Premeditation Solutions

[Snowy]

And we're pretty sure you're talking shite.

The catalyst for this discussion was for minimising/removing pre-meditation. And you're suggesting an approach that is based upon and in fact REQUIRES front foot pre-meditation.

Ship off

 

[cricket_online]

Complete nonsense. If every pitch in baseball was a fast ball at waist height you'd be correct - but they're not, and you're not. You have to take into account pitch speed, pitch variation (curves, slurves, changeups, different fast balls, sliders) - not simply 'direction'. Taking into account multiple variables for a pitch (location/speed/game situation) is no different to taking into account multiple variables for a cricket delivery (line/length/speed/game situation) That's why no baseball game does something as dumb as producing a realistic pitch speed. If I was Big Ant, I'd be discounting anyone with the opinion that baseball is just about picking up the direction - it shows a fundamental lack of understanding for inputs that go into the hitting mechanics.

Snowy, I interpreted FollowOn's post differently. I think he was referring to the decision making that needs to be made for countering length in cricket compared to baseball, i.e. footwork. For sure baseball is not an easy sport to play and I don't think OP was suggesting it was as simple as Stick Cricket. IMO OP was implying that the factors you mentioned for baseball, i.e. speed and various kind of pitches etc. are all valid in cricket as well (e.g., change in speed, swing, seam, drift etc.) but there's an added decision making layer as well which is determining the footwork.

In baseball you don't have to factor in footwork (or determining length) at all since you are getting full tosses in or around the pitching/hitter zone which is roughly just above knee and about waist/thigh high and width of the home plate. Baseball doesn't make you decide whether you need to go on front or back foot or front since you are in one particular stance and have to make determination mostly for line (slider, curve ball etc.) and speed. You swing when you determine the ball is in your hitting zone and don't if you think it's not. Cricket on the other hand has a pitching/hitting zone right from your toes to the top of your head and ranges two feet outside of your off stump to just outside leg. I know it's comparing apples and oranges but that's the closest I can come up with comparing the two. In cricket along with factoring speed and line (swing, seam, drift etc.) you have the added complexity of determining whether you have to play a shot on your front or back foot. The reason for the same is that in cricket majority of the deliveries actually pitch before they reach the batsman. So accounting for footwork (back or front) and seam/spin is non-existent in baseball but a fundamental part of cricket.

In cricket you can't leave deliveries just outside your stumps (sort of hitting zone in baseball) in shorter formats and have to find ways to score off those deliveries too. You can't take a single batting stance in cricket and not account for footwork (going back or front) and that's where the problem occurs. In baseball there might be time enough to make a determination on speed and line (pitching types & their respective dip/directions) but in cricket you have to make those same decisions but add a crucial decision regarding length/footwork as well and that's where most of pre-meditation occurs. Most people took the option of batting exclusively on front foot to take out this additional decision making process in DBC 14 and IMO this is what FollowOn was alluding to in his post - at least that's what I thought he was. But yeah this thread should be moved to DBC 14 as Ross has mentioned things would be different in DBC 17 and let's wait how things are before revisiting solutions to address pre-meditation in DBC 17.

 

[Snowy]

Snowy, I interpreted FollowOn's post differently. I think he was referring to the decision making that needs to be made for countering length in cricket compared to baseball, i.e. footwork. For sure baseball is not an easy sport to play and I don't think OP was suggesting it was as simple as Stick Cricket. IMO OP was implying that the factors you mentioned for baseball, i.e. speed and various kind of pitches etc. are all valid in cricket as well (e.g., change in speed, swing, seam, drift etc.) but there's an added decision making layer as well which is determining the footwork.

In baseball you don't have to factor in footwork (or determining length) at all since you are getting full tosses in or around the pitching/hitter zone which is roughly just above knee and about waist/thigh high and width of the home plate. Baseball doesn't make you decide whether you need to go on front or back foot or front since you are in one particular stance and have to make determination mostly for line (slider, curve ball etc.) and speed. You swing when you determine the ball is in your hitting zone and don't if you think it's not. Cricket on the other hand has a pitching/hitting zone right from your toes to the top of your head and ranges two feet outside of your off stump to just outside leg. I know it's comparing apples and oranges but that's the closest I can come up with comparing the two. In cricket along with factoring speed and line (swing, seam, drift etc.) you have the added complexity of determining whether you have to play a shot on your front or back foot. The reason for the same is that in cricket majority of the deliveries actually pitch before they reach the batsman. So accounting for footwork (back or front) and seam/spin is non-existent in baseball but a fundamental part of cricket.

