My Batting Advice

[barmyarmy]

Ross has said that it's a simulation and has to be toned down so people are able to play it.
I'm already finding the game replicates my real life batting flaws and I don't want to be punished even more for my slow reactions.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

But my point is that it's probably more that the batting controls are slow rather than the bowling being quick.

Real life quick bowling is .4 of a second, and the only reason that's a problem is that you have to execute a very complex physical movement and move a bat through a considerable distance in order to intercept a ball in a 2 inch window in a tiny fraction of that .4 window. Plus you are afraid of getting hit. This makes a huge difference.

That doesn't remotely compare to moving two thumbs in a system where you don't even have to judge the path of the ball at all precisely or move anything into a coordinated position to intercept it. Human reaction time for simple inputs is much, much quicker than .4 of a second.

And I'm not suggesting they actually change the DBC control scheme, it's just morphed into a thought about game design in general, although the point that I've made before that having different speed options for those who prefer a faster or slower feel would seem to offer a solid solution if workable.

eta so basically what I'm suggesting would not be "punishing you for slow reactions". It would mean you could hit the right stick later in the shot while still retaining exactly the same degree of control. That's the opposite of punishing you for slow reactions.




----------

" like a second " doesn't seem that accurate. I think it takes, like half a second.
.

I just checked on one of my net videos and the ball seems to be in the air for roughly just short of a second before it hits the bat from a fast bowler. That's not even the full 22 yards.

I'm not criticising BA for doing it wrong (because it's not wrong, it's just one way of doing it), even though it wouldn't be the approach I would hope for. It's just an immutable fact that the bowling is slow compared to any reasonable measurement of quickness, either in terms of cricket deliveries or human reaction time.

 

[ellgieff]

But my point is that it's probably more that the batting controls are slow rather than the bowling being quick.

Real life quick bowling is .4 of a second, and the only reason that's a problem is that you have to execute a very complex physical movement and move a bat through a considerable distance in order to intercept a ball in a 2 inch window in a tiny fraction of that .4 window. Plus you are afraid of getting hit. This makes a huge difference.

That doesn't remotely compare to moving two thumbs in a system where you don't even have to judge the path of the ball at all precisely or move anything into a coordinated position to intercept it. Human reaction time for simple inputs is much, much quicker than .4 of a second.

And I'm not suggesting they actually change the DBC control scheme, it's just morphed into a thought about game design in general, although the point that I've made before that having different speed options for those who prefer a faster or slower feel would seem to offer a solid solution if workable.

----------



I just checked on one of my net videos and the ball seems to be in the air for roughly just short of a second before it hits the bat from a fast bowler. That's not even the full 22 yards.

I'm not criticising BA for doing it wrong, even though it wouldn't be the approach I would hope for. It's just an immutable fact that the bowling is slow compared to any reasonable measurement of quickness, either in terms of cricket deliveries or human reaction time.

I think you're underestimating the impact on reaction time caused by the game being delivered through animations in 2-D on a screen that's likely adding an appreciable amount of lag.

Never mind the lack of proprioception, which is also going to make things slower.

It's not just a question of how long to start reacting, it's a question of what else you need to do.

Also, to be clear: while I agree that the theoretical speed of the bowling (in the sense of the window of time that's available to react in order to play a stroke) is slower than the meat, I also agree that it's an entirely irrelevant point, and I think you should stop making it.

For a cricket computer game, the bowling is tremendously fast.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I think you're underestimating the impact on reaction time caused by the game being delivered through animations in 2-D on a screen that's likely adding an appreciable amount of lag.

I'm afraid I'm just going to ignore this because it doesn't make any sense.

If you mean I'm not timing the deliveries correctly, you'll have to elaborate. And you'll be wrong because I know how to work out video timings because it's part of my job. Possibly the capture method might have introduced a few fps error, but as far as I can tell from eyeballing it it's very similar to live play and everyone else's videos.

Never mind the lack of proprioception, which is also going to make things slower.

