This is it - Ashes Cricket (Beta Feedback)

[T.J.Hooker]

That's why you can pull a spinner or a medium pacer even if the delivery is on 7th stump as batsman gets enough time to go back & across and pull it away. But as the pace increases the margin decreases and realistically a batsman can't pull a bowler if the delivery is wider than the 5th stump line, unless the batsman pre-meditates or the bowler telegraphs a short one.

So obviously not a problem on a slow deck, and there are plenty of wickets in world cricket slow enough that even the quickest bowlers can't afford to drop short very often vs a good puller. That's specifically why I mentioned long hops in that quote. If it's shit hot fast then it's not a long hop.

And that's a really important distinction in the context of what "should" be the case in the game. You could say "well you don't see a lot of 7th stump pulls in test cricket" and that's probably true. But you don't see a lot of big fat long hops in test cricket either. If the game has the long hops it needs the pulls for a matching set, imho.

And re: whether need your back foot across to get beyond 5th stump, there's a video of a guy hitting from miles outside 5th stump (2.35) without going across in the post your quoting. Ok, prob at 75mph in that clip, but the point is that he doesn't have a big foot movement to execute to reach that location, which negates your explanation for why the shot isn't really on beyond 5th stump in a match situation vs quicker bowling. The "he needs more time to get back and across" argument doesn't work if he doesn't have to go back and across.

To be fair he's also batting nearly on off stick. But that's not uncommon these days, and the default positioning of the batsman in the game is also quite far over offside.

 

[blockerdave]

You can pull from outside off for lower deliveries on the front foot, and higher deliveries off the back foot.

I appreciate that IRL a skilled batsman could pull those lower deliveries off the back foot too, but in a game with a limited control set there is a good set of options i think. currently the backfoot outside off pull animation goes over the lower deliveries; the front foot one connects. adding in the cuts and backfoot punches, a ball on 5th - 8th stump, from chest to neck height can be played from behind square on the off through to behind square on the leg: that's a pretty good outcome.

the alternative here is to have 2 animations - the higher pull and lower pull both triggering off the same input and the game deciding based on the height of the ball. personally, i really dislike it on the leg side with the leg glance / front foot pull - i hate the game taking over and deciding what i wanted to do.

what i want more than anything is a sense of control: the shot played is the shot intended and the success or otherwise of the outcome is down to my skill.

I reckon making front-foot pull some sort of trigger would give that control for delivering it both sides of the wicket. if the ball outside off is high you play the standard backfoot pull, if it's not you use the trigger front-foot pull. it will be difficult, but it's a high-skill shot so it should be. That judgment of the wicket's bounce (soft pitch, even short balls can be pulled off the front foot; hard pitch even the good length balls could be played off the back foot) is part and parcel of batting.

and yeah you'll miss some and it'll be difficult, but so what: you're trying to play a shot only some of the world's most highly skilled batsmen play, it shouldn't be easy.

 

[chaman82]

You can pull from outside off for lower deliveries on the front foot, and higher deliveries off the back foot.

I appreciate that IRL a skilled batsman could pull those lower deliveries off the back foot too, but in a game with a limited control set there is a good set of options i think. currently the backfoot outside off pull animation goes over the lower deliveries; the front foot one connects. adding in the cuts and backfoot punches, a ball on 5th - 8th stump, from chest to neck height can be played from behind square on the off through to behind square on the leg: that's a pretty good outcome.

the alternative here is to have 2 animations - the higher pull and lower pull both triggering off the same input and the game deciding based on the height of the ball. personally, i really dislike it on the leg side with the leg glance / front foot pull - i hate the game taking over and deciding what i wanted to do.

what i want more than anything is a sense of control: the shot played is the shot intended and the success or otherwise of the outcome is down to my skill.

I reckon making front-foot pull some sort of trigger would give that control for delivering it both sides of the wicket. if the ball outside off is high you play the standard backfoot pull, if it's not you use the trigger front-foot pull. it will be difficult, but it's a high-skill shot so it should be. That judgment of the wicket's bounce (soft pitch, even short balls can be pulled off the front foot; hard pitch even the good length balls could be played off the back foot) is part and parcel of batting.

and yeah you'll miss some and it'll be difficult, but so what: you're trying to play a shot only some of the world's most highly skilled batsmen play, it shouldn't be easy.

