Ashes Cricket General Discussion

[Alberts]

I think some of us are going Awol in the brain department: Yes there are plenty of issues but at the mo the forum is just spiralling into abject negativity about everything ba has ever done. We are just dragginf each other down into perceiving everything as broken. Its certainly not objective any more.

As you've probably noticed from my posting pattern, I haven't really engaged much in the discussion. My own comments less "spirally into abject negativity", and more my own astonishment from what I've witnessed over the months. BigAnt were the model company I'd go to when I would describe what I thought a company "doing it right" was. The problem is that it appears that it was all too much for them based on what we're seeing now. I can get the feeling, but honestly in the role they were playing surely that was part of the job description. It's hard, people will be horrible to them, but their engagement with those that weren't was surely invaluable.

I don't know, but from my own experience I've gone from being so loyal to them that I'd buy literally anything they made, to now questioning whether I'd have the faith to ever buy another game from them. This has been a slow process, going back to Don Bradman 17 in some ways, but the shift has most certainly happened. Yeah, supporting a game can be hard, yeah it can be a ridiculous job at times, particularly when your survival depends on pushing out more games. That side I can and would forgive. The lack of community engagement in recent months when it's clear there is still much to fix on the otherhand is less so.

Those at BigAnt no doubt have their reasons, hell they're likely plainly obvious to us all, but that cost of engagement surely isn't so great as to make what's happening now worth it. Of my friends who played BigAnt games, the pattern is the same, I was the most patient. At this point though Big Ant would either need the greatest patch of all time or a engagement reboot to fix much of the damage they've caused in these months though. I hope they turn this all around, and I have no doubt another patch of some description is coming; I just can't see at this point how it will be good enough to justify what we've seen to this point. A game with considerable issues is forgivable when the engagement is there, and it's clear what's going on; it is much less so when the shutters come down and another game with considerable issues is shoved out the side door.

 

[Langeveldt]

If mentalities only used certain skills then setting all batsmen to Balanced would mean they should use all the skills. I think mentalities do work, not very well, but they just do what they say in the descriptions in the academy while maintaining a rough strike rate. Big problem is they are fudged by the targeting run rates.

My experience batting is that the only things that matter in human control are strength, confidence and human ability. Also, I'd say a lot of people, consciously or otherwise, probably bat differently depending on if they are using Steve Smith or James Anderson. I know when I get down to the bowlers I can't be bothered trying to bat normally. It may be that a batsman with a higher rating is easier to bat with, timing could be more forgiving, but it certainly doesn't seem that any individual batting skill has any noticeable effect. I scored 190 all out in a 50 over game vs a team with bowlers all rated to the max with batsman all rated at 1 for batting skills and physical skills. The only problems I had were getting the ball out of the circle and my taking too many risky singles. That was on legend and hard batting.

I reckon if you created two batsman, one with 100 for all batting skills and 1 for strength, the other with 1 for batting skills and 100 for strength, and were able to test them blind (e.g. the person doesn't know which is which) they would find it easier to bat with the latter.

I think mentalities do work, but get over-ridden and rendered pointless by the fact that they have to score at 3.5, come hell or high water, and the slog shot at the end of the over.

On the Ben Stokes build I have India rattling along at nearly 5 an over at lunch on the first day.

 

[kamy100]

Generally I am supportive of Big Ant as I am enjoying Ashes Cricket despite it's obvious flaws, however it is a shame to see them totally stop communicating regarding continued support. As Blocker says a quick Tweet/Facebook message to say that they will continue to support Ashes but for the moment they are deploying all immediate resources to AO Tennis would have taken a few minutes and we would all have understood. The wall of silence does not look great for them considering they are company who previously engaged with their community.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

They should open up the files for editing so the community can edit the physics, graphics etc if they can't be bothered.

 

[Dutch]

Generally I am supportive of Big Ant as I am enjoying Ashes Cricket despite it's obvious flaws, however it is a shame to see them totally stop communicating regarding continued support. As Blocker says a quick Tweet/Facebook message to say that they will continue to support Ashes but for the moment they are deploying all immediate resources to AO Tennis would have taken a few minutes and we would all have understood. The wall of silence does not look great for them considering they are company who previously engaged with their community.

An honest question of which I don’t have the answer for myself yet: aren’t they on a hiding to nothing? Is there really anything at this moment in the current climate that they could say or do that would be genuinely well-received?

 

[Dean johnes]

They should understand the fact a good solid complete unbroken game always sells.
It's no point releasing a broken games before events ashes series or Australian open it does not matter.
A true game lover for any sport will buy the game any time it's released regardless of events push releases, but a full complete game.
He will never buy according to ashes series or Australian open.
If the game is solid and sharp he will buy it after the ashes series or Australian open are over also.
Bigant are always getting into a excuse that we had to rush push the release as the events dates were close ashes and australian open and we had to release it before that date may be if it's broken also.
Lame exuces from big ant.
I think they should understand the fact that a true cricket lover plays cricket 365 days irrespective of any ongoing series then only they play cricket.
For example I want to play cricket now ashes is starting.
Ashes series over now I will play hockey.
What kind of a joke big ant are trying to express with hidden smiles.

