Russia 122 for 2 at Lunch

[cricket_online]

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.

It does serve a very useful purpose when you are making a difficulty jump from say Amateur to Pro or from Pro to Legend. Initially you would want to play against poor rated teams to get used to the change in difficulty, sort of like training wheels. I generally do this on Madden when I go from All Pro to All Madden difficulty and this approach works pretty well. Similarly it gives user an added challenge when you pick a low rated team to play against a higher rated one.

Secondly I would want the player ratings and gameplay not be artificially balanced. Leave it to me as a user to tailor my gameplay experience. If someone wants to play against a 0 rated team with a high rated team, so be it. Let them blow out the opponent and as I said earlier if the said person wants to get a better experience he/she can always go with a higher rated opponent. I don't want the game to try and "balance" things for me. Let me be the judge of what I want to do.

 

[Langeveldt]

To clarify, the reason I chose Russia was not because I wanted an easy win of a pointless test match, but to test if there was really any effect in setting different attributes, for say the difference between a Lasith Malinga, and a Sachin Tendulkar, for teams that actually would play each other.

Surely if you are playing a world cup, you would want to see a bit more challenge in playing against India in the final, than against Bermuda in the group games?

I'm glad it's got some healthy discussion going. I am not trying to bash the game, which has given me 1000 hours now. I think DBC 14 is literally perfect aside from this, and I don't think it even needs a sequel. But this mechanic has stopped me playing now.

In 2015 I should be able to bowl at McGrath and it not feel like I'm bowling at Sehwag. Remember BLIC 2005 and the hilarious animations for batting? That went too far, but it's something I'd like to see in future.

 

[Biggs]

I don't want the game to try and "balance" things for me. Let me be the judge of what I want to do.

That's just not how games work. There has to be a balance compromise made so you get all the other things you want happening in the game. That's what Matt is talking about, there are finite resources dedicated to all the portions of the game and it's literally a giant balance act of gameplay vs realism vs time vs money. I'm not saying they've got it right with the first version, but they're damn close. The scenario whereby every team in the box is perfect to reality and no matter the difficulty you roll Russia for 50 is kinda ridiculous. That's of no benefit to anyone and I guarantee you, nobody picks to play Russia in that scenario. If you want a game that YOU decide the balance then my earlier point of ditching the ancillary teams and focussing on just a core group of teams is a better use of limited resources and leave the community to build the rest, once we have an understanding of the mechanics and how they work.

 

[Langeveldt]

What confuses me is why there is such an impressive and comprehensive academy, if adjustments to said players don't make a lot of difference? If the object was to give a good tight game of cricket every time, then why not just leave the attributes out? I reckon it isn't actually rocket science.. Just make the strength bar work, increase the edge probability, and be done with it. Voila, worse batsmen

Maybe it is significantly more difficult than that, which is why I am a game consumer and not a game producer.

 

[Biggs]

Totally agree. We have little to no understanding of how the attributes work, clearly, they're not as dramatic as they should be but I also think they're all also, pretty vague. I prefer a more clear cut strengths/weaknesses option that's specifically tailored for player types, rather than slide-bars for "Aerobic Fitness"

 

[MattW]

Surely if you are playing a world cup, you would want to see a bit more challenge in playing against India in the final, than against Bermuda in the group games?

Indeed.

Secondly I would want the player ratings and gameplay not be artificially balanced. Leave it to me as a user to tailor my gameplay experience. If someone wants to play against a 0 rated team with a high rated team, so be it. Let them blow out the opponent and as I said earlier if the said person wants to get a better experience he/she can always go with a higher rated opponent. I don't want the game to try and "balance" things for me. Let me be the judge of what I want to do.

As I tried to touch on - there's "balance" and then there would be developing mechanisims to make it possible to have performances significantly worse than what typically occurs in a match - like this kind of stuff. It might happen in cricket - but it's outside the scope of things that are reasonable to replicate in a game.

I think it is reasonable to start from the point that everyone in game is vaguely capable - but that might be only in one aspect of the game - I get the genuine tailender thing, I know all about being a rubbish batsman. The problem is, once you make it so that there's a reasonable baseline under players - it's hard to then make it so that all results would be realistic as you would expect a real world match to play out.

So yeah, what Biggs said...

 

[Langeveldt]

I think giving the attributes more of a kick will actually help the balance in the next iteration (I assume we can't expect any more changes to this one).. For example, if I am playing on Pro but not ready to step up to veteran, playing as a genuinely weak Zimbabwe might give me the requisite challenge I need on Pro, as a weaker side.

