian Lara Cricket could have been like an actual cricket game, but instead it was a series of quick time events with a cricket-like graphical skin. I don't see why that's even a point. Games in the past not having bugs related to a radar doesn't bear any relevance here.

Note also that the potential bugs from DLC (like new stadiums) is a legitimate reason to approach them cautiously.

The discussion actually comes down to whether viewing the field from a first person perspective is a waste of time, or not. For me it's part of the game and therefore not a waste of time.

For you, it's a waste of time and you'd rather not have to do it.

*shrugs* My perspective is perhaps different because I play career mode exclusively.

 

[Cloda]

I want a radar because I want to make the most out of my limited game playing time. All I want to do in essence while playing this game, is to play shot after shot. As such I skip everything I can and wish that I can even skip (or disable) all animations that is added to simulate some sort of atmosphere but isn't involved in the direct game-play e.g. ball shine, looking around the field, seeing fielders considering an appeal or even seeing the umpire indicate anything. I would be more than happy if Out/Four/Wide/No-ball etc. is just quickly flashed across the screen just so that I don't have to look at a random umpiry looking kind of dude doing some motion that is stealing my precious game playing time.

Except for seeing if it works, I haven't once looked around the field as it just feels cumbersome. I rather look at the automatic replays as it serves multiple purposes that is of direct relevance to me improving in the game including giving me a good indication of where the fielders are. I miss out sometimes on fielding changes, but I rarely play aggressive shots (multi-day games being my preference), so that is not a real issue.

So, here is me wasting some more of my precious time (work time in this case ) to hopefully add to the case for having a radar included in the game.

 

[Biggs]

As said above, radars have been used in games for a long time and even back to megadrive games with Brian Lara on there, they could've allowed you to move the fielding camera all around the overhead view and let you waste time finding out where everyone was, but they didn't.

Cricket games need less HUD than more. Point of fact; Most games these days are steering away completely from any HUD (Tomb Raider as the best example) so as to not clutter the user-experience when it's not necessary. A Radar is just adding another cheat for players that don't want to play cricket, they just want to hit sixes every ball. Lower the difficulty, and it doesn't matter where the fielders are, radar or not you can belt it like a tennis ball.

I think the happy-medium for the hand-held requirements that a "Radar" brings would be a simple button press of say, one of the arrow-buttons, and you "swooosh" out to a birds eye view of the entire field then "swoosh" back into your batting stance at the crease.

I kinda disagree that the L2 trigger is "time consuming" because in all honesty, you're taking just as much time to "look around the field" as you would staring at a HUD element down the bottom of the screen before you bat. The only difference is you get to interact with the game in a meaningful manner rather than the game hand-holding you through where all the fielders are.

I like the fact you don't always know where the fielders are, and fielding changes become a tactic as much as it becomes a good way to pick a gap and hit the ball there to force a field change. I think the mindset I've come to work with the game is not so much worrying where the fielders are at, but where the gaps are. That, I believe, is the fundamental difference BigAnt want you to be thinking about when you play the game.

The old system of "here's where everyone is, point and shoot" is gone and the tactical "play for the gaps" is a much better approach, because it's like you play in a real game when you bat but furthermore, means you can just belt the ball in the same place all the time for four.

 

[MattW]

I've made the suggestion before - I wish the bowler could also quickly look around the field the same way batsmen can. I hate having to go look at the radar...

 

[Chief]

I think the mindset I've come to work with the game is not so much worrying where the fielders are at, but where the gaps are.

They're right there: between those fielders.

I agree with reducing HUD elements as much as possible so that only crucial important information is on screen. Find a way to get that visible without HUD and I think we have a winner. But DBC doesn't have that, and it suffers accordingly IMO.

 

[whiteninness]

I don't see the problem. Now that the fielders are easy to see, it's not hard to look around. It's like real cricket and you have plenty of time to do it.

MAYBE if I had one suggestion it would be a "field has changed" warning coming up when the AI has done something, prompting you to have a look around.

 

[Chief]

I don't see the problem. Now that the fielders are easy to see, it's not hard to look around. It's like real cricket and you have plenty of time to do it.

MAYBE if I had one suggestion it would be a "field has changed" warning coming up when the AI has done something, prompting you to have a look around.

I'd also like a bit longer before the bowler starts his run up (or preferably to "take guard", signalling I'm ready): often I miss the window to look around, or it times out *whilst* I'm looking around.

 

[Mr Snrub]

No offence Biggsy, but I'm going to have to try to actively deconstruct a lot of what you said there, because some of it's down to personal opinion/prefences and some of it's flat out wrong. I know you're supposed to be the guy who gets it, but not even the Don himself had a perfect record.

Cricket games need less HUD than more. Point of fact; Most games these days are steering away completely from any HUD (Tomb Raider as the best example) so as to not clutter the user-experience when it's not necessary.

First of all, there's not much you're saying here that you're classing as opinion, you're saying it's straight up fact. You can't really say what cricket games need or don't, fans do and plenty of people who've responded to the poll are not idiots and do want a good game and have considered whether this makes the HUD suffer. It's obvious they feel it's necessary.

You like comparisons? Other games do indeed still keep maps on screen, for example GTA V and FIFA.

A Radar is just adding another cheat for players that don't want to play cricket, they just want to hit sixes every ball.

