Cricket 19 General Discussion

[wasteyouryouth]

That's another example of how we are still searching in the dark for what actually happens in this game... Batting master to me sounded like, well, as the name suggested, once in a generation player.

I also hate how most perks mean that they lose a skill in something else!?

I didn't search in the dark, it's in the game.

 

[Langeveldt]

I didn't search in the dark, it's in the game.

View attachment 231408

Wouldn't strike me as a "slightly larger than normal skill boost".. But yeah I guess we are all tweaking to see good results, your teams rock

How do you feel about doosras and "special deliveries". Are they even legal in real cricket these days?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

@Langeveldt @blockerdave @wasteyouryouth

After 2 days of tweaking. With Run Rate back to default and timing to 40.

I’m convinced a lot of the players are over skilled.

I messed about with giving the top order just 2 blocks.

and on shots gave them a really weak aspect like Elgar I made him crap at driving and Markham rubbish at the glance.

loads of plays and misses real tight ones. Elgar gets out on the drive. Markham drives to flick one and misses LBW.

potentially a lot of the players are almost over powered.

I don't disagree. But are you going to test run rate default, batting on easy, legend difficulty with timing at 23 and wicket chance 38 as well? How about all the other possible settings?

But I'd say no one knows the skill to make a player like Steve Smith. Likewise, no one knows how to make a player who is not Steve Smith. This is where, for me, there needs to be extensive testing - either AI v AI, simulating (if that can safely be considered to replicate the full match) or through a lot of targeted human v AI testing. AFter 40 innings in test cricket what's Smith's average? And what is an acceptable range of difference from real life? 5%? 10%? 20%

My view is that skills don't seem to have a great impact. Strike rate, shot selection seem to be determined by mentality, not dissimilar to bowlers where the mentality will determine the deliveries they bowl. The skills just convey the effectiveness of the player to execute. They play a part in other areas of the game, that's one the things I was trying to resolve when I was originally involved with it. You can give players big weaknesses but they might end up not being as good. Not being as good can have impacts elsewhere. I've given lots of players a couple of blocks for doosra even though they'll never bowl it, just because I know if I didn't they'd be considered not as good.

I think the game is missing mental attributes to full help improve the uinique aspects of players that would help. High skill players with poor mental attributes, low skill players with high mental attributes. It probably also needs an overall rating that is seperate from other skills. These two things could help improve the balance of things. Reputation is another one that might help in career mode. I could offer more detail but I've rambled on about it somewhere already.

Wouldn't strike me as a "slightly larger than normal skill boost".. But yeah I guess we are all tweaking to see good results, your teams rock

You have moderate, significant and huge. But I don't think they are going to completely change the quality of a player.

Now, I may have added too many perks for some players. But I've done it for players of a similar ability. I like the perks but I think it could be better. My view would be you make them more about creating unique AI players and have a mix for human players (if you're in career mode) of boosts (to individual skills or confidence and timing) or achievements. The 'Chaser' perk, maybe you just have that as an in game achievement that you unlock after being not out during five chases. Then, if it was part of the game, you unlock a new bat or pair of gloves. Some cosmetic reward. For the AI, rather than a skill boost it just makes their confidence or timing a little better. or whatever would make them more effective in a run chase. If that has to be giving them a skill boost then so be it.

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't disagree. But are you going to test run rate default, batting on easy, legend difficulty with timing at 23 and wicket chance 38 as well? How about all the other possible settings?

But I'd say no one knows the skill to make a player like Steve Smith. Likewise, no one knows how to make a player who is not Steve Smith. This is where, for me, there needs to be extensive testing - either AI v AI, simulating (if that can safely be considered to replicate the full match) or through a lot of targeted human v AI testing. AFter 40 innings in test cricket what's Smith's average? And what is an acceptable range of difference from real life? 5%? 10%? 20%

My view is that skills don't seem to have a great impact. Strike rate, shot selection seem to be determined by mentality, not dissimilar to bowlers where the mentality will determine the deliveries they bowl. The skills just convey the effectiveness of the player to execute. They play a part in other areas of the game, that's one the things I was trying to resolve when I was originally involved with it. You can give players big weaknesses but they might end up not being as good. Not being as good can have impacts elsewhere. I've given lots of players a couple of blocks for doosra even though they'll never bowl it, just because I know if I didn't they'd be considered not as good.

