Pomers was on to something - scripted randomness in DBC14

[grkrama]

Question is, how long before the Don Bradman in DBC becomes self aware and starts spanking the umpire with his bat

fixed...also throw disgruntled looks followed by, "on the legs cant you just gance it fine you bobblehead" when player cant bat properly
would be a nice addon as a tutorial section with DON.#get_coached_by_don

 

[nightprowler10]

In short, it is physics first and animation playing out as best it can to the physics result, not the other way around.

I had noticed what BD made this thread about and what you say is exactly what I had figured, so I left it alone. I think this is clear enough if you watch the fielder from when he starts running towards the ball. It seems very much like "oh he should be able to grab that if he dives" until he gets closer to the ball it almost seems like the fielder slows down just before the dive, giving the impression that there is super human fielding. The idea that it's all in the animation makes a lot of sense to me.

EDIT: Fixed the horrendously structured first sentence.

 

[grkrama]

ya things were better when people used to imagine stuff with moving pixels.....
that why old games always seem a lot better with great options than new because its easy to put a text on screen saying the wizard baba obliterated glotto the goblin showing a mass of orange pixels turnig grey than showing it all in nexgen graphics mass effect style.


imagination helps game were animations cant always playout for all possibilities.

*ya im going to imagine a twirl and follow through everytime Dhoni hoicks in DBC

 

[BigAntStudios]

ya things were better when people used to imagine stuff with moving pixels.....
that why old games always seem a lot better with great options than new because its easy to put a text on screen saying the wizard baba obliterated glotto the goblin showing a mass of orange pixels turnig grey than showing it all in nexgen graphics mass effect style.


imagination helps game were animations cant always playout for all possibilities.

*ya im going to imagine a twirl and follow through everytime Dhoni hoicks in DBC

You mean like this classic from thirty years ago!

1984, Fontana Paperbacks, Ross Symons, Adventure - Text only

 

[grkrama]

wow ross ,you have made games for C64 cool...my imagination levels can only handle upto prince,planesacape,fallout level imagination

 

[fanirama]

This is a good topic. I liked the developers original response - it was candid and informative.

I also liked the part where he isn't overhyping the game or the physics engine he's built and accepting that his game has bugs and patches may hopefully correct it.

 

[BigAntStudios]

wow ross ,you have made games for C64 cool...my imagination levels can only handle upto prince,planesacape,fallout level imagination

I am very, very old indeed for a games dev, and the older you are the more imagination you needed when you began

 

[zimrahil]

You mean like this classic from thirty years ago!

1984, Fontana Paperbacks, Ross Symons, Adventure - Text only

Thought it was the Hobbt there for a moment

 

[cooks1st100]

Thought it was the Hobbt there for a moment

LOL, you and me both. Showing our age there!!!

 

[IceAgeComing]

You mean like this classic from thirty years ago!

1984, Fontana Paperbacks, Ross Symons, Adventure - Text only

No joke going to download this just to see if there is a "xyzzy" joke in it; and I'll be very disappointed if there isn't.

 

[ellgieff]

In short, it is physics first and animation playing out as best it can to the physics result, not the other way around. The outcome is better that way but it's a lot harder to pull off and there will be more chance of bugs, but they will be animation glitches but the result should be true to the physics model even if it doesn't look good.

Edit: yeah, so Prof Pomers was onto nothing

@BigAntStudios
Ross, I have a couple of questions about this.

In particular, when playing a stroke is there more than just input involved in determining the outcome?

I've decided to play a single match in my career game over and over again to see if I can get different results. Each time, I can get to around 20. Each time, I then find my guy utterly unable to hit the ball - it's almost as if someone has come in and replaced my bat with one made entirely of edges.

I know that confidence is supposed to change things (by making the ball more likely to go in the gaps). I don't see how this can occur if it's purely physics deciding where the ball goes.

What I'm trying to understand is whether my guy keeps getting edges to the keeper (or onto his stumps when the ball that gets me out is outside off stump *edit* on the most recent attempt, got given LBW off a clear inside edge :{ ) because I suck, or if there's some in-game thing going on that means it's not _just_ down to me getting my footwork, direction of stroke and timing right.

Please note that I'm not bitching - I really enjoy the game, have been playing almost non-stop for two weeks - I just want to know if it's "yeah, your career boy needs the RNG to go his way as well as your input to get very far", or "You need to stop sucking so hard"

Or some third option that I've missed

 

[evinthegreat619]

I have a doubt guys, in the career mode do you guys pick pro difficulty if yes it is incredibily difficult to bat and bowl

 

[Blinder]

It seems the AI is predetermined to make a certain score in competition and casual mode, based on how many overs you play, or they need to bat at a set run-rate, and will do whatever it takes to try and achieve that, and never go below or higher than that, again based on how many overs rather than the match situation.

For example, on legendary the AI seems predetermined to make about 120 in a T20. Doesn't matter how they are going they will always end up on a score around this mark that's if you don't exploit the running between the wickets bug and run them out when they take their suicidal runs, by holding onto the ball.