 

[Langeveldt]

An honest question of which I don’t have the answer for myself yet: aren’t they on a hiding to nothing? Is there really anything at this moment in the current climate that they could say or do that would be genuinely well-received?

Yes of course...

"We are working on AO tennis at the moment, hence the delay and lack of engagement. We are committed to providing our cricket fan base with a patch in the future (they dont even have to give a timeframe), that addresses concerns that we have noted down in the latest build and thanks to the work of our outstanding beta team."

There, I just did it.

 

[MattW]

Interesting that the Owner of Planet Cricket Website , seems to now exclusively Post on Bigant`s Forum.

"Matt@BigAnt" is the account of Big Ant's PR guy, and not me. I'm MattW on the Big Ant forum same as here.

Maybe explains why we dont even have a dedicated Online section for Ashes , and any inside info from our Man on the team.

Happy to add a separate online section - I got the impression with the DBC17 forum that people felt like online stuff got hidden away and ignored by people because it was separated. It's certainly not a decree from up high.

As for inside info - yes, there's things I can't talk about. And there's a large overlap there with things people want to know - I can't give release dates or a guess as to when patches will release, or what the scope of inclusions will be. I can't tell you those things, and I try to avoid making posts that could imply either of those things.

To the extent I post on here as 'work', that is primarily to follow up when needed for more information about an issue someone's having, or troubleshooting one. Other posts I make (like this one) are in my own time - scrolling through pages and pages of negativity doesn't make me excited to use that time to jump in and try and talk about things in the cases where I could. Equally, I'm not oblivious to why people would be negative - just I have my limits of what I can deal with.

As was said through twitter, work on further updates for is ongoing. Indeed, the tweet above is referencing a block list based issue that was discovered as part of that process on Ashes.

 

[zimrahil]

An honest question of which I don’t have the answer for myself yet: aren’t they on a hiding to nothing? Is there really anything at this moment in the current climate that they could say or do that would be genuinely well-received?

Whilst I agree with many points raised in this thread I cannot help but come back to the point often made that forums overplay their importance to developers at times. We make up probably 0.1% of people who buy BA games. They engage with communities when promoting a game obviously and to get feedback on their titles. Outside of that, well......

Does anyone genuinely believe posting here/social media has any massive impact on main target audience of their games.?

 

[blockerdave]

i don't know how much i've complained about it publicly, but when in beta I've complained repeatedly about a broken 4th innings bowling AI. (a carry over from dbc17)

the main issues are: they don't attack, until your batsman passes 25. they change the field much more regularly. they often have what looks more ODI fields, regardless of the actual target. i questioned whether there was a "run chase" logic, that treated the 4th innings of first class like the 2nd innings of an ODI. mikey categorically denied this was the case.

i'm now in the "ODI" portion of the tour i'm playing. (I play a custom 25-over per innings format which the game still recognises as List A/ODI)

first ODI I bat 2nd, and lo and behold it's exactly like the 4th innings of a first class. field changes nearly every delivery, they use the "ring" field with nobody out the circle, they don't attack at the start of the innings.

2nd ODI I bat first. they have an attacking field at the beginning. i don't see the ring field once in the 25 overs. the field changes much less regularly.

they either don't understand their own system / have no way of controlling the process (we certainly know 100% the QA doesn't understand what the field logic should be), or can't be honest even in the beta discussion. either way, as i've said before, any improvements we do get will be random, and possibly go alongside regression elsewhere.

i'll just quote exactly what i said at the time...

What a massive disappointment... i'll do a proper report and video when i've got time but this match has had the shine taken off it by @BigAntStudios inability to get basic elements of cricket right, or to care enough to give even a cursory QA to match situations.

So having completed the 3rd innings, my run chase (not giving too much away but 400+) starts just before tea on day 4, and i'm facing Balanced fields. seriously - sweepers on the cover boundary and no more than 2 slips.

I've addressed the situation by switching to the bowling side to change to an attacking field, but the down side of that is you then get stuck with that field forevermore as even though field change notices pop up the field stays the same. i really don't see myself wanting to keep switching just to change the field.

i'll play through to the end of this match anyway, but that's probably the end of the line otherwise, because what is the tweaking point?

i was probably one of the last people still playing basic ps4 and actually enjoying it. chalk down another win to @Ross and the boys - goodwill evaporated.

What annoys me the most is it's not even a bug it's clearly a design choice. Some absolute numpty has thought "oh if the AI is defending a target they are more defensive" and nobody there has had the gumption to say "what are you talking about"?

We spent so long with them working on appropriate fields for attack, balance, defence etc. I didn't know we'd have to actually tell them you attack when you have 400+ runs in the bank and 4 & a bit sessions to win the game.

Honestly, someone who doesn't understand that basic element of cricket, and an organisation that can allow that view unchallenged, shouldn't be making a cricket game full stop.

I have zero confidence in any future cricket game out of that studio. Oh it'll have some excellent parts I'm sure, mostly thanks to the community here and their ideas and feedback, but it'll also be riddled with sloppy shit like this that even basic consideration should have wiped out.

And as a prediction of Ashes cricket, you can't get more accurate than the bit i've bolded above.