I think the game is missing mental attributes to full help improve the uinique aspects of players that would help. High skill players with poor mental attributes, low skill players with high mental attributes. It probably also needs an overall rating that is seperate from other skills. These two things could help improve the balance of things. Reputation is another one that might help in career mode. I could offer more detail but I've rambled on about it somewhere already.


You have moderate, significant and huge. But I don't think they are going to completely change the quality of a player.

Now, I may have added too many perks for some players. But I've done it for players of a similar ability. I like the perks but I think it could be better. My view would be you make them more about creating unique AI players and have a mix for human players (if you're in career mode) of boosts (to individual skills or confidence and timing) or achievements. The 'Chaser' perk, maybe you just have that as an in game achievement that you unlock after being not out during five chases. Then, if it was part of the game, you unlock a new bat or pair of gloves. Some cosmetic reward. For the AI, rather than a skill boost it just makes their confidence or timing a little better. or whatever would make them more effective in a run chase. If that has to be giving them a skill boost then so be it.

Excellent work...

Back in the day I used to record stats when I played more cricket than I did AI vs AI. Brian Lara 2005.

I had so much cricket on the go that I had Craig McMillan and Nathan Astle recorded with over 200 matches, with stats that nearly matched their IRL stats. I remember McGrath had 496 test wickets or something, Pollock had 524. I would always bowl as both teams, this was from 2000 to 2007 or something, a massive amount of data. I also played 2 player games on International Cricket Captain as if I was captaining both teams.

This was in the days before the cloud, and a crash made me lose all the data... Now I am more careful.

I'll be able to get some serious numbers if I am happy with AI vs AI.. I did a 5 match ODI series in a few days. But obviously that is going to produce data that many people rightly or wrongly will consider erroneous.

I won't play tests until there are a few more ring and outfield catches. I am however playing 100 over a side limited overs games occasionally. These stats are all separated.

Then of course there are changes with builds.... A game version doesn't stay constant.

I'll post my data on here, probably create a thread, it will be AI vs AI, people can read it or ignore it. I don't play with sliders much at all. I simply don't have the time or the inclination to bowl for like 100 games, but it can be easily done with AI vs AI. I'm not going to comment on whether the results are legitimate or not, at the end of the day I like to have something realistic in the background to watch while I work, so that's why I do this with the sim. (I am also doing it with FIFA to stream to my dad during lockdown who is a massive Plymouth fan).

I am happy to share my settings if anyone is interested in AI vs AI. It's simply Pro Skill, Striker Timing 30, Bowl Quality 80, everything else default. Pitches usually medium or softer. Wasteyouryouth's teams, slightly deskilled batsmen, no perks unless they are famous for said perk.

The great thing is you can try and have a love life and a career at the same time as once the game is fired up you don't have to do anything. I've met someone who is arguing about whether Aaron Finch is a brute if he was actually picked to open for Australia in a test to open, or do we just change this depending on format?

The joys of lockdown. At the end of the day I am only interested if what I am watching in the background resembles cricket. At the moment it does, with a few flaws, in limited overs.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Excellent work...

Back in the day I used to record stats when I played more cricket than I did AI vs AI. Brian Lara 2005.

I had so much cricket on the go that I had Craig McMillan and Nathan Astle recorded with over 200 matches, with stats that nearly matched their IRL stats. I remember McGrath had 496 test wickets or something, Pollock had 524.

This was in the days before the cloud, and a crash made me lose all the data... Now I am more careful.

I'll be able to get some serious numbers if I am happy with AI vs AI.. I did a 5 match ODI series in a few days. But obviously that is going to produce data that many people rightly or wrongly will consider erroneous.

Then of course there are changes with builds.... A game version doesn't stay constant.

I'll post my data on here, probably create a thread, it will be AI vs AI, people can read it or ignore it. I don't play with sliders much at all.

The problem with AI v AI is that you might get perfect results but as soon as you introduce the human player it will/should change the results. Due to skill level and all the other difficulty settings.

I admire people (I've been doing it lately but I think I've had enough) who a year after release are still looking for the perfect game or even just improvements from what's there. If they find that, great! But it doesn't mean what they find is going to make it better for everyone or even anyone else. We can go back to the other threads for older games and there are exactly the same discussions for each one. I just think there are too many variables that need to be aligned and that's before people start adjusting. And, on this forum at least, there is an attitude that as soon as the game comes out 'what's the slider settings to make the game better?' before people have even played a couple of matches. Agree with you, patches are aimed at improving, so immediately slider settings could be worthless. @blockerdave has the right idea to be honest, he's just ploughing on, close to default settings, and having great fun. He is using custom players though and that's one thing I don't think should be a requirement to enjoy the game.

