Ashes Cricket 2013 General Discussion

[Dutch]

Put me on record as disputing the simulated match results because NZ lost... I demand a refund.

Plus the Kiwi's didn't change their captain......

 

[sahilnatu]

And, while there's all this talk about 'hard' difficulty. Does it increase the overall standard of the AI's game or does it only narrows the perfect-timing gap?

 

[EdgedAndGone]

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.

Thanks chief.... Exciting to read. can you play a bit yourself in between and post..... Ofcourse if you get time from your busy schedule.

 

[vishalsparadise]

Thanks chief.... Exciting to read. can you play a bit yourself in between and post..... Ofcourse if you get time from your busy schedule.

Busy schedule ?

He's always playing the game

 

[Dutch]

New podcast uploaded everyone:

Cheers mate I already posted it in a new thread...

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/ashes-cricket-2013-forum/new-podcast-live-pitch-84270.html

 

[papalazarou]

I thought I'd read somewhere that there would be dynamic weather during the actual days play?

"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."

Whilst being realistic score wise, this doesn't seem to reflect that, or is it a case of autoplay not taking dynamic weather into account?

 

[duberryboy1]

I thought I'd read somewhere that there would be dynamic weather during the actual days play?

"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."

Whilst being realistic score wise, this doesn't seem to reflect that, or is it a case of autoplay not taking dynamic weather into account?

How doesnt it show that? It doesnt rain every test match.

 

[zimrahil]

And, while there's all this talk about 'hard' difficulty. Does it increase the overall standard of the AI's game or does it only narrows the perfect-timing gap?

Great post. Also hope timing window is smaller when facing spinners and larger when facing quicks for same batsman. Window was same size in ic10 meaning hitting spinners was too easy due to slowness of deliveries making timing piece of cake

 

[cricket_online]

How doesnt it show that? It doesnt rain every test match.

I think "papalazarou" wanted to say that Chief's description showed the weather changed every day, i.e. before the start of play each day, but didn't show the weather change over the course of the day. Maybe something like "Start of play weather sunny, 20 overs in clouds come in and the ball starts swinging, a bit of rain which holds up the play for an hour, pitch spices up in the afternoon session coz of the rain, weather clears up in the final session and batsman have it easy the final hour".

I am assuming the gameplay would be something similar and the reason Chief's summary didn't have such details was coz he simulated the innings, rather than play the entire match.

Chief, if you could let us know if my understanding is correct and the weather would be "dynamic" the entire day and not just at the start of each day.

 

[papalazarou]

How doesnt it show that? It doesnt rain every test match.

Very rarely does it ever stay bright and still on a summers day in england mate.

Dynamic weather doesn't have to mean rain. I'm more asking will we see a bright sunny start make way for light cloud cover or a progression into heavier cloud cover which is conducive to swing during a days play or even a session. And vice versa?


Yep, as above. cheers cricket online.

 

[sahilnatu]

Great post. Also hope timing window is smaller when facing spinners and larger when facing quicks for same batsman. Window was same size in ic10 meaning hitting spinners was too easy due to slowness of deliveries making timing piece of cake

True that. Playing spinners on subcontinent tracks should be a hell lot more difficult than playing the quickies there.

 

[kingoffuel]

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.

I hear you, it's not the ultimate solution but it's a start. The player with the most points on the winning team gets the Man of the Match, whether he's scored the most runs, or caused the most dismissals or both.

Don't want to take the wind out of anyone's sails but Brian Lara/Shane Warne 99 had a Man of the Match, so did EA Cricket 05 and 07 (with a Man of the Series also)... It's 2013, just saying

 

[Biggs]

Don't want to take the wind out of anyone's sails but Brian Lara/Shane Warne 99 had a Man of the Match, so did EA Cricket 05 and 07 (with a Man of the Series also)... It's 2013, just saying

I agree totally. There must be an algorithm-like number-crunching nerd somewhere that could fully be able to weight events in a match to be able to add this kinda feature in a modern game. I agree, it would be complex to account for every single event in a game, but certainly major benchmarks (5-fors, 10 in a match when bowling, 50s, 100s etc) could all be given a ranking. As long as the rule is "winning side only qualifies for MOTM" then the rest should be reasonably easy to account for?

...I suppose with a simple-set-up you're going to run into issues when someone scores a quickfire 30 to rescue an ODI match and bring it home, who SHOULD be getting MOTM in a "real" scenario, but I'm sure there's smart enough folks out there to figure that stuff out with mathematics.

Surely.

 

[Dutch]

I agree totally. There must be an algorithm-like number-crunching nerd somewhere that could fully be able to weight events in a match to be able to add this kinda feature in a modern game. I agree, it would be complex to account for every single event in a game, but certainly major benchmarks (5-fors, 10 in a match when bowling, 50s, 100s etc) could all be given a ranking. As long as the rule is "winning side only qualifies for MOTM" then the rest should be reasonably easy to account for?

...I suppose with a simple-set-up you're going to run into issues when someone scores a quickfire 30 to rescue an ODI match and bring it home, who SHOULD be getting MOTM in a "real" scenario, but I'm sure there's smart enough folks out there to figure that stuff out with mathematics.

Surely.

Yeah, Ah mean them big city folks and scientist boffins way over yonder, I beenna hearin that they made a toothpaste tube that works.....Ah mean, aint that a wondah? Me myself enna my brothers here, Carl an' Gizmo we ah dont a be a usin toothpaste for a loonnng tim' but heck that still be neat what them folks can do an all......

 

[Biggs]

...and MAGNETS. How do THEY WORK?!