Ashes Cricket 2013 General Discussion

[angad]

No: I ascertained that.

I think I discussed this before somewhere: it's a very subjective thing. MOTM is a very difficult thing to properly judge. Like one big innings well beyond expectation (Monty - Cardiff 2009) is sometimes more valuable than a strike bowler who took 8 wickets (as they should be doing).
Very complex thing to work out through hard numbers...

Dont think you need to be so technical about it!! You can just make the most obvious choice as the MOM. Maybe you can assign some points to the main criterion like runs scores, strike rate, catches taken, runouts effected, wickets taken, runs per over given as a bowler....and the player with the highest points gets the MOM award! Dont think it would have been that difficult to implement.

People here really felt that this 'small' feature would have been a great addition to the game chief.

Though not gamebreaking, but am really disappointed that you guys chose to ignore this as well....specially when it wasnt that difficult to implement really.

 

[sahilnatu]

Dont think you need to be so technical about it!! You can just make the most obvious choice as the MOM. Maybe you can assign some points to the main criterion like runs scores, strike rate, catches taken, runouts effected, wickets taken, runs per over given as a bowler....and the player with the highest points gets the MOM award!

Something like the 'Most Valuable Player' in this year's IPL. 3.5pts per 6, 2.5pts per 4, 1pt per dot ball, 3.5pts per wicket, 2.5pts per catch, 2.5pts per runout.
Obviously dot balls, sixes and stuff don't matter in Tests. But they could use something of this sort for judging the MoM. Even if it doesn't always seem right, it'd add a fun element to the game.

 

[79cricket]

No: I ascertained that.

I think I discussed this before somewhere: it's a very subjective thing. MOTM is a very difficult thing to properly judge. Like one big innings well beyond expectation (Monty - Cardiff 2009) is sometimes more valuable than a strike bowler who took 8 wickets (as they should be doing).
Very complex thing to work out through hard numbers...

I think this part is easy to fix for the next game chief, let us pick the man of the match by the best 2 players, say Clarke makes 109 and 89 or Cook makes 100 and 90 or something a little different, Siddle gets 6 for 50 and 4 for 46 vs Cook 76 and 89 or something like that.

p.s Chief why did england win so easy vs aus, maybe this is true.
If you have time i would love to see how eng vs nz goes, as it starts tomorrow hint Screens(sorry guys i could not help myself)
Also Thanks again chief for the last 9 months it's been well interesting.

 

[Chief]

Dont think you need to be so technical about it!! You can just make the most obvious choice as the MOM. Maybe you can assign some points to the main criterion like runs scores, strike rate, catches taken, runouts effected, wickets taken, runs per over given as a bowler....and the player with the highest points gets the MOM award! Dont think it would have been that difficult to implement.

People here really felt that this 'small' feature would have been a great addition to the game chief.

Though not gamebreaking, but am really disappointed that you guys chose to ignore this as well....specially when it wasnt that difficult to implement really.

Once again, I know lots of people wanted this, and there's no question that this was "ignored": every piece of feedback and ideas have been carefully considered. But just be aware that if every "small" thing you guys wanted was in there, we'd be running budgets of GTA/COD size.

If we did as you said above, and you were constantly thinking "Well, clearly that doesn't work - MOTM should have been "X"", then would it not be worse than if it was not there at all? I suspect yes. You'd think it was just broken.
Also, I'd always question what people think "wouldn't have been that difficult to implement". If you actually sit down and think about all the things that would have to be added, I think you'd find it was a lot bigger than maybe you thought. (I get that a lot: I think a feature is really cool and an easy thing, and once it's all specced out you find it's actually months and months of work!)...

 

[kingoffuel]

Dont think you need to be so technical about it!! You can just make the most obvious choice as the MOM. Maybe you can assign some points to the main criterion like runs scores, strike rate, catches taken, runouts effected, wickets taken, runs per over given as a bowler....and the player with the highest points gets the MOM award! Dont think it would have been that difficult to implement.

People here really felt that this 'small' feature would have been a great addition to the game chief.

Though not gamebreaking, but am really disappointed that you guys chose to ignore this as well....specially when it wasnt that difficult to implement really.

Agreed, if you allocated points to a performance (eg. 100 runs = 100 points, 8 wickets = 100 points, or 4 fielding dismissals = 100 points) then you accumulate the points each player has, I'm sure we could get a proper indication of the man of the match. (I'm sure MS Excel can do this)

Hope this assists with future releases Chief

 

[79cricket]

Once again, I know lots of people wanted this, and there's no question that this was "ignored": every piece of feedback and ideas have been carefully considered. But just be aware that if every "small" thing you guys wanted was in there, we'd be running budgets of GTA/COD size.

If we did as you said above, and you were constantly thinking "Well, clearly that doesn't work - MOTM should have been "X"", then would it not be worse than if it was not there at all? I suspect yes. You'd think it was just broken.
Also, I'd always question what people think "wouldn't have been that difficult to implement". If you actually sit down and think about all the things that would have to be added, I think you'd find it was a lot bigger than maybe you thought. (I get that a lot: I think a feature is really cool and an easy thing, and once it's all specced out you find it's actually months and months of work!)...

I agree that would take sometime, my idea is simple and puts the power in are hands.p.s Don't like cake chief.

