A letter to HB Studios...

[Scatter]

hero - that is a fair point. although some would argue that BLC is still the better game. I am not sure tbh. They were both gash once you played them for a few hours imo. The AI is simply atrocious - I cannot understate that fact. The AI is really, really poor. I play grade cricket in Sydney, and believe myself to have a real understanding of the game. I was not expecting - nor asking for - an AI that would make me feel as though I were playing against a human captain or human players. It was not too much to expect howvever, that the coders of the AI had a basic understanding of the fundamentals of the tactics and thought processes that are involved. Clearly that is not the case.

IF you can see past the bugs that clearly demonstrate there was absolutely no period of beta testing, then it will not take long for the paucity of the AI to show through.

Squiz - Setting myself up for an almighty fall aren't I???

 

[Hero]

I am eye to eye with you Scatter in this regard that there was no testing made by EA.Besides,hardworking often wastes if not accompanied by proper brain work and in this field HB were not smart enough.

Best of luck with your project as I have good hopes from it.Because it will be incorporated with help and suggestions and would involve lot of testing.

 

[SteveG]

I think AI has always been the problem with most cricket games -- Arcade or Sim. Personally, I have never been an arcade cricket lover, although I owned Allan Border Cricket and Cricket 2002. Even the good cricket sims lack a formidible AI. There are just some many choices to make at so many times in a game. Speaking as a former grade captain, every over brought a new challenge. Do you try this? Do you try that? Do you persist with a particular bowler? Do you try a trundler?

Then with batting how many runs is enough? Is there rain forcast? Did my opening bowler have a big night on the ****? Etc, etc, etc.

While it sounds like I'm defending HB Studios, I can assure you its quite the opposite. I agree with Scatter, if you can look past the pretty graphics and focus on what REALLY makes a cricket game you can see why a lot of us are LIVID at the poor beta testing of C2K4. Even if they did patch those problems, there is the matter of the AI which seems to play a game with little or no strategy.

Scatter has taken on a HUGE job and if it fails he will hear about it from all quarters. But, it will only fail if we let it. We all want a REAL cricket sim/arcade game and we can have one if we are willing to put the effort in. Gees, I should be a motivational speaker LOL.

 

[Scatter]

steve - it's not even as in depth as that... it's just the really simple things like bowling to a field, and a little bit of reactionary stuff.

i just finished a one day game against new zealand on a difficult wicket. the quicks were impossible to score off (having said that, I still scored my 220 runs in just over 22 overs). jacob oram came on to bowl his medium pacers and all of a sudden the runs came easier - but all through one shot: a lofted ondrive. i must have scored forty runs out of my 220 required from this one shot. but the AI kept persisting in bowling half trackers at leg stump that let me easily lift the ball over mid on for four.

the choice was simple -
- take oram off, and return to a quick bowler (I was five down for around 150, so this was a legitimate choice).
- keep oram going and change the line of his bowling to outside off.
- put a man in the bloody deep and try to buy my wicket. the AI did none of the above and just watched merrily as plundered the runs needed to win the game. it went from being a potentially tight finish to a walk in the park (although i did finish at nine wickets down, but only coz i was in a hurry to finish so i could go and have dinner. so i went for the bash and lost 4 for 5 when i only needed six to win ).

ps - i finally managed to set my own field. barmy you were right... for some reason you have to configure the keyboard even though i wasn't using it... :

 

[SteveG]

I just played a game (hard setting) against Sri Lanka. It was a ODI, 50 over game. It was on a seaming wicket and it was almost impossible to get Vaas away for even a single without risking my wicket...so I crawled along to 0/40 off about 11 overs (very slow for Gilchrist and Hayden), but the problem was that the AI didnt realise that I was tied down. It brings Muraliteran on and straight away I crumble losing 3 quick wickets. So the AI gives him 3 overs and takes him off, brings back the pace and settle back down to 4 runs an over again. Now, as a captain I would prefer to go for 4-5 runs an over and take wickets rather than concede 4 runs an over and not take wickets. It doesn't keep the pressure on you when you are struggling.

 

[whiteninness]

also the umpires act like a under 10s umpire sometimes...giving a batsman out when he was caught clearly over the line and then gives it a six or was it the other way round

 

[Scatter]

whitey - don't even start me on the lbw decisions... :

 

[SteveG]

YES...the umpire takes into no consideration whether the ball, would have continued on and hit the stumps. How many times have you been out, struck in front of leg stump? Problem is that the line of the ball would have missed leg stump by inches.

 

[whiteninness]

if it hits ya inline u are out
in the c2k4 rule book

 

[SteveG]

So I could be 3 yards out of my crease, on a spinning wicket, get hit on the knee-roll and because I'm in line with the stumps, then I am out LBW? That's certainly an interesting way to re-write the LBW Rule.

By the way, I'm not being a smart-a*se, just think thats funny how HB Studio's change the rules so its easier on them.

 

[barmyarmy]

Actually what annoys me more is the lack of appealing on plumb lbw's carried over from C2k2. What happened to manual appeal? At least in C97 when you hit someone plumb and no-one appealed you could do it yourself.

 

[squiz]

Hey Barmy i think that even if you did appeal the batsman wouldn't be given out. Although it would be a handy feature to have.

 

[Scatter]

there are all sorts of issues of having manula appealing - it honestly creates more problems than it solves (we have just discussed and decided not to include such a feature for our project). in theory it works fine for lbw decisions, but for caught behinds it would become a real issue.

i honestly wouldn't care if the AI appealed every time the ball hits the pads (some teams do ), just as long as the umpire gets the majority of decisions right. c2k4 mucks up far too many easy decisions for me. balls that re going to miss leg stump by an absolute mile being given out are a joke.

oh - and a further note to HB - if the ball goes past inside the body, but wide leg stump it can't be a fuppin wide!!!

 

[squiz]

Also another thing, i was batting and ball was about a foot outside leg stump, to scale anyway, and they didnt even give a wide. pfft

 

[Scatter]

is it just me, or is the umpire more severe on user wides than AI ones?

and whislt i am all for making it harder to bowl yorkers, firing the cursor to the very edge of the pitch on the leg side just as you press you button is not the way to bloody do it... :