Ashes Cricket General Discussion

[wasteyouryouth]

To be fair on the flip side no one has ever said how they should be skilled in first place?

In the early builds England and Australia was rated much lower.

Again same as pitches, batting styles and stats no one really knows how they work

This is the reality. We don't know what the threshold is to make a player that will be vulnerable but can still go on and get big scores in the right circumstances.

How many skill points difference would there be between Steve Smith and Pat Cummins in terms of batting?

This is kind of why I don't like having access to skill editing cause we don't know what the changes will do without trying. Won't stop me though.

Had a really interesting session with the lowered skills. Got a cracking caught behind, a cut straight to fully then some odd ones. A bat pad that was caught by the keeper who had raced to short leg.

I'd tinkered with the agility and speed settings too and I don't know if it was the ground (Birmingham Arena) but there were a lot more 3s than I've seen before and the AI even ran a 4.

Recorded a video so will try and show the wickets and the ten or so play and misses.

Other thing I noticed, may or not be obvious, but the pitch is dry and there's almost no seam movement. So green pitches are definitely what you want for that.

 

[blockerdave]

to be honest, if BA can't accurately skill licensed players for a game they developed, and we can't use them as a base, we may as well all go off and read a book.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

to be honest, if BA can't accurately skill licensed players for a game they developed, and we can't use them as a base, we may as well all go off and read a book.

When Cook's mentality is aggressive I think it's fair to question the accuracy.

 

[cricket_online]

This is the reality. We don't know what the threshold is to make a player that will be vulnerable but can still go on and get big scores in the right circumstances.

How many skill points difference would there be between Steve Smith and Pat Cummins in terms of batting?

This is kind of why I don't like having access to skill editing cause we don't know what the changes will do without trying. Won't stop me though.

Had a really interesting session with the lowered skills. Got a cracking caught behind, a cut straight to fully then some odd ones. A bat pad that was caught by the keeper who had raced to short leg.

I'd tinkered with the agility and speed settings too and I don't know if it was the ground (Birmingham Arena) but there were a lot more 3s than I've seen before and the AI even ran a 4.

Recorded a video so will try and show the wickets and the ten or so play and misses.

Other thing I noticed, may or not be obvious, but the pitch is dry and there's almost no seam movement. So green pitches are definitely what you want for that.

IMO an easy solution to this conundrum would be for Big Ant to map skills to a batsman's test average. So Bradman should be rated 99, Smith 63, Chris Martin 3 etc. This would be an easy "fix" which anyone would be able to understand. Or the other option is for Big Ant to provide some sort of "markers" or reference, i.e. they can say that someone like Bradman (average of 99) should be rated 100, someone like Smith (average between 60-65) should be rated 90, batsmen with Test batting average between 55-60 should be rated around 85, a Chris Martin should be rated 5, Ramprakash (average 28) should be rated 60 etc. That way folks will be able to have some sort of guideline or benchmarks to rate players.

I would do the same with bowlers, i.e. a bowler with bowling average of 15 should be rated 100, a bowler averaging 20 rated a 90, bowling average 23 rated 85, bowling average 30 rated 72 and so on so forth. I would also propose having two separate skill ratings - one for batting and one for bowling - for each player. I mean how else do you rate players like Kallis, Cummins, Hadlee etc.? I would rate Kallis 85 in batting and maybe 75 in bowling and there's no way I can have one single rating for him. Same with Hadlee whose bowling was so much better than his batting. Or players like Cummins who are pretty good in one discipline (bowling in this case) but aren't clueless in the other. You can't simply rate Cummins 80 and term him "lower order" else how do you differentiate him from someone like Courtney Walsh or Chris Martin who also would be "lower order" batsmen but are nowhere near Cummins as batsmen. Having one single rating for a player fails in that respect.

 

[UnknownSoul]

I have noticed an improvement with gameplay using the teams @wasteyouryouth has lowered skills on.

Seems the attribute system itself is a issue as it's tried to follow many other games the best players are always 90ish rated when it seems this game can't really handle players that good. but you can see why they done it that way as all other games do it. It be very strange if smith was a 60ovr and best on the game.

It was shocking how bad the 'licensed' players were skilled/mentality.. Even my grandad who only really watches t20 games on tv would know how cook bats for example. What are they doing? The only player i felt they got correct and didn't need changing in mentality was surprise surprise... Maxwell.

 

[cricket_online]

When Cook's mentality is aggressive I think it's fair to question the accuracy.

IIRC Cook's mentality was "Brute" before I changed him to "Precise". And I laughed out loud when I saw Maxwell rated a 89 or Cook a 93 or some such. I understand Maxwell was part of the mo-cap process but surely even his mother wouldn't rate him 89! If he's 89 how would you rate batsmen like Smith & Kohli? And as much as I'm a fan of Cook's batting, his rating of 93 is at least 10 points too high but I guess if he can be classified as "Brute", anything's possible! Forget other non-licensed teams, I had to literally tweak nearly every player from licensed teams (Eng & Aus) as they had incorrect attributes, ratings and/or classification.