 

[Dutch]

Chief, how many of the matches went to four or five days you mentioned, apart from the draw obviously? Did the AI bat long enough to go over into a fourth or fifth day? Or were these just simulated games and not player versus CPU?

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

Agreed, if you allocated points to a performance (eg. 100 runs = 100 points, 8 wickets = 100 points, or 4 fielding dismissals = 100 points) then you accumulate the points each player has, I'm sure we could get a proper indication of the man of the match.

I'd differ here. We cannot just make a decision where 'who has the most points?' situation is in. As Chief mentioned about the example of Monty(obviously not a Man of the Match winning performance), its hard to tell which player made an impact in the game. We have had certain such examples in the past where everyone had different opinion in about these decisions. Its 'actually hard to think' in many cases, as to whom a MoM should be given. I personally feel this point system doesn't give deserved rewards.

Though I'm not saying as if I'm happy about the exclusion of this feature, I'm sure even if a simple algorithm was used to determine the MoM, same as the games have been implementing this in the past, we all would have been happy Chief, and even if it wasn't given to whom we would have expect, it wouldn't be disappointing, as much as the exclusion of this feature.

 

[79cricket]

Chief can you tell us how good you are at the game, do you play it on hard or easy p.s Do you like my idea is it easier to do than what the others pc members(for you gone4aduck) have said.

 

[MattW]

Something like the 'Most Valuable Player' in this year's IPL. 3.5pts per 6, 2.5pts per 4, 1pt per dot ball, 3.5pts per wicket, 2.5pts per catch, 2.5pts per runout.

Seriously, a six as important as a wicket? That's a totally warped way of looking at things - and I'd say certainly helps make the case against a mathematically derived result.

At least you'd need situation dependant multipliers - a dot ball in the last over when they need 10 to win is far more valuable than a wicket in an over where they've scored 20.

I can certainly see how the process gets difficult fairly quickly. Still, I do think in the context of a tour, it's one of those things that is a good point for depth - but considering I can't tell you off the top of my head which cricket games have had a MOTM feature and which haven't, then I suppose it isn't something I've noticed prior to today or would notice after getting the game.

 

[Chief]

OK: I've done the Lords test - This was AI vs AI with no human intervention, with default teams.


Lord's.

Day 1:
Weather cool, wind gusty, OVercast (the conditions outside my window this morning!)
England win the toss and bat.
After an early wicket, a good recovery sees them reach 283/7 at the close.

Day 2: weather has much improved and is quite bright.
England lose all 3 wickets in the first 10 overs, but reach 306 all out.
NZ Reach 202 at the close, 6 wickets down.

Day 3: Weather stays bright.
NZ reach lunch having put on another 90 for 3 wickets, but lose their last wicket just after lunch still 7 runs behind: 299 all out.
England end the day on 140-2

Day 4: Again, weather good.
England score steadily through the whole day, declaring late in the day on 382-5.

Day 5: Weather STILL good (this is getting MOST unrealistic!)
New Zealand score steadily to begin with, but lose wickets. By tea they are 8 down, the run-rate is slow, and are all out with 20 overs left to go for 209.

England won by 180 runs.

 

[barmyarmy]

Scorecard?

 

[Chief]

Scorecard?

Lol - Back you dogs. I have work to do.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

OK: I've done the Lords test - This was AI vs AI with no human intervention, with default teams.


Lord's.

Day 1:
Weather cool, wind gusty, OVercast (the conditions outside my window this morning!)
England win the toss and bat.
After an early wicket, a good recovery sees them reach 283/7 at the close.

Day 2: weather has much improved and is quite bright.
England lose all 3 wickets in the first 10 overs, but reach 306 all out.
NZ Reach 202 at the close, 6 wickets down.

Day 3: Weather stays bright.
NZ reach lunch having put on another 90 for 3 wickets, but lose their last wicket just after lunch still 7 runs behind: 299 all out.
England end the day on 140-2

Day 4: Again, weather good.
England score steadily through the whole day, declaring late in the day on 382-5.

Day 5: Weather STILL good (this is getting MOST unrealistic!)
New Zealand score steadily to begin with, but lose wickets. By tea they are 8 down, the run-rate is slow, and are all out with 20 overs left to go for 209.

England won by 180 runs.

Did you simulate the entire match or by 30 overs every time?

 

[sahilnatu]

Seriously, a six as important as a wicket? That's a totally warped way of looking at things - and I'd say certainly helps make the case against a mathematically derived result.

At least you'd need situation dependant multipliers - a dot ball in the last over when they need 10 to win is far more valuable than a wicket in an over where they've scored 20.

I can certainly see how the process gets difficult fairly quickly. Still, I do think in the context of a tour, it's one of those things that is a good point for depth - but considering I can't tell you off the top of my head which cricket games have had a MOTM feature and which haven't, then I suppose it isn't something I've noticed prior to today or would notice after getting the game.

Same points for a six & a wicket, yes it does sound a bit odd, but it gives pretty good results. You could check the list of players with most MVP points this season on the official website. Gayle, Watson top the list & that justifies their brilliant all round performance in the tournament.
Or, there could be a point based system like in the Fanrasy League. Looking forward to this feature in their next version (hopefully).