Russia 122 for 2 at Lunch

[MattW]

So what you are saying is that we will never be able to have a true tailender in DBC

No. I'm trying as hard as I possibly can to say as little about DBC in replying here, I don't want to infer or imply anything. A comment from me in a discussion isn't me saying "this is the way it is".

You can go back and read my complaints about DBC14 if you want - I didn't suddenly think things were infallible when I walked in the door. Overpowered tail enders are one of many frustrations I have.

But, I do want to get a sense of just where people's expectations lie.

This sounds extremely close to the mark for me -

Perfect user input corresponds with the best that player might reasonably perform, terrible player input corresponds with the lower limit, with the more extreme batting errors reserved for genuine tailenders or incredibly bad input.

But,

The lowest likely ability level for the lowest level of cricket in the game.

Highlights one of the issues with the scenario in this thread - that Russia sit well outside the bounds of the rest of the teams in the game

 

[Biggs]

Genuine question - why do you want to be able to absolutely and consistently thrash a team?

Sometimes you just wanna "YellowJackets" a game a thrash an opponent because you've been getting hammered by the AI in Career mode?

I think if you're playing Afghanistan vs New Zealand you should be rewarded before a ball has been bowled by knowing you're going to get a win reasonably easy, otherwise you may as well just make a game with the Test playing nations and be done with it.

...to flip your question slightly, there should be some reward in playing as Russia against Australia and getting an unlikely victory. It should happen incredibly rarely and be incredibly difficult. Currently, it's not.

 

[blockerdave]

Well, because they asked to be...

Australia vs Russia is an unrealistic thing by itself, they would never play cricket against each other, there would be no point.

When Russia do play cricket it would be against fairly similar sides, ICC affiliates that they would have a slight chance of winning against. The matches might not be as skilled, but that would be on both sides.

If the game will preempt what the player considers fun or worthwhile and narrow the possibility of what will happen to ensure that result there is no point in the game.

if I choose to set up as Aus v Russia it's unlikely to be because I'm looking to bowl 130+ overs and chase 400 in the second innings.

There game should be able to model faithfully the matrix of variables between team a's ability, team b's ability, game difficulty and player input - that's the point of the game.

I appreciate its more complicated than @cricket_online has it because a 1 helmet batsman would/should do better against a 1 or 2 helmet bowler than against a 4 or 5.

In this instance, as the Aus bowler, his base ability and the game difficulty should give you details regarding the control input difficulty/sensitivity for accuracy/pace/movement etc. that should then work in conjunction with the batsman's ability in order to work out the level of accuracy/pace/movement required to beat the batsman, and the batsman's timing windows. This would mean with Aus v Russia you would get dismissals bowling less well than you would bowling v India.

If you're bowling as Russia (or any lower rated bowler/team) it should be difficult to land the ball in the same spot time after time - this is basic, anyone who watched England in the 90s knows bad bowlers spray it about - and the match difficulty/bowler's ability will control exactly how difficult it is. Again it should be plotted against the batsman's ability to determine the batsman's timing windows, or exactly how much accuracy/pace/movement can defeat that batsman: always leaving the possibility for the magic ball that can beat anyone.

It must be demonstrably easier/harder to play with/against certain teams, and a game that can't model that is getting it wrong. A developer/designer who intentionally refuses to model that is in the wrong game.

 

[blockerdave]

Highlights one of the issues with the scenario in this thread - that Russia sit well outside the bounds of the rest of the teams in the game

If Russia played like (or a little worse) than the other out of the box associates that would be ok.

Except that they DO play like the OOTB associates, which funnily enough is exactly like the OOTB Test sides, and it's not ok.

If the game has a base level it can't model below, don't give us 1 helmet players and 1 star teams

 

[blockerdave]

...to flip your question slightly, there should be some reward in playing as Russia against Australia and getting an unlikely victory. It should happen incredibly rarely and be incredibly difficult. Currently, it's not.

Absolutely, it's not just about playing against low rated players/teams and finding it easy, it's playing with them and finding it difficult too.

At the moment I could open the batting with Finn and Wood, and open the bowling with Cook and Lyth, and I would barely notice the difference.

 

[MattW]

...to flip your question slightly, there should be some reward in playing as Russia against Australia and getting an unlikely victory. It should happen incredibly rarely and be incredibly difficult. Currently, it's not.

I agree on both counts.

Which is why I question the merits of the expectation of the result being Russia all out for 50, always crumbling beneath the opposition because in the real world the gulf would be that large.

I think the key distinction is the difference between

It must be demonstrably easier/harder to play with/against certain teams

And

AI batsman to behave as they would in real life

In the context of this extreme example of Australia v Russia.

If a game could represent the real world - then Russia would struggle to get to 50, and never have what Biggs is talking about - that very slight chance of an upset, the drive to make every possible matchup in the game worth playing to some degree. You might not win, you indeed should not win the vast majority of times - but if "realism" was the goal at all expense you can't have that.