So ur suggesting for a red marker ball , a player should play a front foot shot and try to pull?

This is the biggest problem that i see in Dbc 17 and now in ashes.

A simple short ball landing on middle of the pitch , low(reasonable) or high bounce should b able to be played on backfoot. That's it.

For a low height short ball on middle leg stump, the game playes the back foot pull shot easily, so y not for a feet way same height short ball?

And it's actually not so difficulty shot in this modern T20 era.

I really like the batting design for dbc14 where may b the animation was below par but u could play more shots for a particular ball.
For a 5th stump medium height short ball , u could play a pull on backfoot as well as a back foot punch thru off side , and a front foot risky cut also.

It's sometimes amazes me the things which dbc14 had spot on has been missed on future titles.( another one is the Sound of Ball hitting the bat)

 

[blockerdave]

So ur suggesting for a red marker ball , a player should play a front foot shot and try to pull?

This is the biggest problem that i see in Dbc 17 and now in ashes.

A simple short ball landing on middle of the pitch , low(reasonable) or high bounce should b able to be played on backfoot. That's it.

And it's actually not so difficulty shot in this modern T20 era.

A really like the batting design for dbc14 where may b the animation was below par but u could play more shots for a particular ball.
For a 5th stump medium height short ball , u could play a pull on backfoot as well as a back foot punch thru off side , and a front foot risky cut also.

It's sometimes amazes me the things which dbc14 had spot on has been missed on future titles.( another one is the Sound of Ball hitting the bat)

I mean I so clearly and emphatically said no such thing, it's hard to know how to engage further. I said that the shot can be played front foot or back foot based on the height, which is in turn based on the bounce of the pitch - yes, sometimes that will mean a "red" can be played off the front foot, and sometimes a "green" will have to be played off the back foot. i don't believe the observation that the height the ball reaches off a given length varies according to pitch bounce (and bowler speed and height) is controversial, is it?

Since it is certainly possible to pull the higher deliveries off the back foot, and the lower ones off the front foot, the issue is about the animation: simply, the bat comes through too high off the back foot to connect, but off the front foot it connects. So you can play the shot, and have to judge the height to decide the foot. It's not a perfect simulation of real life, where you can pull the bat through lower despite being on the back foot, but the number of control inputs limits the numbers of outcomes.

Noting that the issue is the animation, even were an alternative lower-planed back foot pull animation available (or able to be added) the alternatives are adding additional triggers to differentiate a low or high pull or having the game decide for you based on the height of the ball. I don't like the latter idea because it surrenders control from the player to the game, including the ability to get it wrong. Trying to pull one and it keeps low and you get hit (or miss or bottom edge or whatever), or being on the front foot and one rises and you get hit/miss/top edge are all part of cricket.

 

[Sweppy12]

I mean I so clearly and emphatically said no such thing, it's hard to know how to engage further. I said that the shot can be played front foot or back foot based on the height, which is in turn based on the bounce of the pitch - yes, sometimes that will mean a "red" can be played off the front foot, and sometimes a "green" will have to be played off the back foot. i don't believe the observation that the height the ball reaches off a given length varies according to pitch bounce (and bowler speed and height) is controversial, is it?

Since it is certainly possible to pull the higher deliveries off the back foot, and the lower ones off the front foot, the issue is about the animation: simply, the bat comes through too high off the back foot to connect, but off the front foot it connects. So you can play the shot, and have to judge the height to decide the foot. It's not a perfect simulation of real life, where you can pull the bat through lower despite being on the back foot, but the number of control inputs limits the numbers of outcomes.

Noting that the issue is the animation, even were an alternative lower-planed back foot pull animation available (or able to be added) the alternatives are adding additional triggers to differentiate a low or high pull or having the game decide for you based on the height of the ball. I don't like the latter idea because it surrenders control from the player to the game, including the ability to get it wrong. Trying to pull one and it keeps low and you get hit (or miss or bottom edge or whatever), or being on the front foot and one rises and you get hit/miss/top edge are all part of cricket.

my only problem is that playing on harder batting difficulties you don't really have time to change to front foot to pull it. You see the red length marker and have half a second to decide what to do. It's not really a big issue for me because I mainly leave short balls unless they are from middle stump to the leg side

 

[Nathaus]

You can pull from outside off for lower deliveries on the front foot, and higher deliveries off the back foot.