 

[Langeveldt]

The problem with AI v AI is that you might get perfect results but as soon as you introduce the human player it will/should change the results. Due to skill level and all the other difficulty settings.

Exactly.. I'd be fine and happy, but the next guy would be waiting for the next iteration.

The flight simming community is the same. Endless tweaking of sliders, usually the tradeoff between realism and frame rate. I always like flying with AI traffic at airports, which slows things down, so I turn the scenery down a bit. Others find that unacceptable.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Exactly.. I'd be fine and happy, but the next guy would be waiting for the next iteration.

The flight simming community is the same. Endless tweaking of sliders, usually the tradeoff between realism and frame rate. I always like flying with AI traffic at airports, which slows things down, so I turn the scenery down a bit. Others find that unacceptable.

It's funny I was thinking about the simulator kind of games in relation to C19 the other day. My only familiarity with them is watching Limmy on Euro Truck Simulator and Farming Simulator on Twitch. But since the original DBC, this series in some ways has become more like I imagine of them to be or at least how they might be sold. You want to play cricket? Here's your chance, and you can make it as exactly as difficulty or easy as you like. At that point it begins to feel less like a game and more like an 'experience'. Which is perfectly fine if that's what people want.

I'm just loading up Civilization VI and that has an advanced set up where you can make adjustments but they are simple descriptions and fixed by the game.
I can make the resources more abundant or more sparse. It's not resouces at 31 out 100 on a scale that we don't know how big a difference each increment makes.

As I said in my lockdown thread, I'm worn out, so I'm particularly grouchy today.

edit - the disaster intensity slider in Civ 6 feels like it'd be appropriate for England in the 1990s

 

[Langeveldt]

It's funny I was thinking about the simulator kind of games in relation to C19 the other day. My only familiarity with them is watching Limmy on Euro Truck Simulator and Farming Simulator on Twitch. But since the original DBC, this series in some ways has become more like I imagine of them to be or at least how they might be sold. You want to play cricket? Here's your chance, and you can make it as exactly as difficulty or easy as you like. At that point it begins to feel less like a game and more like an 'experience'. Which is perfectly fine if that's what people want.

I'm just loading up Civilization VI and that has an advanced set up where you can make adjustments but they are simple descriptions and fixed by the game. View attachment 231409
I can make the resources more abundant or more sparse. It's not resouces at 31 out 100 on a scale that we don't know how big a difference each increment makes.

As I said in my lockdown thread, I'm worn out, so I'm particularly grouchy today.

edit - the disaster intensity slider in Civ 6 feels like it'd be appropriate for England in the 1990s

We aren't even allowed to exercise outdoors in South Africa, so yeah it's very easy to get involved in a major way at the moment with these "experiences".

Squirrel is a superb streamer for what I think are your kinds of games. I think he has over a billion dollars in game with his Euro Truck streams that he does every Sunday evening

 

[blockerdave]

The problem with AI v AI is that you might get perfect results but as soon as you introduce the human player it will/should change the results. Due to skill level and all the other difficulty settings.

I admire people (I've been doing it lately but I think I've had enough) who a year after release are still looking for the perfect game or even just improvements from what's there. If they find that, great! But it doesn't mean what they find is going to make it better for everyone or even anyone else. We can go back to the other threads for older games and there are exactly the same discussions for each one. I just think there are too many variables that need to be aligned and that's before people start adjusting. And, on this forum at least, there is an attitude that as soon as the game comes out 'what's the slider settings to make the game better?' before people have even played a couple of matches. Agree with you, patches are aimed at improving, so immediately slider settings could be worthless. @blockerdave has the right idea to be honest, he's just ploughing on, close to default settings, and having great fun. He is using custom players though and that's one thing I don't think should be a requirement to enjoy the game.

Yep, we've had the discussion in every game, funnily enough the answer has typically been the players are overskilled!

I've never understood people's inclination to tinker with sliders as a first resort, and worse still after one game or session where "x" happened too much, or "y" didn't happen at all.

It's a game, there's gonna be anomalies. Play the game on default, if anything's not to your liking after several matches, check the difficulties. if it's still not to your liking, check the player set ups. Sliders should be an absolute last resort when you're absolutely certain you can't get x or y right otherwise after a lot of playing.