 

[blockerdave]

IMO an easy solution to this conundrum would be for Big Ant to map skills to a batsman's test average. So Bradman should be rated 99, Smith 63, Chris Martin 3 etc. This would be an easy "fix" which anyone would be able to understand. Or the other option is for Big Ant to provide some sort of "markers" or reference, i.e. they can say that someone like Bradman (average of 99) should be rated 100, someone like Smith (average between 60-65) should be rated 90, batsmen with Test batting average between 55-60 should be rated around 85, a Chris Martin should be rated 5, Ramprakash (average 28) should be rated 60 etc. That way folks will be able to have some sort of guideline or benchmarks to rate players.

I would do the same with bowlers, i.e. a bowler with bowling average of 15 should be rated 100, a bowler averaging 20 rated a 90, bowling average 23 rated 85, bowling average 30 rated 75 and so on so forth. I would also propose having two separate skill ratings - one for batting and one for bowling - for each player. I mean how else do you rate players like Kallis, Cummins, Hadlee etc.? I would rate Kallis 85 in batting and maybe 75 in bowling and there's no way I can have one single rating for him. Same with Hadlee whose bowling was so much better than his batting. Or players like Cummins who are pretty good in one discipline (bowling in this case) but aren't clueless in the other. You can't simply rate Cummins 80 and term him "lower order" else how do you differentiate him from someone like Courtney Walsh or Chris Martin who also would be "lower order" batsmen but are nowhere near Cummins as batsmen. Having one single rating for a player fails in that respect.

how do you rate someone like Michael Vaughan who averaged 41 in tests and 27 in odi? or michael bevan who averaged 53 in odi and 29 in tests? (what's with the differentials, michaels?)

as for rating courtney walsh vs pat cummins, the existing rating system even allowing for a "bowler" with a "lower order" batting, still gives quite a differential of possibility.

the issue isn't the rating system, it's how a given rating translates into gameplay, and the zero information provided over 3 games.

 

[Jalen]

@blockerdave if you don't mind me asking, what is under the search for the 2 logos @Llewelynf, I can't find them through friedLele7

 

[wasteyouryouth]

IMO an easy solution to this conundrum would be for Big Ant to map skills to a batsman's test average. So Bradman should be rated 99, Smith 63, Chris Martin 3 etc. This would be an easy "fix" which anyone would be able to understand. Or the other option is for Big Ant to provide some sort of "markers" or reference, i.e. they can say that someone like Bradman (average of 99) should be rated 100, someone like Smith (average between 60-65) should be rated 90, batsmen with Test batting average between 55-60 should be rated around 85, a Chris Martin should be rated 5, Ramprakash (average 28) should be rated 60 etc. That way folks will be able to have some sort of guideline or benchmarks to rate players.

I would do the same with bowlers, i.e. a bowler with bowling average of 15 should be rated 100, a bowler averaging 20 rated a 90, bowling average 23 rated 85, bowling average 30 rated 75 and so on so forth. I would also propose having two separate skill ratings - one for batting and one for bowling - for each player. I mean how else do you rate players like Kallis, Cummins, Hadlee etc.? I would rate Kallis 85 in batting and maybe 75 in bowling and there's no way I can have one single rating for him. Same with Hadlee whose bowling was so much better than his batting. Or players like Cummins who are pretty good in one discipline (bowling in this case) but aren't clueless in the other. You can't simply rate Cummins 80 and term him "lower order" else how do you differentiate him from someone like Courtney Walsh or Chris Martin who also would be "lower order" batsmen but are nowhere near Cummins as batsmen. Having one single rating for a player fails in that respect.

You call Courtney Walsh a tailender and Chris Martin a number 11 - that's how I've differentiated between them when doing my own skill calculations that I've used for the 93 Ashes teams.

I can see where you coming from but you can't use test average because not all players have one, you can't use first class because not all players have one or it might be skewed because they haven't played many games or play in a country with batsmen friendly pitches or vice versa. It could be incorporated, as a balance to ensure that some players aren't too good but you still need something to determine how good/bad a batsman is. If you had a scale of some sort, maybe you rate the Poor-Great for skills then the skills can be adapted accordingly behind the scenes by Big Ant.

IIRC Cook's mentality was "Brute" before I changed him to "Precise". And I laughed out loud when I saw Maxwell rated a 89 or Cook a 93 or some such. I understand Maxwell was part of the mo-cap process but surely even his mother wouldn't rate him 89! If he's 89 how would you rate batsmen like Smith & Kohli? And as much as I'm a fan of Cook's batting, his rating of 93 is at least 10 points too high but I guess if he can be classified as "Brute", anything's possible! Forget other non-licensed teams, I had to literally tweak nearly every player from licensed teams (Eng & Aus) as they had incorrect attributes, ratings and/or classification.