Maybe some games can optimise for all the different players - with an ability to opt into realisticness that could deliver that - but when you consider limited resources, the primary goal in my view should be something like Biggs has described - the slight chance of an upset always being on the horizon - even if, and ideally if, it is minuscule.

If you want to be able to just smash a team - I think that best comes out of lower difficulty settings that let you do that - a player doing inputs that would be perfect timing on the highest difficulty should essentially always succeed on the lowest difficulty - that's where you should get a bad team out for 50, or even 0.

 

[Fantazm]

crap teams should be crap.

 

[blockerdave]

In the context of this extreme example of Australia v Russia.

I bet there are county batsmen who can't bowl... i mean in terms of pace, accuracy, ability to generate movement etc. they are well off. the problem is that this doesn't exist in DBC: when I played a match with my England Rebels 1990, I used a downloaded Neil Foster. I didn't realise until I was in the match that the guy who made him hadn't skilled/attributed him: he had literally no skills, so was a 1 helmet bowler. Yet it was no different whatsoever in bowing with him than the 3 helmet seamers in the side like Graham Dilley: i mean literally no difference. He bowled as fast, bowled as accurately, i think he took less wickets but was actually my most economical seamer. this is plain wrong. this is equivalent to the example given already of using a defender as QB in Madden, or sticking a midfielder in goal on football manager - it will have a demonstrable detrimental effect on performance because that player doesn't have the skills to perform.

The game should be able to model someone who isn't a bowler but thrown on part time, and it can't. I've assumed that it was a failure in the implementation of the skills being translated from the academy into the engine. The idea that it's actually design gives me huge concerns for the next iteration.

The extreme example of Russia is only being used because the finer shades don't show any difference either - whether that's a tailender in his batting, bowling with a batsman, or lower rated associates playing the same as 3 and 4 star teams. I guarantee if the finer shades were actually showing the required differences nobody would be playing Aus v Russia

 

[MattW]

I bet there are county batsmen who can't bowl... i mean in terms of pace, accuracy, ability to generate movement etc. they are well off. the problem is that this doesn't exist in DBC:

I certainly don't intend or mean to suggest that it does.

It clearly doesn't, so the question becomes what expectations are for the future, and my opinion is that it falls essentially to that comment from Biggs.

The idea that it's actually design gives me huge concerns for the next iteration.

You would only get that idea if you choose to deliberately misinterprete things I've said.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Highlights one of the issues with the scenario in this thread - that Russia sit well outside the bounds of the rest of the teams in the game

Well, only to a degree. Genuine number eleven batsmen still exist in the pro game, although they're much rarer than they used to be. Russia's batting lineup probably has at least a few guys who are better than genuine number 11 standard. Bowling is a bit different, because not everyone has to bowl so you don't see complete pie chuckers in pro games in the normal course of things. Russia's bowling is going to feature guys who wouldn't get a bowl at any stage in pro cricket.

If you look at club cricket though, you get a much more varied mix of standards. I didn't play my first proper game of cricket until I was 14, and I broke into the first team at my club at 16, in a league where the pros were mostly former or current test players.

I opened the bowling on debut as a schoolboy medium pacer against a batsman who at the time was WI first choice opener. My captain was a guy with first class experience, and he told me he was giving me a shot because it would be good for me, but that if I dropped short and got busted out of the ground he'd instantly take me off.

What happened : their pro took a look at a couple of deliveries, decided I was obviously rubbish and tried to smash my third ball out of sight. It was a length ball with a little bit of shape away and he nicked to second slip instead. I was involved in the youth squads for my county / MCC as an allrounder so I could bowl with a reasonable amount of control and a bit of movement, but it's still a fairly ridiculous skill difference vs a test player in his mid 20s.

That's a good marker for me for extreme skill discrepancies. Even with a rubbish player, I think you should still have a chance of accomplishing something if your input is good. Maybe you can't smash the quicks all over the park, but you can play defence and deflections and look for ones and twos. Maybe you can't get the ball hooping around at pace, but you can land 6 balls in the right place and give the batsman a chance to make a mistake.

 

[chaman82]

Discussion - Project comman 11. A comman single team for online play - Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Online Play and Leagues on PlanetCricket Forums


In the above team which many with me r using for online odi matches legend level, tailenders overall bats like tailenders.

We've played like more than 25 online matches proper odi on diff pitch styles...also played many with the ai ( same team for both sides)

Stats earned looks like

Batting avgs
lower order ..8-14
Middle top order.. 25-35

Similarly bowling avg. R also correct.

There has been occasions when the score is like 100/8 and tailenders put a fight n score a 50 partnership. But its clearly tough with them.
Also what I noticed was its more dependend on user input like if u play extremely carefully ( play in ur strong batting zone) , runs can b scored by tailenders.

In online play... low skilled players do actually play like low skilled players.