I appreciate that IRL a skilled batsman could pull those lower deliveries off the back foot too, but in a game with a limited control set there is a good set of options i think. currently the backfoot outside off pull animation goes over the lower deliveries; the front foot one connects. adding in the cuts and backfoot punches, a ball on 5th - 8th stump, from chest to neck height can be played from behind square on the off through to behind square on the leg: that's a pretty good outcome.

the alternative here is to have 2 animations - the higher pull and lower pull both triggering off the same input and the game deciding based on the height of the ball. personally, i really dislike it on the leg side with the leg glance / front foot pull - i hate the game taking over and deciding what i wanted to do.

what i want more than anything is a sense of control: the shot played is the shot intended and the success or otherwise of the outcome is down to my skill.

I reckon making front-foot pull some sort of trigger would give that control for delivering it both sides of the wicket. if the ball outside off is high you play the standard backfoot pull, if it's not you use the trigger front-foot pull. it will be difficult, but it's a high-skill shot so it should be. That judgment of the wicket's bounce (soft pitch, even short balls can be pulled off the front foot; hard pitch even the good length balls could be played off the back foot) is part and parcel of batting.

and yeah you'll miss some and it'll be difficult, but so what: you're trying to play a shot only some of the world's most highly skilled batsmen play, it shouldn't be easy.

This is what I was trying to explain earlier, although far worse than this (perhaps slightly too passionately and not objective enough). Yes there are an unlimited number of shots that can be played to any ball, but within the context of a game, with limitations on animations and collision physics, you can not expect every single possible shot to be played to every single possible ball. For me it's not a bug that needs to be fixed, it's just a mechanic of the game. If (it's an if because I do not know, but can only use my experience) changing that mechanic is going to start interfering with other elements of game play with detrimental effects, then I'd rather learn to just play another shot.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Noting that the issue is the animation, even were an alternative lower-planed back foot pull animation available (or able to be added) the alternatives are adding additional triggers to differentiate a low or high pull or having the game decide for you based on the height of the ball.

I'm fairly sure the animation could actually reach the ball if the graphics engine was instructed to show a hit instead of a miss. I think there's enough variability in the animations to get them to cover a range of different locations / planes with the same shot.

The ball misses because the current ruleset says you can't hit the ball with that shot at that location, and then the graphics engine draws a representation of you missing, probably in a similar way each time.

Or to rephrase - afaik the miss isn't caused by the animation having the angle of the bat fixed on the wrong plane. Rather, the graphics engine draws the bat on the wrong plane because that's it's best representation of the result that the input / physics calculation has arrived at.

 

[chaman82]

I'm fairly sure the animation could actually reach the ball if the graphics engine was instructed to show a hit instead of a miss. I think there's enough variability in the animations to get them to cover a range of different locations / planes with the same shot.

The ball misses because the current ruleset says you can't hit the ball with that shot at that location, and then the graphics engine draws a representation of you missing, probably in a similar way each time.

Or to rephrase - afaik the miss isn't caused by the animation having the angle of the bat fixed on the wrong plane. Rather, the graphics engine draws the bat on the wrong plane because that's it's best representation of the result that the input / physics calculation has arrived at.

Exactly.

I will repeat what I has said, low height short balls on middle stump can b played by the backfoot pull animation, it adjust itself for the height
But,
When the ball is just a feet away on 4th 5th stump , the weird animation kicks in the ball is missed.
I actually play with all HUD off, so I Chek the length and decide my footwork, and it's instant reaction for a short pitched ball to play a backfoot pull/punch/cut etc.

This theory of adding a difficulty by allowing only front foot pull for these balls is nonsense imho.

May b if the ball is 2 low , inside edges to stump etc can b triggered, but it should connect on backfoot easily.

And I just played a test inning Batting , and its so so frustrating when this happens and I get a urge to get back to dbc14.

 

[cricket_online]

So obviously not a problem on a slow deck, and there are plenty of wickets in world cricket slow enough that even the quickest bowlers can't afford to drop short very often vs a good puller. That's specifically why I mentioned long hops in that quote. If it's shit hot fast then it's not a long hop.

And that's a really important distinction in the context of what "should" be the case in the game. You could say "well you don't see a lot of 7th stump pulls in test cricket" and that's probably true. But you don't see a lot of big fat long hops in test cricket either. If the game has the long hops it needs the pulls for a matching set, imho.

