Don Bradman Cricket 14 General Discussion

[rygers]

Perhaps there can be a box that you tick to let the game know that the person batting next is a tail ender that doesn't know what way to hold the bat. Call it "rabbit" or "Australian" or something...

Cool idea...though if the skill attributes work as intended this shouldn't really be necessary. I guess these days most tail-enders can bat and hold up and end at least. That said your Steyns and Johnsons should be rolling them.

I think what this game needs is modifiers or buffs for the player. Hit the batsman with a bouncer and get 30% more delivery speed next ball. Get hit by a bouncer and you suffer an "intimidation" debuff where your confidence drops for a few balls. Hit 3 fours in a row and get an "adrenaline" buff where your shot power is increased by 40% for a few balls.

Stuff like that could HELP break up the grind and getting temporary perks that FEEL realistic could be cool. You could turn it on or off in the options.

What do you guys reckon?

 

[joejoe018]

is a tail ender that doesn't know what way to hold the bat. Call it "rabbit" or "Australian"

 

[AshleyWilliam]

Perhaps there can be a box that you tick to let the game know that the person batting next is a tail ender that doesn't know what way to hold the bat. Call it "rabbit" or "Australian" or something...

*Cough* 5-0 *Cough*[DOUBLEPOST=1415182431][/DOUBLEPOST]Ricky Ponting cricket had tailenders that had obvious technique deficiencies. The same game series also had different varieties of bowling actions. Its the year 2014 and things have gone backwards in this regard.

 

[AshleyWilliam]

Cool idea...though if the skill attributes work as intended this shouldn't really be necessary. I guess these days most tail-enders can bat and hold up and end at least. That said your Steyns and Johnsons should be rolling them.

I think what this game needs is modifiers or buffs for the player. Hit the batsman with a bouncer and get 30% more delivery speed next ball. Get hit by a bouncer and you suffer an "intimidation" debuff where your confidence drops for a few balls. Hit 3 fours in a row and get an "adrenaline" buff where your shot power is increased by 40% for a few balls.

Stuff like that could HELP break up the grind and getting temporary perks that FEEL realistic could be cool. You could turn it on or off in the options.

What do you guys reckon?

Exhibit one: Ricky Ponting Cricket

In fact it had the perfect confidence trade off between bat and ball. Hit a four and your confidence rose. Play and miss and it would drop. Batting and bowling had an objective of trying different things to raise your confidence to increase your chances of making runs or taking wickets. It felt like a battle trying to undermine your opponents confidence using a variety of tactics, each of which had a risk/reward factor. When your confidence was high and your opponents was low, you knew it was time to cash in. DBC 14 - its just not the case. It can actually be harder to play bowlers with low confidence than with high confidence.

The game was just let down by bugs - batsmen not running singles, spinners opening the bowling, run out bugs, limited stadiums (hang on this reminds me of another game)... limited depth and modes.

DBC 14 confidence mechanism is broken.

 

[Alberts]

Are we really discussing gimmicky Ricky Pointing / Brian Lara Cricket confidence minigames?

Having a confidence system under the hood (as in the game) creates an interesting dynamic, without breaking realism through annoying minigames. The issue in the game now is that the AI needs work, but it's far closer, and far more enjoyable, than the games you speak of.

 

[Valaskjalf]

Cool idea...though if the skill attributes work as intended this shouldn't really be necessary. I guess these days most tail-enders can bat and hold up and end at least. That said your Steyns and Johnsons should be rolling them.

I think what this game needs is modifiers or buffs for the player. Hit the batsman with a bouncer and get 30% more delivery speed next ball. Get hit by a bouncer and you suffer an "intimidation" debuff where your confidence drops for a few balls. Hit 3 fours in a row and get an "adrenaline" buff where your shot power is increased by 40% for a few balls.

Stuff like that could HELP break up the grind and getting temporary perks that FEEL realistic could be cool. You could turn it on or off in the options.

What do you guys reckon?

I think modifiers is a good idea, yet it seems like a bridge too far in this iteration of the game. The stats-system as it stands is completely fluffed and without trying to sound too harsh, if BA couldn't successfully implement a clear distinctions in batting ability between i.e AB de Villiers and Imran Tahir, then adding modifiers to this mess will very likely make the game go completely bonkers and unplayable.

First and foremost they need to fix this game for those of us who enjoy the offline experience, as well as those who enjoy the bowling side of cricket more than batting - I just happen to be both of those. Sure I can bypass bowling and ONLY bat, but I dont want to and I shouldn't have to bypass 50% of the game just because something is broken.