I'm not even mad at them, more myself for letting hope trump experience and buying into another process/game. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice - i'm a ****.

 

[Langeveldt]

Whilst I agree with many points raised in this thread I cannot help but come back to the point often made that forums overplay their importance to developers at times. We make up probably 0.1% of people who buy BA games. They engage with communities when promoting a game obviously and to get feedback on their titles. Outside of that, well......

Does anyone genuinely believe posting here/social media has any massive impact on main target audience of their games.?

I think when people on the forum were originally part of the beta team that were being engaged with, there were things said on here that directly mattered. Whether the same is true now, I am not sure.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

i don't know how much i've complained about it publicly, but when in beta I've complained repeatedly about a broken 4th innings bowling AI. (a carry over from dbc17)

the main issues are: they don't attack, until your batsman passes 25. they change the field much more regularly. they often have what looks more ODI fields, regardless of the actual target. i questioned whether there was a "run chase" logic, that treated the 4th innings of first class like the 2nd innings of an ODI. mikey categorically denied this was the case.

i'm now in the "ODI" portion of the tour i'm playing. (I play a custom 25-over per innings format which the game still recognises as List A/ODI)

first ODI I bat 2nd, and lo and behold it's exactly like the 4th innings of a first class. field changes nearly every delivery, they use the "ring" field with nobody out the circle, they don't attack at the start of the innings.

2nd ODI I bat first. they have an attacking field at the beginning. i don't see the ring field once in the 25 overs. the field changes much less regularly.

they either don't understand their own system / have no way of controlling the process (we certainly know 100% the QA doesn't understand what the field logic should be), or can't be honest even in the beta discussion. either way, as i've said before, any improvements we do get will be random, and possibly go alongside regression elsewhere.

i'll just quote exactly what i said at the time...





And as a prediction of Ashes cricket, you can't get more accurate than the bit i've bolded above.

I'm not even mad at them, more myself for letting hope trump experience and buying into another process/game. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice - i'm a ****.

I just assumed, based on a test match where I needed 600 to win and the 4th innings field was largely two slips, it must be because it is linked to the confidence of the batsman. If they are high in confidence, spread the field, being the logic to use.

And that in ODI, if I'm not wrong, the ring field is set to 'prevent boundaries' so it would appear when they are defending.

I did actually play a custom ODI, so I could forgive it not working perfectly, based on the old 15 over powerplay and 35 with 5 men out. I don't think they once used a field with 5 men out. After that I looked at the fields in the editor and they very badly organised. So, if the AI uses them linked to the format, tactic, rules etc - as seemed to be the case in DBC 17 - then it's not a surprise that they are so inconsistent.

 

[blockerdave]

I think when people on the forum were originally part of the beta team that were being engaged with, there were things said on here that directly mattered. Whether the same is true now, I am not sure.

We can say with certainty, that it is no longer true.

The communication throughout the beta process was poor too. One of their explanations for that was where there was disagreement between the beta about an issue (which there was, it was by no means an echo chamber) they would stay out of it until a consensus emerged. Fair enough.

So during the hiatus while focus was on AO, we had a separate PM discussion between the beta to get a "top 5" priorities list that we could all support and buy in to. We presented this to BA as an "open letter", saying we understood the need to focus on AO but that we presented this list so it was there when they came back to Ashes and it could help speed up things rather than waiting on consensus.

that letter has never been acknowledged by BA. now we hear they are working on stuff.

i don't want to over-egg the beta. we all love playing cricket games and we got to play a game early and for free. we're not heroes, and we aren't the ones doing the coding. i do believe we contributed good stuff though. and we private spent time in putting in feedback, in playing unpolished builds, in testing specific scenarios that may not usually be part of what/how we play... it's BA's prerogative to proceed however they wish but the beta players engaged with good faith and deserved at least a "thanks guys but we're doing the next bit differently".

it's a shocking way to behave.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

I am glad I never bought this... As much as many complain, if you still made the purchase then you are part of the reason we are getting these bad games. It's rewarding and vindicating exactly the approach they have been taking if you still buy the product... Vote with your wallet.

Especially after DBC17, I thought people would be more wary... Maybe now after Ashes and AO they will be for any future BA products.

 

[blockerdave]

I just assumed, based on a test match where I needed 600 to win and the 4th innings field was largely two slips, it must be because it is linked to the confidence of the batsman. If they are high in confidence, spread the field, being the logic to use.

And that in ODI, if I'm not wrong, the ring field is set to 'prevent boundaries' so it would appear when they are defending.

I did actually play a custom ODI, so I could forgive it not working perfectly, based on the old 15 over powerplay and 35 with 5 men out. I don't think they once used a field with 5 men out. After that I looked at the fields in the editor and they very badly organised. So, if the AI uses them linked to the format, tactic, rules etc - as seemed to be the case in DBC 17 - then it's not a surprise that they are so inconsistent.

this is a charitable interpretation.

for example, the issue never arises if you're batting 3rd innings first class, when the batsmen have the same higher confidence. equally, the thing about the ring field still means the logic is "it's a run chase so default to defend" irrespective of the target they've set.