 

[Biggs]

Which is why I question the merits of the expectation of the result being Russia all out for 50, always crumbling beneath the opposition because in the real world the gulf would be that large.

Totally agree. You may be adorned with the getting it of the guy this eve. It's that key word; Balance. I don't want to necessarily destroy a team playing, say "Pro" level because the defeats the purpose of playing that difficulty level. That being said, there should still be a reasonable expectation that if I play as an associate nation (or less) against a Test nation, imma get my ass whipped most of the time if I play "Pro". I think it should be easier to bowl against a poorly rated team, certainly when the AI takes over in simulation the unevenness should be reflected.

Devils Advocate; The "Russia" argument being made is pretty unfair given they're only in the game because they got officially licensed for it. [/digress]

My "conceptual" team grade system, if you will, would simply be a dice-based one. Certain teams have lesser chances on the "roll" of beating other higher teams based on the odds of rolling the dice. Therefore, all the simulated results are built around that. Team Russia has a 1/100 chance of rolling a 3 or higher to win against Australia that has a 1/3 chance. ...and so on. You assign certain teams better, or less odds based on their current grade. Test teams get better odds than Associate nations, or domestic teams or BBL teams, you can make it as complex as you need.

The game should be able to model someone who isn't a bowler but thrown on part time, and it can't.

I disagree. It can; when you or I are in charge of that bowler. When the AI is in charge, which happens rarely (if they bring on a part-timer) they often bowl just as similar as the higher-statted bowler. The game recognises the limitations more frequently when the user is burdened with them. The number 11 scenario where they hang around only happens against the AI. When you're playing online, you have to be pretty cautious and careful to not get rolled.

...in my experiences.

 

[Biggs]

One more thing: A lot of this can be solved by Biggs' patented suggestion of being able to assign players strengths and weaknesses*. The game can then plan strategies accordingly because it knows what they are. If you have a tail ender that can't defend and only slog, the AI bowler knows to pitch up deliveries or bowl bouncers, and so on. You can weight certain players to have more weaknesses and strengths in scenarios such as Russiagate.

Expand that to a team level, "Good against X grade teams, weak against Y grade teams, good playing at home, poor playing abroad, team X is poor against spin bowling, team Y better chasing than defending and so on. Tie those pros/cons into your commentary as well and that takes care of itself too...




*trialing talking about myself in the third person, might take the edge off some of my less tactful posts? Let's give it a whirl, see if passes the nutbar test?

 

[cricket_online]

Totally agree. You may be adorned with the getting it of the guy this eve. It's that key word; Balance. I don't want to necessarily destroy a team playing, say "Pro" level because the defeats the purpose of playing that difficulty level.



I disagree. It can; when you or I are in charge of that bowler. When the AI is in charge, which happens rarely (if they bring on a part-timer) they often bowl just as similar as the higher-statted bowler. The game recognises the limitations more frequently when the user is burdened with them. The number 11 scenario where they hang around only happens against the AI. When you're playing online, you have to be pretty cautious and careful to not get rolled.

...in my experiences.

Disagree with you on a couple of points Biggs...

1. If I play against a low rated team, say consisting of 0 or 1 rated players, let's call them "Novices XI", I should be able to beat them easily if I play as a higher rated team and if I'm a decent enough user player on DBC 14 (i.e., my inputs are not way off while batting or bowling). The game should not try to balance the game or teams to make them "artificially" competent just so we can get a better game. The team and players should reflect their basic skill level and if they're poor, so be it. If I get bored of blowing out poor teams I would start playing highly rated teams for better gaming experience. Also, playing with lower rated teams has another use - for human players to get a better challenge against AI as they master the game. You've seen guys scoring triple 100s in career mode on Legend mode. Let's say someone gets at that level, the person would want to challenge himself by playing with a poor team against AI and it would defeat the purpose if the game provides some sort of balancing to improve the poor team.

2. A lower rating of a bowler or a batsman should be reflected no matter how the player is used - by AI or by a human user. As AI the deliveries should be sprayed about with half volleys and long hops etc. When a human user controls such a player, it should be difficult and well nigh impossible for us to land the ball on a spot consistently. Currently I can virtually bowl the same way with a 0 or 1 rated and 5 star bowlers which is plain wrong. The difference in rating should be visible no matter who or how the players/bowlers are controlled. A McGrath or an Ambrose should be very easy to bowl well with as compared to someone like an Ealham. Currently you don't see that in the game and is an area of improvement for next iteration.

 

[Biggs]

I don't see any benefit or "fun" in being able to always beat Russia, no matter the skill level. It's just not a "game" then and if you want to beat a team over and over again, play on a rookie difficulty level. It's a game, remember. Yes, crap teams can still be crap and still beatable whilst giving you a little challenge along the way. Otherwise, you may as well leave them out and just focus on balancing the Test nations and leave the community to build/download the shit teams.