Likewise, sorry. This is just word salad. Proprioception has got nothing to do with your reaction window. It controls your precise body position which influences delivery of the bat to the correct position in space/time, and there is no analog for this in DBC ; at no stage does the user actually have to coordinate the movement of a bat so it intercepts the ball.

eta and actually, now I think about it if you're not in pro cam then you can see your on screen body anyway which basically simulates the real life data you get from proprioception neatly.

Also, to be clear: while I agree that the theoretical speed of the bowling (in the sense of the window of time that's available to react in order to play a stroke) is slower than the meat, I also agree that it's an entirely irrelevant point, and I think you should stop making it.

Well that's fine because you're simply wrong. Whether or not a game resembles its real life counterpoint in the most important respects is obviously entirely relevant to the game experience, and I'll keep my own counsel on what I ought and ought not to say in internet discussions, thanks.

For a cricket computer game, the bowling is tremendously fast.

This is just rubbish. It almost couldn't be any slower and still resemble a game of cricket.

 

[Cloda]

Our ability to judge depth, or should I rather say MY ability, before some super human/freak/sensitive or self-righteous soul (which ever fits ) takes offence again, is severely hampered in the gaming simulation of a ball sport on a television. If it was possible to gather the same amount of information from a delivery in this game as it is in real life, there would be no need for the visual cues (length and direction indication). Without the visual cues, there is a huge amount of guesswork required to know where the ball is going to pitch as well as the path of its trajectory that it is going to take. I enjoy this game, but the batting is damn hard and irrespective of how it relates to real life speeds, you just about have zilch time to react to a fast bowler. I'm sure some people will be much better than others at it, and I am also getting better at it, but I for one would appreciate it if we could have a few more visual cues to better determine which shot to attempt for each ball bowled. Glen Mcgrath on veteran, while bowling at pace, additionally swing and seam the ball and I can't last more than a couple of balls against him even if I manage to choose a reasonable foot position... there is just too much happening.

 

[Jadel]

I think you'll find it takes a ball at 100mph less than half a second to travel 22 yards.

Only if

a) it doesn't bounce
b) doesn't slow down.

----------

If you mean I'm not timing the deliveries correctly, you'll have to elaborate. And you'll be wrong...

This is just rubbish. It almost couldn't be any slower and still resemble a game of cricket.

There was plenty of other terrible stuff, but this along with the last two comments I mentioned Make me wish this forum had an /ignore feature.

I guess I'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Well frankly I'd be delighted not to have to try to explain remedial stuff to people with zero knowledge of the game so that sounds like a plan with no drawbacks.

 

[barmyarmy]

I think the 3D real-life versus pixels on a screen thing is quite important to be honest.
The bowling in BLIC2007 (I think?) felts properly quick so much so that even knowing where it was going to land you were late with the shot.
I find in DBC that the computer has way too much time to play my 98mph bouncers and I think there is an issue about the speed you feel as well the speed the AI "feels".

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I think the 3D real-life versus pixels on a screen thing is quite important to be honest.
The bowling in BLIC2007 (I think?) felts properly quick so much so that even knowing where it was going to land you were late with the shot.
I find in DBC that the computer has way too much time to play my 98mph bouncers and I think there is an issue about the speed you feel as well the speed the AI "feels".

Absolutely, pixels on a screen is different, and like I said, different speeds so everybody gets the feel they prefer would be my preferred option hypothetically speaking. Having a hud at point of delivery must necessarily negate every screen based disadvantage if correctly implemented, though. The difficulty of perceiving the flight of a ball on the screen vs real life is irrelevant if there's an indicator giving you the appropriate real life data.

Just to reiterate, I'm not criticising the DBC system or saying it should be changed, I'm just defending my statement of the surely inescapable fact that the DBC bowling speed isn't quick, and the impression that it's quick is a result of the speed in the context of the DBC control system. With the DBC system you need the bowling to be slower than with the donut or the hypothetical system Chief and I briefly discussed.

The other thing is that I think that it's a distinction worth making. An awful lot of players have given the feedback that the bowling is too quick, but it's hardly straightforward to identify the bottleneck in a system with so many moving parts so examination of possible contributing factors seems eminently sensible, particularly where clearly the speed is in fact already decidedly pedestrian, as you observe with your somewhat milquetoast career player bouncers.

