Mr Snrub
International Coach
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
The game has a lot of improvements to previous versions and in the area where it counts (gameplay), it plays so well for the most part that it sometimes feels like that doesn't need to be discussed as we're all wanting issues that still stand out fixed, so we can enjoy the game more. Still, it's probably important for Big Ant to know what they're on the right track with.
For me one area which feels mostly right is the timing related edges and dismissals. In not all cases but the vast majority, I feel I deserved to go out. The physics feel much more believable too, I've had the odd play on to the wickets where I've bowled or been the one bowled and they feel right. So, great work there.
One area I can't for the life of me understand the direction of though is ratings, for teams in particular. I've downloaded Friedlele's excellent India for example. I can't remember the exact ratings but it's something like:
Batting 96
Bowling 92
Fielding 76
Now what would you expect the overall to be for a team like that, with two stats in the 90's? A 90 overall? Perhaps averaging out at 88? Maybe an 85?
No, it's 79. 79 overall... really? Go through many of the other teams and you'll find the same kind of oddball overalls. I know fielding is important, but seriously it shouldn't affect an overall team score like that. Why not just average out those three numbers? I'm sure that might bring it's own issues, but whatever those are, I'm sure they're being eclipsed by the weirdness currently going on.
Also, the individual player rating system. We could argue day and night about whether or not the new bars are better than ratings out of 100. No we couldn't, there's largely been a consensus of opinion that ratings out of 100 work better for perceptions of skill allocation, especially in games like Fifa.
This is the one area where comparisons with Fifa are acceptable, it's nothing to do with budget, but more to do with logic. How do you create a for example Messi in his prime 93-94 rated player? Currently one of the worlds best batsmen Kohli manages an 82 rating despite his role being batsman and nearly maxed out in all skills available for batting. It doesn't make sense or balance out. If you're a batsman, that's your individualised role and should HEAVILY weight your overall, unless you're an extremely poor fielder. Poor bowling stats should not come into it for an exclusively batting player. Same goes with bowlers, Mitchell Starc's bowling should have an incredible bias on his overall, because that is his role.
Currently all of these issues are making it hard to perceive accurately how well skilled players are and how well balanced teams and players are no matter how well community creators have balanced skills for them.
Please if Big Ant read this, put it on a change list. Somewhere alongside having all the fastest bowlers in the world bowling 151.2, effort ball or not or whatever it seems is going on there.
For me one area which feels mostly right is the timing related edges and dismissals. In not all cases but the vast majority, I feel I deserved to go out. The physics feel much more believable too, I've had the odd play on to the wickets where I've bowled or been the one bowled and they feel right. So, great work there.
One area I can't for the life of me understand the direction of though is ratings, for teams in particular. I've downloaded Friedlele's excellent India for example. I can't remember the exact ratings but it's something like:
Batting 96
Bowling 92
Fielding 76
Now what would you expect the overall to be for a team like that, with two stats in the 90's? A 90 overall? Perhaps averaging out at 88? Maybe an 85?
No, it's 79. 79 overall... really? Go through many of the other teams and you'll find the same kind of oddball overalls. I know fielding is important, but seriously it shouldn't affect an overall team score like that. Why not just average out those three numbers? I'm sure that might bring it's own issues, but whatever those are, I'm sure they're being eclipsed by the weirdness currently going on.
Also, the individual player rating system. We could argue day and night about whether or not the new bars are better than ratings out of 100. No we couldn't, there's largely been a consensus of opinion that ratings out of 100 work better for perceptions of skill allocation, especially in games like Fifa.
This is the one area where comparisons with Fifa are acceptable, it's nothing to do with budget, but more to do with logic. How do you create a for example Messi in his prime 93-94 rated player? Currently one of the worlds best batsmen Kohli manages an 82 rating despite his role being batsman and nearly maxed out in all skills available for batting. It doesn't make sense or balance out. If you're a batsman, that's your individualised role and should HEAVILY weight your overall, unless you're an extremely poor fielder. Poor bowling stats should not come into it for an exclusively batting player. Same goes with bowlers, Mitchell Starc's bowling should have an incredible bias on his overall, because that is his role.
Currently all of these issues are making it hard to perceive accurately how well skilled players are and how well balanced teams and players are no matter how well community creators have balanced skills for them.
Please if Big Ant read this, put it on a change list. Somewhere alongside having all the fastest bowlers in the world bowling 151.2, effort ball or not or whatever it seems is going on there.
As a suggestion, if it's unfunctional and unimportant, perhaps they could just totally remove it.