 

[rygers]

I think modifiers is a good idea, yet it seems like a bridge too far in this iteration of the game. The stats-system as it stands is completely fluffed and without trying to sound too harsh, if BA couldn't successfully implement a clear distinctions in batting ability between i.e AB de Villiers and Imran Tahir, then adding modifiers to this mess will very likely make the game go completely bonkers and unplayable.

First and foremost they need to fix this game for those of us who enjoy the offline experience, as well as those who enjoy the bowling side of cricket more than batting - I just happen to be both of those. Sure I can bypass bowling and ONLY bat, but I dont want to and I shouldn't have to bypass 50% of the game just because something is broken.

Totally agree. I reckon the the core focus of BA at the moment is on fine tuning the current experience. The mechanics are great, it's the gameplay and AI that need balancing. I think the difficult thing for BA is keeping happy both core cricket fans along with casual players. Further to that I think you'll find that the AI needs to be different for those two groups.

I'm with you on the batting for both sides scenario. Playing 50% of the game seems a bit ridiculous.

Goodluck BA!

 

[Valaskjalf]

I haven't done this kind of experiment myself, but if what you are stating is true, then I see a big problem with the Offline Side of the game. If the "SKILL RATINGS" & "ATTRIBUTES" indeed makes "ZERO" Impact on the players playing ability, then all those efforts we make on career and other offline mode will be meaningless...
But, I would request you to play few more matches and then come to the conclusion and nor merely based on One Inning. I will also appreciate if you can upload the full score card of these matches, where players with "ZERO" Skill points & "HALF ATTRIBUTES POINTS" are playing like Tendulkar.

Alright, I gave this stats-tweakery another go. Started another Test on Pro and some relatively startling results....however Im unsure whether Im any wiser afterwards.



On the scorecard you'll see the player names all colour-coded. Thiese all indicate various degrees of stats-fiddling I did:
- Red -> Reduces all batting-related stats to 0
- Blue -> Stats stayed pretty much unchanged from the default setting
- Green -> I changed Ross Taylor's batting stats to roughy 25% of the maximum per entry.

So somehow something seems to have worked. 114/10 is far less than anything Ive been able to achieve on Pro while bowling in a test. Started off quite positively, with Guptil displaying the poise and judgement of Chris Martin in all his glory and Taylor following shortly after him. The difference between 0 and 25% of the stat line is hard to narrow down as the sample size of exactly 11 balls tells you just about nothing, apart from the fact that they both batted like monkeys.

McCullum played himself in and looked pretty solid, with stats of 0 - didnt learn all that much with that one, perhaps I bowled poorly.

Ryder mistimed one to mid off after getting fed up with playing and missing 5 out swingers.

Kane Williamson was probably the one that made me the most optimistic with this little experiment - Didnt change any of his default stats and he looked very solid and top scored. Not by much, but faced the most deliveries and felt least likely of all of them to be dismissed until I actually got him to nick to the keeper, whoop! Perhaps Im on to something, perhaps its coincidence that he batted better than all the ZEROs - who knows.

Boult and Mills batted the way tailender should - In the previous test I played before I changed their settings Mills scored high 30s and looked like a top-order batsman.

McCleneghan, also reduced to all Zero's, looked almost as good as Williamson which is worrisome. He hardly got troubled by deliveries that destroyed Guptil / Taylors stumps and pulled Steyn bouncers in front of square for 4 a couple of times - the only one who could.

So yeah Im not quite sure whether this experiment means anything or whether it's even helpful. The sample size is too small to rule out coincidence so I will keep at it and keep fiddling, even if it's only to convince myself that Im onto something.

 

[cooks1st100]

So yeah Im not quite sure whether this experiment means anything or whether it's even helpful. The sample size is too small to rule out coincidence so I will keep at it and keep fiddling, even if it's only to convince myself that Im onto something.

This was my exact position last weekend. Played around with the attributes and bowled a load of 2/3 sessions of an innings without completing games to see if I could notice a difference. I'm still none the wiser.

My theory so far is that offside stat lowered gives more chance of an edge, while straight stat lowered gives more chance of lbw's and bowled's. There was a noticeable difference in how amateur played, but the results with pro not so. I reduced all tailenders to zero battings stats and definitely began to roll them over more, but someone would always stick around and had a couple of 50 run partnerships against me.

I also reduced all batsman offside stats to zero, expecting edges galore I only managed 4 in almost 60 overs.

I currently have the offside stats around 30-50% for batsman apart from the tail.

Be aware of the pitch too, playing on a grassy soft pitch was noticeable in producing more edges, only on the first 2 days which surprised me, I bowled again on the fourth day and the wicket had lost its life, when I had bowled the first innings the ball was seaming regularly and I managed 7 edges, all caught. Bowled the team out for under 200 but they managed 380 against me in the second innings to win!