And re: whether need your back foot across to get beyond 5th stump, there's a video of a guy hitting from miles outside 5th stump (2.35) without going across in the post your quoting. Ok, prob at 75mph in that clip, but the point is that he doesn't have a big foot movement to execute to reach that location, which negates ratio your explanation for why the shot isn't really on beyond 5th stump in a match situation vs quicker bowling. The "he needs more time to get back and across" argument doesn't work if he doesn't have to go back and across.

To be fair he's also batting nearly on off stick. But that's not uncommon these days, and the default positioning of the batsman in the game is also quite far over offside.

You definitely can pull a delivery without going back and across if you can judge the line & length properly, which a lot of batsmen can just like plenty of batsmen who can play through the off side without moving their feet or coming to the pitch of the ball. The example I mentioned was for a spinner where you sometime see a spinner bowl a long hop way outside off and the batsman moves towards the off stump, moves his left foot away and hammers/pulls the delivery to mid wkt or anywhere on the leg side.

My general point was that there's no one or two specific rules about playing a particular shot. You can pull a delivery which is wide of the off stump just like you should be able to cut a delivery on or just outside the stumps or flick a delivery to mid wkt from outside off.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Well I wouldn't want players in the game pulling and leg glancing from outside off stump all the time either.

I might prefer those shots to be possible in the game, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be able to play them with every batsman.

 

[cricket_online]

Well I wouldn't want players in the game pulling and leg glancing from outside off stump all the time either.

I might prefer those shots to be possible in the game, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be able to play them with every batsman.

Absolutely. It has to be a function of the quality of the batsman, the form they are in, their confidence level, pitch conditions, how far to the off the batsman has moved and so on. The chances of the ball popping up should increase the more outrageous the shot but some of the shots, i.e. pulling deliveries up to 5th stump or driving through the mid wkt when the delivery is on or just outside off should be in as you see them played quite often. Maybe in the next iteration of the game there could be a "Playing Across The Line" attribute which could be high for some of the batsmen who play such shots often. At least on flattish wkts you should be able to pull them off but if the ball is seaming/swinging I would expect a fair number of edges as well.

 

[christy_lenin1]

my only problem is that playing on harder batting difficulties you don't really have time to change to the front foot to pull it. You see the red length marker and have half a second to decide what to do. It's not really a big issue for me because I mainly leave short balls unless they are from middle stump to the leg side

I had this problem as well where I find it difficult to adjust the foot after the length marker is visible, so I always hold LS up during the runup in DB14, 17. In ashes cricket, I tried lowering the difficulty to medium and I had ample amount time to pick the right foot and after few mins I moved to Hard and still, I am able to pick the foot correctly except when the speed is 150 +. Within few hours of practice, I am able to time it and pick the right foot perfectly 8/10 times and it gives a great feel when batting.

 

[Jerm]

ex

Well I wouldn't want players in the game pulling and leg glancing from outside off stump all the time either.

I might prefer those shots to be possible in the game, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be able to play them with every batsman.

exactly, then what would the point be of setting a field and bowling to it....if a batsmen could just simply smack it to leg from way outside off without consequence!

 

[blockerdave]

I'm fairly sure the animation could actually reach the ball if the graphics engine was instructed to show a hit instead of a miss. I think there's enough variability in the animations to get them to cover a range of different locations / planes with the same shot.

The ball misses because the current ruleset says you can't hit the ball with that shot at that location, and then the graphics engine draws a representation of you missing, probably in a similar way each time.

Or to rephrase - afaik the miss isn't caused by the animation having the angle of the bat fixed on the wrong plane. Rather, the graphics engine draws the bat on the wrong plane because that's it's best representation of the result that the input / physics calculation has arrived at.

Ok fair enough.

But the game does have a shot that can be played in that area to that delivery, and is in fact a pull.

 

[blockerdave]

my only problem is that playing on harder batting difficulties you don't really have time to change to front foot to pull it. You see the red length marker and have half a second to decide what to do. It's not really a big issue for me because I mainly leave short balls unless they are from middle stump to the leg side

Well yes and no... again I believe you can make a reasonable guess early based on the pitch and bowler of where the ball is going to end up and What foot to play off.