Don Bradman Cricket 14 General Discussion

[Alberts]

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.

The variations caused by users creating sides is an interesting problem. I really do hope there are more options for standard "Planet Cricket" chosen best sides and such in patch 3. It'll be interesting to see the modding side of it (if there is any difference).

 

[Valaskjalf]

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.

Which would make sense if we knew the stats have any bearing on the batsmen's abilities. The point wasn't to make this reliable or get predictable results....but to get ANY results at all by looking at the extremes. It was to FIRST establish whether dramatic differences in batting stats will deliver dramatically different in-game results, thats the entire point of the issue I have.

If someone's overall batting rating is 100% you would expect to easily see whether his batting is decidedly better than someone with a rating of zero, regardless of whether it creates an accurate result. If you can't then there's obviously a major problem in-game and altering stats at all has been a big fat waste of everyone's time since CA was first used by the Community.

You have a fair point and all those things you suggested I will eventually try out, but first I needed to test the extremities to see whether there's any point in continuing on with this. Once I get enough data to compare and Im convinced that it DOES have an effect, I will start bringing stats more in-line between batsmen.

 

[Langeveldt]

Ive played, and AI v AI'd huge amounts of test matches and ODI's and have come to the following conclusions.
(all on pro, all soft grassy pitches)

- The difference between the very worst and very best batsmen is about 20 runs. So Chris Martin will average 20, Sangakkara around 40. You need to have vast differences in abilities, not small differences.
- Strike rates are related to ability, not what a batsman is characterised as.
- Tailenders edge the ball and get bowled and LBW more, but mainly on soft, grassy pitches
- In the second innings of an ODI, and in any slog overs, the batsmen will go ballistic and score loads of runs regardless of anything, but worse rated players might be slightly worse at it.
- I've never seen Russia beat Australia in 10 AI vs.AI games, but they have got close in some ODIs, never got close in a test.

 

[Langeveldt]

Interesting theory RE the balancing for created players.. If this is the case and they are all identikit and the same and the changes are only cosmetic, then what is the point in the academy and having lifelike players and custom teams in the first place?

 

[cooks1st100]

The variations caused by users creating sides is an interesting problem.

Yeah I've been going through my teams and changing them and noticed that a lot of the batsman rating were on the high side. I use this formula for batting stats.

FC average divided by ten, multiplied by 3.5 = batting stats. The reason for 3.5 is I took 60 as being the highest FC average which gives 21 and there are 22 batting att points.

Example: David Warners first class batting average is 50. 16 so 50.16/10 x 10 = 17.556. So that becomes 17 for all stats( I always round down) apart from offside which I set at around 7/8.

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

False. They do make a difference. It is very noticeable in Amateur but far less so in Pro and above.


As the game currently plays if BigAnt were to take amateur level, reduce the aerial shots, and add the pro bowling control( smaller green zone), you would have a well balanced pro level.

At the moment the difference between amateur and pro is huge, but pro and veteren are practically the same except on veteren they bat even more aggressively.

 

[Langeveldt]

Interesting, would anyone be able to AI vs AI a game, soft grassy pitch, on amateur and show what they come up with? I'm bored at work but want to be bored at home doing these tests..

 

[cooks1st100]

Interesting, would anyone be able to AI vs AI a game, soft grassy pitch, on amateur and show what they come up with? I'm bored at work but want to be bored at home doing these tests..

Why AI vs AI? An innings could take up to 3 hours to play out, that's a long time to watch the AI playing!

 

[Langeveldt]

The main reason being it takes out the human element and allows you to look at trends a bit more impartially. We are all at different levels and bowl in different ways for example.

I strangely enjoy watching AI play AI whilst doing something else.. Ive done hundreds of matches.

 

[cooks1st100]

I used to do the same with Lara's back in the day. Have you done this often on pro level test match at all? If so were there many, if any edges?

 

[cooks1st100]

We are all at different levels and bowl in different ways for example.

I find this an interesting comment. I think a lot of peoples problem is that they haven't bowled enough on pro level to actually be good at bowling. What I mean by this is look how long it takes to score a fifty on pro or a hundred, a feat I have not yet managed to do. I reckon it took my around 25 innings played for me to get a fifty, 62 to be precise but it took me a few more than 25 to bowl out a team for under 200.

I thought I was good at bowling on pro a week ago, but now I'm improved, just last night I added a new ball to my repertoire. I like bowling on pro and veteran also, they provide a great challenge, far better than any other cricket game produced. It just needs a bit of tweaking.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yes I've done it loads.. On a grassy pitch at pro level there were almost too many edges.. I had six keeper catches in one innings. For me it is the most realistic thing I've seen in this game as things stand.. Although i am interested in looking at Amateur because I can't make tailenders poor enough..

If you aren't bowling on a grassy pitch though, don't expect much

 

[Shadowplayer]

Why not let us have the ability in the cricket academy to flag up individual players as legend/veteran/pro/amateur/rookie as well as the overall skill level we play at? Then you could make your openers legend level thus playing well and flag the tailenders as rookie level making them poorish, creating a nice balance of different skills down the team.
It could just be an extra tick box alongside there skills and this way anybody could make any player play like they want.

 

[Langeveldt]

If the sliders made more of a difference we wouldnt need to

 

[ineedikanth]

@Ross: Do you have any plans to release the Xbox One version soon?

 

[Langeveldt]

Its a bit fast and low scoring, but a typical example of a nice scorecard that proves things aren't completely broken beyond repair.

- AI vs.AI
- Grassy, Soft pitch
- New ball every ten overs (I'm not sure how this affects spinners, but they seem to get a few overs and still be able to take wickets)
- Pro difficulty

What to look for
- The best batsman scored the most runs
- The tail, apart from Eranga, scored the least runs
- Wickets were shared evenly
- Wickets fell in a variety of manners, from scoops to mid on, to little nicks behind, to moving balls trapping people LBW