That's so not true, it's bordering on an out-right lie and would be if you didn't seem to actually believe it. The purpose of the radar is to keep a player informed of what they'd readily know in real life.

Lower the difficulty, and it doesn't matter where the fielders are, radar or not you can belt it like a tennis ball.

That's not what people are asking for and is a little insulting really.

I think the happy-medium for the hand-held requirements that a "Radar" brings would be a simple button press of say, one of the arrow-buttons, and you "swooosh" out to a birds eye view of the entire field then "swoosh" back into your batting stance at the crease.

I don't think many would argue with this and would probably all be willing to give it a try. I'm pretty sure you'd soon find that we're not all against things like that and aren't trying to "belt everything for six".

I kinda disagree that the L2 trigger is "time consuming" because in all honesty, you're taking just as much time to "look around the field" as you would staring at a HUD element down the bottom of the screen before you bat.

This is flat out wrong. I know this for a fact. The time it takes for each method are very far apart. I have the advantage of playing a lot of off-line multi-player with upto 6 friends of varying gaming abilities and these are people not shy to argue with me.

When we play each other, the bowler taps down on the d-pad for the other player, so that they can see the field at varying points in the game. I timed two other friends during a game and it was around 1.6-1.8 seconds at most, then "yep, okay" and on with the game.

We've tried each other looking around in L2 and it takes forever to get through a game. The game seems to give you about 6-7 seconds and some of the players were struggling to be able to identify gaps, partly because they had to identify depth of each player as they panned around and that's MUCH harder than real life.

I like the fact you don't always know where the fielders are

Wow, that sounds great. Especially with one wicket left, 3 balls to go and 7 runs to get. Sounds ideal.

I think the mindset I've come to work with the game is not so much worrying where the fielders are at, but where the gaps are.

Yes, I believe gaps and ideas are what we're trying to rapidly conjure whether looking through L2 or quickly glimpsing a radar.

The old system of "here's where everyone is, point and shoot" is gone and the tactical "play for the gaps" is a much better approach, because it's like you play in a real game when you bat but furthermore, means you can just belt the ball in the same place all the time for four.

So, wait are you saying (or did you type that wrong), that "because it's like you play in a real game when you bat but furthermore, means you can just belt the ball in the same place all the time for four"? Why on earth would people want to just keep slapping it through the same gap for four? That sounds like not playing the ball on it's merits. Shouldn't people be playing the line and length of the ball and then playing into a gap that's relative to that?

Finally the first part of that last paragraph, where you said "The old system of "here's where everyone is, point and shoot" is gone and the tactical "play for the gaps" is a much better approach"???

I can't believe you think we want to "point and shoot". You're a much smarter man than that, the whole bowling side of the game is what dictates where you can play to.

The field set (whether or not you used L2 or a brief 2 sec glimpse of a radar) is just information. Then you take the information from the delivery and rapidly play into the most sensible area based on the merits of the delivery.

This doesn't change because you saw the radar. The previous Ashes games were badly designed in relation to how the radar was implemented and had it there all day, with a huge honking cone and batsmen that could play into ridiculous field positions from ridiculous shot selection. That wouldn't and won't happen here.

I really hate posting these long diatribes, but I have to refute points I disagree with and you have to argue with a reasonable degree of proof. So, a lengthy wall of text it is.

Summary: The fielding radar would be just a good way to relay information clearly and quickly (L2's first person makes judging distances from the player something you have to slow for and panning clearly takes time). It would speed up the game for many.

I don't see the problem. Now that the fielders are easy to see, it's not hard to look around. It's like real cricket and you have plenty of time to do it.

It does indeed take plenty of time.

They all lived happily after. The end.

 

[Chief]

The previous Ashes games were badly designed in relation to how the radar was implemented and had it there all day, with a huge honking cone and batsmen that could play into ridiculous field positions from ridiculous shot selection. That wouldn't and won't happen here.

I think it was a very different design methodology: that was about the user being able to say "I want to get the ball THERE" and then was all about the timing etc. The better the timing, the closer the ball would end up to where you wanted it to go. Much more casual.

DBC is much more complex, the type of shot being all about aggressiveness, timing, footwork, reacting to the line and length (rather than having set your direction to the pitch marker in previous games): the direction is the last thing you set.

I don't think that the radar and the "point and hit" thing are linked beyond that.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I think it was a very different design methodology: that was about the user being able to say "I want to get the ball THERE" and then was all about the timing etc. The better the timing, the closer the ball would end up to where you wanted it to go. Much more casual.

DBC is much more complex, the type of shot being all about aggressiveness, timing, footwork, reacting to the line and length (rather than having set your direction to the pitch marker in previous games): the direction is the last thing you set.

I don't think that the radar and the "point and hit" thing are linked beyond that.

I think this is the first time I've ever managed to get you to reply to me. I agree with what you're saying, it does appear that the Ashes design methodology was to create a more casual and simple application of this aspect. Of course, in 2 player games, it did end up revealing to the bowler where you were thinking of playing a shot which was more than a little annoying.

Do you not feel however that it came across so badly to the more hardcore or specific cricket fan in it's permanence and with it's huge cone, that it's caused a lot of negativity to the idea which has spun off into where we are now?