Good example, I took 4 wickets in the opening session of the match last night, for not many. Could be easy for me to ramp up difficulty, reduce swing, reduce wicket chances, increase AI timing... maybe all 4. Or I could do what I actually did, carry on and play (some last night, some this morning) and end up being on the verge of the new ball having only taken 1 more wicket...

I've said it before - it's a good game, this. People should get on with enjoying it.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yep, we've had the discussion in every game, funnily enough the answer has typically been the players are overskilled!

I've never understood people's inclination to tinker with sliders as a first resort, and worse still after one game or session where "x" happened too much, or "y" didn't happen at all.

It's a game, there's gonna be anomalies. Play the game on default, if anything's not to your liking after several matches, check the difficulties. if it's still not to your liking, check the player set ups. Sliders should be an absolute last resort when you're absolutely certain you can't get x or y right otherwise after a lot of playing.

Good example, I took 4 wickets in the opening session of the match last night, for not many. Could be easy for me to ramp up difficulty, reduce swing, reduce wicket chances, increase AI timing... maybe all 4. Or I could do what I actually did, carry on and play (some last night, some this morning) and end up being on the verge of the new ball having only taken 1 more wicket...

I've said it before - it's a good game, this. People should get on with enjoying it.

When actually playing (shock horror) I play a match where I deliberately look to test and see what sliders work for me. I start on defaults and do a session or 25 overs and at the end of a session come to a conclusion and change things around by a maxium of 10...

 

[blockerdave]

When actually playing (shock horror) I play a match where I deliberately look to test and see what sliders work for me. I start on defaults and do a session or 25 overs and at the end of a session come to a conclusion and change things around by a maxium of 10...

im sorry but you simply cannot draw any type of conclusions about anything based on a session. That’s my point.

 

[Langeveldt]

im sorry but you simply cannot draw any type of conclusions about anything based on a session. That’s my point.

Hence my limit of 10 change on sliders at one time, often they go right back again for the very reason you stated

 

[blockerdave]

Hence my limit of 10 change on sliders at one time, often they go right back again for the very reason you stated

but neither changing it the first time, or changing it back can tell you anything...

Let’s take my game again. I take 4 wickets in the first session... “oh too easy, I’ll reduce swing and wicket chance by 10 each, and 1 was a runout so I’ll reduce run rate by 5”

a wicket less session... “oh too hard I’ll increase swing by 8 and wicket chance by 5”

So I’ve already taken 1 wicket in the evening session, let’s say I nip 1 out in the 10 overs with the new ball... “oh amazing, I’ve found my sweet spot”...

Or you’ve wasted a bunch of time messing about. Perhaps this is just a good game with ebbs and flows and you’ll have sessions where you run through the opposition, sessions where you struggle to see where another wicket is ever coming from, sessions where you’re clubbing 4s left right and centre, sessions where you can’t get it off the square.

I mean honestly not to be a jerk it’s laughable to one post talk about building up years of data, and 3 posts later talk about drawing conclusions off a single session.

 

[Langeveldt]

but neither changing it the first time, or changing it back can tell you anything...

Let’s take my game again. I take 4 wickets in the first session... “oh too easy, I’ll reduce swing and wicket chance by 10 each, and 1 was a runout so I’ll reduce run rate by 5”

a wicket less session... “oh too hard I’ll increase swing by 8 and wicket chance by 5”

So I’ve already taken 1 wicket in the evening session, let’s say I nip 1 out in the 10 overs with the new ball... “oh amazing, I’ve found my sweet spot”...

Or you’ve wasted a bunch of time messing about. Perhaps this is just a good game with ebbs and flows and you’ll have sessions where you run through the opposition, sessions where you struggle to see where another wicket is ever coming from, sessions where you’re clubbing 4s left right and centre, sessions where you can’t get it off the square.

I mean honestly not to be a jerk it’s laughable to one post talk about building up years of data, and 3 posts later talk about drawing conclusions off a single session.

I must lack the patience to bowl or bat through where I am wondering what on earth is going on, as opposed to AI vs AI where I don't have to actually do anything.

Would you go back to three difficulty modes; easy, medium, hard?

 

[Wealey]

Care to share your numbers?

Yeah give me a bit till I get back on. Took the boy for a ride on his bike.

I have no real system for it atm. But the gameplay to me seems far more natural.

I also think by lowering run rate you you potentially lose the mentalities. “Balanced” at the moment seems broken to me..