Maxwell is so high because he's an all rounder and possibly because he has high fielding rating. His batting rating is, inexplicably, the same as Root. The non-licensed players ratings are calculated in a different way, so most of them have ratings about BAT/BWL ratings about 10-15 higher despite having roughly the same skills as the licensed players when you look at them. I'm inclined to think they is a cosmetic element. It doesn't look good if you have the best batsman in the world being rated at 60 out of 100 even if at 60 he still scores as many runs as Steve Smith.

 

[cricket_online]

how do you rate someone like Michael Vaughan who averaged 41 in tests and 27 in odi? or michael bevan who averaged 53 in odi and 29 in tests? (what's with the differentials, michaels?)

as for rating courtney walsh vs pat cummins, the existing rating system even allowing for a "bowler" with a "lower order" batting, still gives quite a differential of possibility.

the issue isn't the rating system, it's how a given rating translates into gameplay, and the zero information provided over 3 games.

In an ideal world I would love to have ratings based on different formats but for the time being I would settle for a system which at the very least helps us determine how a player plays in one format. If I know 80 means a batsman who has a Test average of 50, at least I know what I'm getting. At the moment I don't. This rating would also help me rationalise rating of players across multiple formats. As an example I would rate Bevan 85 in odis and 68 in Tests so I can choose to rate him a 77 as a compromise. Same with someone like a Kohli whose Test average is 51 and would be rated say 82 as per Test average. But given he averages 50+ in all three formats, I would personally rate him 86 to depict his overall prowess across formats.

The thing is we need at least some sort of benchmark we understand and can work with. At the moment I've no idea and I doubt you can create someone like a Chris Martin. Once we understand how the rating is interpreted within the game it's easier for us to rate the players and maybe in the future there could be a rating for each format and not just one single rating across all formats & disciplines.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

In an ideal world I would love to have ratings based on different formats but for the time being I would settle for a system which at the very least helps us determine how a player plays in one format. If I know 80 means a batsman who has a Test average of 50, at least I know what I'm getting. At the moment I don't. This rating would also help me rationalise rating of players across multiple formats. As an example I would rate Bevan 85 in odis and 68 in Tests so I can choose to rate him a 77 as a compromise. Same with someone like a Kohli whose Test average is 51 and would be rated say 82 as per Test average. But given he averages 50+ in all three formats, I would personally rate him 86 to depict his overall prowess across formats.

The thing is we need at least some sort of benchmark we understand and can work with. At the moment I've no idea and I doubt you can create someone like a Chris Martin. Once we understand how the rating is interpreted within the game it's easier for us to rate the players and maybe in the future there could be a rating for each format and not just one single rating across all formats & disciplines.

This is where skill trees or unique skills could come in. You can label Bevan as 'One Day Finisher' the actual impact upon the game could just be that if he comes in to bat between overs 25-50 in a one day match his confidence is higher than other players so in theory he settles quicker.

 

[Llewelynf]

@blockerdave if you don't mind me asking, what is under the search for the 2 logos @Llewelynf, I can't find them through friedLele7

Try just fried all small letters and no spaces. Or alternatively search by date

 

[Jalen]

Try just fried all small letters and no spaces. Or alternatively search by date

Will check now

 

[Jalen]

Try just fried all small letters and no spaces. Or alternatively search by date

Nothing, only showing lanc logos and wwe

 

[Langeveldt]

This is really interesting discussion and I have about 10-15 games of stats down in Ashes cricket, purely bowling at the AI. I've had to tweak every team to my liking, but the PC teams were far more accurate than the vanilla ones out of the box. I didn't deliberately under skill anyone, so Kohli would be 85 and Mitch Marsh say 60 batting.

So they went and got a barmy army cheer, a Nice Gary, and yet Cook was down as a Brute player?

I had Dawlat Zadran hit 95 on a road against the West Indies, in what was otherwise a very realistic test. So as usual I don't think we can make complete bunnies in AC. He had very poor skills all around.

Do mentalities still sort of work? Even with the supposedly inferior new patches? I can see them to a degree, I think! (I am completely paranoid about this every time I play).

By the third iteration we should be able to possibly differentiate between playing spin and pace, and tests and ODI. But this is all wishful thinking when we have absolutely nothing as usual from Big Ant that is of interest to how the mechanics work. I guess they feel they have something to protect code-wise. I think some of the over-skilling is apparent in the slog overs of ODIs where the ball can fly everywhere without batsmen even looking like getting out. I think there should be greater risk when the AI goes aerial.

I myself am having reasonable results on Ashes Cricket, but every time I check this forum I get paranoid. I will attach my stats output for people to look at. Obviously I've skilled them as I think suits, but I work for Cricinfo and have watched cricket since I was 6 (25 years), so I like to think I have reasonable eye for what a player might do. So for all these attached stats I was bowling on Veteran, a mixture of patch 1.03 and 1.06, Hard Bowling, random pitches.