Suggestion: Controller mapping and premeditated shots

[Acid Burn]

Shot !!!

I should remember that one !

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Plenty of games use multiple drastically different control systems, and this one would hardly be drastically different.

I thing I do think is important is opening up other options.

By mapping the face buttons as the "premeditated" shot types (again, like sticky keys, you press them during the ball and they stay on unless pressed again) you not only open up the option for more types, but a way of adding in the other modifiers to go with them. For example:

A: Unorthodox Shots
B: Advance down the pitch
X: T20 slogs
Y: Switch hit shots

With the addition of modifier options, for example press A then use the triggers, you could have slog sweeps and such. Those kind of options are very much future version kind of things though.

Mapping the current ones to the facebuttons though have the advantage of opening up those shoulder buttons. I would like to have the LB as a leave button, as it would be so much more nature to use. Having the other for the emergency block would also be nice, but again, that's more of a future version suggestion.

Who knows though, I kind of just want more options.

I agree with this, using the face buttons for premeditated shots would be a great option and could bring more variety into the batting system, although I would say that the sweep/reverse sweep are not always premeditated so I'd keep the unorthodox shot button on RB and have the advance shot LB as the new leave button.

Currently while batting, all the face buttons really do is the 'taunts' before the delivery.

 

[Alberts]

I agree with this, using the face buttons for premeditated shots would be a great option and could bring more variety into the batting system, although I would say that the sweep/reverse sweep are not always premeditated so I'd keep the unorthodox shot button on RB and have the advance shot LB as the new leave button.

Currently while batting, all the face buttons really do is the 'taunts' before the delivery.

I think the unorthodox shots are currently LB. Keeping sweepshots that way could work, and of course they could implement the triggers working with a shoulder button on as well.

An alternative for the emergency block (basically jamming the bat down) could also be pressing the unorthodox shot button after starting the shot, although that could have problems.

In any case, options like these would be brilliant to have.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Yeah you're right, unorthodox is LB.

Hopefully the batting system gets beefed up with stuff like this in future iterations - as a base to work from the current control system is great, much better than anything in other cricket games.

I hope that any future iterations of DBC stay true to the things that this one does well - no pitch marker, no fielding radar etc. and continue to make the game more realistic/immersive rather than appealing to the masses with simple pick-up-and-play slogfest gameplay, although money talks I suppose.

 

[Alberts]

Yeah you're right, unorthodox is LB.

Hopefully the batting system gets beefed up with stuff like this in future iterations - as a base to work from the current control system is great, much better than anything in other cricket games.

I hope that any future iterations of DBC stay true to the things that this one does well - no pitch marker, no fielding radar etc. and continue to make the game more realistic/immersive rather than appealing to the masses with simple pick-up-and-play slogfest gameplay, although money talks I suppose.

I seriously doubt that a hit and giggle slog fest game would be better for the masses anyhow. This game has got that in it for the batting in any case.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

To a large extent it's about whether the system offers a chance of real mastery, or whether you can only really make big scores by working out all the odd kinks and avoiding a lot of shots, or dialling the difficulty down so you're rarely out.

VP4 is a great example of a system that gives you the potential for genuine mastery, because the basis on which you succeed or fail is completely comprehensible and perfectly balanced, and perfectly under your control.

Whether DBC can offer real depth like that I'm just not sure. I've had as many hours from the game as I can reasonably expect for ?30 and I'm happy enough with that to buy another iteration regardless, but I'll play a game like VP4 that has a genuinely responsive and diverse technical challenge for literally years without getting bored.

And I'm not actually that good at pool/snooker. My highest VP4 snooker break is about 70 and I rarely get more than 40. I can run the table at 9 ball but I lose plenty of games. But the challenge of mastery is compelling, so the fact that I lose a lot of games and fail to make the breaks I'd ideally like to doesn't put me off. I'm still coming back to it to try and better my skills and beat my best score, because I know I succeed or fail entirely on merit and not due to the foibles of the control system.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

To a large extent it's about whether the system offers a chance of real mastery, or whether you can only really make big scores by working out all the odd kinks and avoiding a lot of shots, or dialling the difficulty down so you're rarely out.

VP4 is a great example of a system that gives you the potential for genuine mastery, because the basis on which you succeed or fail is completely comprehensible and perfectly balanced, and perfectly under your control.

Whether DBC can offer real depth like that I'm just not sure. I've had as many hours from the game as I can reasonably expect for ?30 and I'm happy enough with that to buy another iteration regardless, but I'll play a game like VP4 that has a genuinely responsive and diverse technical challenge for literally years without getting bored.

And I'm not actually that good at pool/snooker. My highest VP4 snooker break is about 70 and I rarely get more than 40. I can run the table at 9 ball but I lose plenty of games. But the challenge of mastery is compelling, so the fact that I lose a lot of games and fail to make the breaks I'd ideally like to doesn't put me off. I'm still coming back to it to try and better my skills and beat my best score, because I know I succeed or fail entirely on merit and not due to the foibles of the control system.

Yeah, VP4 is pretty much perfect with regards to the balancing with the tactical/technical prowess really coming to the fore with very few exploits. The only things I don't like are jump shots (too easy) and the really slow long pots in snooker (on a real snooker table these would roll off and you would miss).

I suck at potting in the game though, I'm much better in real life... My highest break in real life is 77 and I used to get 40+ quite regularly, but in VP my highest is 37 and anything over 16 is very rare. I think it's to do with the lack of 3D perception and the way that I aim in real life being very instinctive. I never think to meticulously line up the shot like is necessary in VP.

My cueball control though is fairly good and I've really enjoyed playing 3 cushion billiards in VP, a game I never thought I'd like but it is great fun.

I think pool and snooker are much, much easier to produce a balanced and strategical video game out of than most other sports - the only real factor involved is the ball physics. If the collisions/friction/spin are accurate, then only a very basic control mechanism with no animations is required to make it an excellent game. That's no disrespect to Celeris though, their physics engine is absolutely fantastic and they've been making top quality pool/snooker games for nearly two decades.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Oh yeah it's miles, miles harder to do a cricket control system than one for snooker and pool.

Jump shots and slow rolls are a bit too easy in VP4 though, now you mention. Although fixing that is hard. You don't really want to add roll to the table or kicks (though maybe some nap on the cloth would be nice), and they're the factors that stuff your shot in real life.

I do my jump shots without a jump cue so at least it's a bit more challenging.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Yeah the reason for the jumps/rolls being so easy is mainly down to the fact that if you just leave the cue central on the cueball which is default, the ball is struck with absolutely no side spin which means that jumps go perfectly straight from just lifting the butt of the cue, and the long slow rolls don't have a smidge of side to roll off a bit.

It's not a massive issue and I'm not sure if it's really possible to fix, I wouldn't want random factors like kicks introduced or random poor cueing etc and don't like the idea of adding lateral movement while cueing, but it is infuriating to play a nice snooker/safety and have your opponent get out of it easily with a jump and potentially pot it (had this happen in one of the tournaments that cost 50p to enter ) or start off a 20+ break with a slowly rolled in red to finish on the black.

 

[Alberts]

I'm wondering if at least some different mappings could still be included in "patch 3".