Take for example yesterday Sri Lanka were 2/100 odd with 8 overs to go looking set to make a standard T20 score of 160 odd. They were smacking me everywhere. All of a sudden Ravi Bopara (of all people) got 6 wickets in 8 balls, all but one caught at mid-on, and they ended up all out 121 in 17 overs.

Seen things like this way too many times for it to be a coincidence.

Another example, in a T10 the target score for the AI seems to be about 70-80. It seems to go out of its way to not score more than that. To test this theory I put every single player in slip/gully or in a catching position behind the wicket with three overs to go and 1/65 on the board. The AI proceeded to play and miss, leave or get out to almost every remaining delivery, even with these massive gaps forward of the wicket.

Test matches against the AI on legendary, they gotta make around 220-230 odd. 1/120 becomes all out for 220. 7/150 and the tail battle it out to a score of 220.

Really strange stuff. Maybe Lou Vincent got his hands on this too during development...

Suffice to say I put the game back in the case until June 6. But personally I think its a lot to ask and expect for all these issues to be resolved by a patch that has only been in the making for a few weeks.

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

It seems the AI is predetermined to make a certain score in competition and casual mode, based on how many overs you play, or they need to bat at a set run-rate, and will do whatever it takes to try and achieve that, and never go below or higher than that, again based on how many overs rather than the match situation.

For example, on legendary the AI seems predetermined to make about 120 in a T20. Doesn't matter how they are going they will always end up on a score around this mark that's if you don't exploit the running between the wickets bug and run them out when they take their suicidal runs, by holding onto the ball.

Take for example yesterday Sri Lanka were 2/100 odd with 8 overs to go looking set to make a standard T20 score of 160 odd. They were smacking me everywhere. All of a sudden Ravi Bopara (of all people) got 6 wickets in 8 balls, all but one caught at mid-on, and they ended up all out 121 in 17 overs.

Seen things like this way too many times for it to be a coincidence.

Another example, in a T10 the target score for the AI seems to be about 70-80. It seems to go out of its way to not score more than that. To test this theory I put every single player in slip/gully or in a catching position behind the wicket with three overs to go and 1/65 on the board. The AI proceeded to play and miss, leave or get out to almost every remaining delivery, even with these massive gaps forward of the wicket.

Test matches against the AI on legendary, they gotta make around 220-230 odd. 1/120 becomes all out for 220. 7/150 and the tail battle it out to a score of 220.

Really strange stuff. Maybe Lou Vincent got his hands on this too during development...

Suffice to say I put the game back in the case until June 6. But personally I think its a lot to ask and expect for all these issues to be resolved by a patch that has only been in the making for a few weeks.

Yeah that is strange as you expect them to keep the flow with such run rate...
So would wait for patch#2 as Ross said that AI will play smart cricket ,very eagerly waiting for it...

 

[Owl]

OK, so the title is deliberately provocative, and not quite right, but i have spotted a few things that look "pre-determined". essentially it's as if the game decides as soon as you have played the shot what the outcome will be - boundary, 1, 2, 3 or out.

i have hit the ball in the air say 10m away from cover, and he has warped and been waiting for the ball to drop in his hands... Usain Bolt wouldn't have got there quicker. i've hit the ball in the air say 6m from cover, and he's jogged on the spot until the ball is past and hit the ground and then started to run after it.

same when the ball goes across the ground - cover/extra-cover will get to mid-off and stop you getting a single, or jog on the spot as the ball goes 2m past him and off for four.

equally, boundary fielders will warp speed and cut off a ball turning a certain four into a 1 or at best a 2... or a one bounce four into a caught out... then the same fielder will do a "running through knee-deep treacle" impression to let a ball get to the boundary.

also i've seen several times the fielder doing the same treacle run, so slow they're almost running on the spot, waiting for you to complete your first run and get part way down the second, before they suddenly race to the ball and throw it in.

also, i have scored two hundreds in career, and in both of those the field was alternating 2 boundary-fielders between the 3 spots i'd scored most fours through - so there was always a gap in a "go to" area... at the same time i've got out once in the 90s, twice in the 80s, and these times the field had all the boundaries cut off... almost as if twice the game said "ok, he can have his 100" and the others it was "not this time son" (all 3 times i got out to edges playing shots i'd played fine plenty of times in the innings)

has anyone else spotted any examples of this?

I've deemed this to be true from what I've been playing of the game.

When batting against a leg spinner and I play a cut shot to a ball pitching on off (maybe without the necessary height). Then being caught by the wicket keeper who essentially 'premeditated' the edge about a foot and a half away from his usual positioning, prior the ball even bouncing. It demonstrates at least to me, that the game isn't unscripted or at the very least the outcome is predetermined.

It sees that my shot selection is bad for the line and length of the delivery and that in turns causes the keeper to know when the ball is going. Ending in my dismissal.

This system isn't bad necessarily; it just isn't hidden well. Uber-warping to me doesn't cause annoyance at my poor shot selection, but rather annoyance that the game has superman fielders. It makes the game feel unfair. Leading to all the superman fielding complaints when really it is poorly hidden, somewhat predetermined gameplay which people aren't acknowledging.

Hopefully that comes across right it is rather difficult to convey the scenario.