In cricket you can't leave deliveries just outside your stumps (sort of hitting zone in baseball) in shorter formats and have to find ways to score off those deliveries too. You can't take a single batting stance in cricket and not account for footwork (going back or front) and that's where the problem occurs. In baseball there might be time enough to make a determination on speed and line (pitching types & their respective dip/directions) but in cricket you have to make those same decisions but add a crucial decision regarding length/footwork as well and that's where most of pre-meditation occurs. Most people took the option of batting exclusively on front foot to take out this additional decision making process in DBC 14 and IMO this is what FollowOn was alluding to in his post - at least that's what I thought he was. But yeah this thread should be moved to DBC 14 as Ross has mentioned things would be different in DBC 17 and let's wait how things are before revisiting solutions to address pre-meditation in DBC 17.

Fair play. It makes a difference when a point is communicated clearly.

 

[FollowOn]

And we're pretty sure you're talking shite.

The catalyst for this discussion was for minimising/removing pre-meditation. And you're suggesting an approach that is based upon and in fact REQUIRES front foot pre-meditation.

Ship off

OMG what are you a 4 year old? I just described my play style and you don't necessary have to follow it , just don't plant your foot and play the ball on merit by pressing the LS upon seeing the indicator. it just the backfoot could be set to LS on neutral position and front foot on LS up.

 

[Snowy]

OMG what are you a 4 year old? I just described my play style and you don't necessary have to follow it , just don't plant your foot and play the ball on merit by pressing the LS upon seeing the indicator. it just the backfoot could be set to LS on neutral position and front foot on LS up.

Except at what point does 'neutral' (no input) get translated to an animation? In that split second before you move LS up, isn't your neutral position telling the game you want to go back? Without input, footwork timing is eliminated. It's simply asinine. What does LS down become?

You're describing a play style that is in direct contradiction to the aim of minimising pre-meditation.

 

[FollowOn]

Yes LS = Backfoot on default but how on earth its premeditating when you have the full choice to go either on back or front depending on LS positioning before the ball reaches you? its just a different control config and you are perfectly have the choice to play either forward or go back.

Hopefully we will be able to setup controls in DBC17 to our liking.

Your big brain is not accepting the fact that actually releasing LS instead dragging it down requires very less work for the brain hence its much much much easier. Feel sorry for you dude.

 

[blockerdave]

Snowy, I interpreted FollowOn's post differently. I think he was referring to the decision making that needs to be made for countering length in cricket compared to baseball, i.e. footwork. For sure baseball is not an easy sport to play and I don't think OP was suggesting it was as simple as Stick Cricket. IMO OP was implying that the factors you mentioned for baseball, i.e. speed and various kind of pitches etc. are all valid in cricket as well (e.g., change in speed, swing, seam, drift etc.) but there's an added decision making layer as well which is determining the footwork.

In baseball you don't have to factor in footwork (or determining length) at all since you are getting full tosses in or around the pitching/hitter zone which is roughly just above knee and about waist/thigh high and width of the home plate. Baseball doesn't make you decide whether you need to go on front or back foot or front since you are in one particular stance and have to make determination mostly for line (slider, curve ball etc.) and speed. You swing when you determine the ball is in your hitting zone and don't if you think it's not. Cricket on the other hand has a pitching/hitting zone right from your toes to the top of your head and ranges two feet outside of your off stump to just outside leg. I know it's comparing apples and oranges but that's the closest I can come up with comparing the two. In cricket along with factoring speed and line (swing, seam, drift etc.) you have the added complexity of determining whether you have to play a shot on your front or back foot. The reason for the same is that in cricket majority of the deliveries actually pitch before they reach the batsman. So accounting for footwork (back or front) and seam/spin is non-existent in baseball but a fundamental part of cricket.

In cricket you can't leave deliveries just outside your stumps (sort of hitting zone in baseball) in shorter formats and have to find ways to score off those deliveries too. You can't take a single batting stance in cricket and not account for footwork (going back or front) and that's where the problem occurs. In baseball there might be time enough to make a determination on speed and line (pitching types & their respective dip/directions) but in cricket you have to make those same decisions but add a crucial decision regarding length/footwork as well and that's where most of pre-meditation occurs. Most people took the option of batting exclusively on front foot to take out this additional decision making process in DBC 14 and IMO this is what FollowOn was alluding to in his post - at least that's what I thought he was. But yeah this thread should be moved to DBC 14 as Ross has mentioned things would be different in DBC 17 and let's wait how things are before revisiting solutions to address pre-meditation in DBC 17.

i think you've vastly overestimated the amount of thought follow on has put into any of his posts.