And this may feed into other issues ; for instance the medium pacers struggle to get a short ball chest or head high from what I understand, and surely it's not being overly critical to suggest that they ought to be able to do so, even if the delivery must take significantly longer to come through than in real life.

 

[zimrahil]

All I can say is, facing fast bowlers at the start of an innings when fatigue is zero, it seems bloody quick to me

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I mentioned it earlier but it's prob worth repeating that I measured net deliveries because I haven't got a console.

Also I ... I read the page again and totally understand if you want to drive me from the board for flashing my internet video credentials. Don't worry. I have an aunt over on cricinfo who will take me in, so I'll survive.

 

[Jadel]

I guess I failed in my attempt...

You dont even have the game! Are you serious?

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Nope. Working from timing net deliveries on fast, and the speed apparent in the game videos. I said this earlier.

And regardless of whether there are some quicker deliveries in the game that I haven't seen, as far as I can tell the bread and butter stuff is similar to net speeds.

But hey, if the speeds are very much different can you go and tell me about it a page ago because that'll save a load of really rubbishy posting from happening.

 

[ellgieff]

Only if

a) it doesn't bounce
b) doesn't slow down.

It's unarguable that one has more time to react in this game than one would have in the meat, to a bowler delivering at 150 km/hr

It's just not at all relevant to whether the bowling in the game is quick, or not

 

[Jadel]

Sure, just double down on the fact that you think a delivery that takes like a full second to reach you through the air is "quick" by supplementing with nonsensical analogies.

Wrong, it doesnt take a full second to reach the batsman, fast ball takes 0.534 from leaving the hand to reaching the bat on the video I just measured. A real life Shaun Tate delivery at 100mph takes 0.467 using the same tool to measure.
Thats incredibly close especially when you consider that the amount of people in the world than can successfully play a 100mph delivery iis extremely small.

(And if you think I'm not timing the deliveries correctly you'll be wrong because looking at a clock is part of my job)

Human reaction time for simple inputs is much, much quicker than .4 of a second.

Wrong again. Human reaction time based on a single stimulus and requiring a single button press is a bit quicker than that. That measurement is irrelevant here though because multiple stimuli requiring multiple responses is required in DBC. The introduction of those multiples increases the reaction time significantly.

It's just an immutable fact that the bowling is slow compared to any reasonable measurement of quickness, either in terms of cricket deliveries or human reaction time.

This is just rubbish. It almost couldn't be any slower and still resemble a game of cricket.

100% wrong in every way. The only thing thats immutable about these comments is that they are rubbish.

Well frankly I'd be delighted not to have to try to explain remedial stuff to people with zero knowledge of the game so that sounds like a plan with no drawbacks.

The people you are using your wisdom to educate at have at least played the game. I would think that alone would mean they have more knowledge of the game than you.

But hey, if the speeds are very much different can you go and tell me about it a page ago because that'll save a load of really rubbishy posting from happening.

I wish I had known that all I had to do was point out that making broad assumptions about a game you have never played would have stopped you from posting. I would have thought that a man with so much knowledge on everything would have been able to realise that himself however.

I'm afraid I'm just going to ignore this because it doesn't make any sense.

This is a mantra that should be applied to everything you write.

It's unarguable that one has more time to react in this game than one would have in the meat, to a bowler delivering at 150 km/hr

It's just not at all relevant to whether the bowling in the game is quick, or not

I agree with the second part, but based on those times I mentioned above you would have to agree that the time to react is pretty close. (0.067s different. I realise that level of decimals is going to be innacurate given that each frame takes 0.034 but its really close at least) Especially considering the resolution/graphics etc.

Theres some experiment they did where they pinged fast (ish) balls at an international batsman from a bowling machine and he couldnt hit them. Throw the same speed from a real bowler where he can see the ball in the hand and the movement of the arm and he hits almost everything.

I know this was pretty much what you were saying before. I agree with it.