 

[autocrat]

View attachment 133056

Alright, I gave this stats-tweakery another go. Started another Test on Pro and some relatively startling results....however Im unsure whether Im any wiser afterwards.
<snip>
So yeah Im not quite sure whether this experiment means anything or whether it's even helpful. The sample size is too small to rule out coincidence so I will keep at it and keep fiddling, even if it's only to convince myself that Im onto something.

Given there has to be an element of randomness in the AI (otherwise it becomes completely predictable), one game is not enough of a sample to draw any conclusions. Even the worst batsman can score a few occasionally, and the best will fail reasonably often. Perhaps 10 games with a team with given stats, followed by 10 games with different stats - all other things being equal - would get you some way towards a conclusion.

 

[Valaskjalf]

True, which is why I also said the sample size is too small. I hadnt thought of posting after a single innings yet the results were quite radical compared to about 5 games prior which produced much higher scores.

I will definitely create a larger pool of stats and like you said, 10 games with similar stats compared to 10 games with altered skill stats should (perhaps) give me some idea of what's going on. Best case scenario - by the time Ive finished playing those games BigAnt has released Patch 3 and fixed this.

 

[rygers]

Red -> Reduces all batting-related stats to 0

Yeah, someone with a zero rating shouldn't be getting 31. Basically it's like saying a 4th team club player can walk out into a test match and pull DS for 4. Nah-uh.

That said perhaps BA assume that anyone playing County / State / International cricket will have a base batting ability which isn't terrible?

 

[AshleyWilliam]

I think modifiers is a good idea, yet it seems like a bridge too far in this iteration of the game. The stats-system as it stands is completely fluffed and without trying to sound too harsh, if BA couldn't successfully implement a clear distinctions in batting ability between i.e AB de Villiers and Imran Tahir, then adding modifiers to this mess will very likely make the game go completely bonkers and unplayable.

First and foremost they need to fix this game for those of us who enjoy the offline experience, as well as those who enjoy the bowling side of cricket more than batting - I just happen to be both of those. Sure I can bypass bowling and ONLY bat, but I dont want to and I shouldn't have to bypass 50% of the game just because something is broken.

If I was in a position like most around here where I have to bypass bowling and bat only, then the game would be back gathering dust at EB games.

It is so sad that missing out on half the sport is the only way people can enjoy the game

 

[AshleyWilliam]

View attachment 133056

Alright, I gave this stats-tweakery another go. Started another Test on Pro and some relatively startling results....however Im unsure whether Im any wiser afterwards.



On the scorecard you'll see the player names all colour-coded. Thiese all indicate various degrees of stats-fiddling I did:
- Red -> Reduces all batting-related stats to 0
- Blue -> Stats stayed pretty much unchanged from the default setting
- Green -> I changed Ross Taylor's batting stats to roughy 25% of the maximum per entry.

So somehow something seems to have worked. 114/10 is far less than anything Ive been able to achieve on Pro while bowling in a test. Started off quite positively, with Guptil displaying the poise and judgement of Chris Martin in all his glory and Taylor following shortly after him. The difference between 0 and 25% of the stat line is hard to narrow down as the sample size of exactly 11 balls tells you just about nothing, apart from the fact that they both batted like monkeys.

McCullum played himself in and looked pretty solid, with stats of 0 - didnt learn all that much with that one, perhaps I bowled poorly.

Ryder mistimed one to mid off after getting fed up with playing and missing 5 out swingers.

Kane Williamson was probably the one that made me the most optimistic with this little experiment - Didnt change any of his default stats and he looked very solid and top scored. Not by much, but faced the most deliveries and felt least likely of all of them to be dismissed until I actually got him to nick to the keeper, whoop! Perhaps Im on to something, perhaps its coincidence that he batted better than all the ZEROs - who knows.

Boult and Mills batted the way tailender should - In the previous test I played before I changed their settings Mills scored high 30s and looked like a top-order batsman.

McCleneghan, also reduced to all Zero's, looked almost as good as Williamson which is worrisome. He hardly got troubled by deliveries that destroyed Guptil / Taylors stumps and pulled Steyn bouncers in front of square for 4 a couple of times - the only one who could.

So yeah Im not quite sure whether this experiment means anything or whether it's even helpful. The sample size is too small to rule out coincidence so I will keep at it and keep fiddling, even if it's only to convince myself that Im onto something.

Stats make absolutely no difference - its basically rolling a dice.

Its f***ing lame.

 

[MattW]

While I've no interest in experimenting with it - I'd suggest not using extremes to test out the stats - I'm sure Big Ant have discussed doing balancing to try and avoid the effects of different players from different creators having different ideas of stats.

I'd make minor variations near the middle ground on stats - so the worst player is 25%-ish worse than the best, rather than zeroing or maxing stats out - which I certainly can't see delivering reliable or intended results.