 

[Snowy]

Yes LS = Backfoot on default but how on earth its premeditating when you have the full choice to go either on back or front depending on LS positioning before the ball reaches you? its just a different control config and you are perfectly have the choice to play either forward or go back.

Hopefully we will be able to setup controls in DBC17 to our liking.

Your big brain is not accepting the fact that actually releasing LS instead dragging it down requires very less work for the brain hence its much much much easier. Feel sorry for you dude.

I'm not talking about the tweaking mechanical ease of the input. I'm talking about the fact the input, yet again, does not make sense given the game mechanics. 'Neutral' is not an input without a time constraint applied to it, and then, you're over-engineering the timing element of the non existent input.

Can you address any of these points...

"Except at what point does 'neutral' (no input) get translated to an animation? In that split second before you move LS up, isn't your neutral position telling the game you want to go back? Without input, footwork timing is eliminated"

...or will you revert back to shooting the messenger?

 

[FollowOn]

I'm not talking about the tweaking mechanical ease of the input. I'm talking about the fact the input, yet again, does not make sense given the game mechanics. 'Neutral' is not an input without a time constraint applied to it, and then, you're over-engineering the timing element of the non existent input.

Can you address any of these points...

"Except at what point does 'neutral' (no input) get translated to an animation? In that split second before you move LS up, isn't your neutral position telling the game you want to go back? Without input, footwork timing is eliminated"

...or will you revert back to shooting the messenger?

You have to compensate one thing for the other , so if neutral input is less taxing for the brain so be it and its perfectly fine to be either on backfoot or front foot as initial position even every real cricketer have proffered foot position as their initial position, No one is stopping you from changing your foot position since the initial posture though.

 

[Snowy]

The answer is no, you're not able to address any of these points. You can't answer when 'neutral' gets registered as input. You can't address the impact it has on footwork timing. And you continue to fail to understand a significant shift such as this is completely counter intuitive to the core control design.

Get back to us when you've thought about a suggestion that actually works.

 

[FollowOn]

The answer is no, you're not able to address any of these points. You can't answer when 'neutral' gets registered as input. You can't address the impact it has on footwork timing. And you continue to fail to understand a significant shift such as this is completely counter intuitive to the core control design.

Get back to us when you've thought about a suggestion that actually works.

Why are you obsessed with neutral input specially when it result in missing the shot? There will be no need for accurate footwork timing because you will have to either plant your foot forward or back (which almost every real cricketer do in real life) The core gameplay will be based on seeing the line of the ball ,taking in to account the movement and pace of the ball just like MLB games do.

 

[Snowy]

Why are you obsessed with neutral input specially when it result in missing the shot? There will be no need for accurate footwork timing because you will have to either plant your foot forward or back (which almost every real cricketer do in real life) The core gameplay will be based on seeing the line of the ball ,taking in to account the movement and pace of the ball just like MLB games do.

Because you literally said LS in neutral position for backfoot. Which means zero input. And you STILL can't answer at what point 'zero input' triggers a back foot animation.

 

[blockerdave]

Why are you obsessed with neutral input specially when it result in missing the shot? There will be no need for accurate footwork timing because you will have to either plant your foot forward or back (which almost every real cricketer do in real life) The core gameplay will be based on seeing the line of the ball ,taking in to account the movement and pace of the ball just like MLB games do.

His point is if backfoot = no ls when does the game cut off and trigger a backfoot shot animation as opposed to waiting for a late front foot input.

Not for the first time your fundamental misunderstanding of the game mechanics and inability to comprehend the fairly simple pointa of others have resulted in you making an awful suggestion.

It's almost as if you had no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Snowy]

And the fact it doesn't eliminate or minimise pre-meditation.

Which is the whole tweaking point of the thread.

Let alone it TOTALLY eliminates the distinction between moving back for an offside shot and moving back for an onside shot. It lumps everything together into one single 'backfoot' decision. Great idea to eliminate user control over a shot.

 

[SibiNaayagam]

Multitasking Damages Your Brain And Career, New Studies Suggest

What kind of shit is it. Wonderful thinking by those who did that study and you to post it here. With that sort of mentality, I wonder what games do you even play? Surely DBC is not the place for you. You don't get the idea of DBC alone wrong but life itself.