Of course, how this pans out online is important. I think simply limiting the amount of skill bars available at one's disposal should sort any cheating out, of invincible teams etc.

 

[Biggs]

So yeah, what Biggs said...

<--- This guy.... Etc

Of course, how this pans out online is important. I think simply limiting the amount of skill bars available at one's disposal should sort any cheating out, of invincible teams etc.

It's already sorted online just by ticking that little box before making any online game that sets all the stats to a base level for both teams. Makes having a team of Tendoolkas irrelevant.

 

[Langeveldt]

<--- This guy.... Etc



It's already sorted online just by ticking that little box before making any online game that sets all the stats to a base level for both teams. Makes having a team of Tendoolkas irrelevant.

Ah, I see, from someone who has never ventured towards playing online. Then that answers that question anyway.

 

[blockerdave]

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.

i disagree with your disagreement, and proffer again the Neil Foster example I made above. He had not been skilled, yet there was no difference bowling with him than with the 3 helmet bowlers.

out of the box, excluding russia, the game presents players in batting ability from Don Bradman, through to the number 11 for associates like Kenya, and yet they play the same. It should be the difference between having a wife that looks like Bo Derek or Bo Diddley... instead it's more the difference between Mary-Kate and Ashley.

 

[blockerdave]

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.

there is a world of difference between a team being crap, but you still having to play properly to beat them, and a team being presented as crap by the game but not really being any different from a team being presented of a much higher standard.

let's exclude Russia for a moment - the game still presents out of the box All Time Best teams including absolute world greats, and associate/domestic teams that include players that could most charitably be described as journeymen... this includes number 11 batsmen and pie-chucking bowlers. However, for whatever reason, the game doesn't model ANY of that. it is not appreciably more difficult to bat as a tailender, or bowl as a part-time or lower skilled bowler. it is not appreciably easier to dismiss lower skilled batsmen.

and actually, this is what has caused the overskilling problem. because the game doesn't model anything under a certain skill level, the "better" players become overpowered. that's why it's actually only possible to get anything like realistic play keeping all players between 1 and 3 helmets.

 

[blockerdave]

question becomes what expectations are for the future

The expectations are clear: the player and team ratings should mean something, and if the game is only modelling a base of skill then that should be presented.

every other sports game of any genre i've played models this right: if you play against a crap team they're easier to beat, if you play as a crap team it's much harder to do even basic things as well. it's baffling that the point even has to be debated.

 

[Biggs]

disagree with your disagreement, and proffer again the Neil Foster example I made above. He had not been skilled, yet there was no difference bowling with him than with the 3 helmet bowlers.

Yet, I think if you played online against an opponent with that same bowler, you'd find your opponent would prolly smash him around the park, which was what I was saying. I don't necessarily disagree with your disagreement upon disagreeing with mine, but to suggest to attributes do nothing at all is a bit of a reach. They do something certainly in career mode when you start out! ...it's just on the scale, it's not as much as it should be when the AI takes control and you're right, the gulf between a 1 Helmet and a 5 Helmet for, say, a bowler... is not as wide as it should be.

(...and as an aside, the selection of "Helmet" being the identifier of ones skill set in the game is a bit annoying when you're a bowler)

the game doesn't model ANY of that. it is not appreciably more difficult to bat as a tailender, or bowl as a part-time or lower skilled bowler. it is not appreciably easier to dismiss lower skilled batsmen.

...totally agree, totally. Which is why I prefer a Strengths/Weaknesses feature vs. slide bars because you can set specific weaknesses (and in some cases, no strengths!) so the AI knows exactly what the player can and can't do and will use them accordingly, or play against them accordingly. Because it's a computer, even someone with a 1 or "Front Foot" whatever that does will play on the front foot. When, if we went around and gave say, Chris Martin numbers for his footwork, he'd prolly at least get 5 for "Front Foot" because he can at least defend off the front foot. In the game, he would prolly average 30 at number 11.

Whereas in a Strengths/Weaknesses scenario, you just assign Chris Martin the "Tailender" Weakness and/or load him with "Poor Defense" "Weak against bouncers" and so on... Much easier for the game to know what he can/can't do and how they should attack him.

 

[MattW]

The expectations are clear: the player and team ratings should mean something, and if the game is only modelling a base of skill then that should be presented..

So - "something" - there is certainly disagreement between what people expect "something" is. The general principle is something everyone who has posted agrees with, but that alone isn't a complete answer to what a skilling system should look like.

Like when you put a 0 rated bowler on to bowl, what kind of deliveries should they send in? What extent are a batsman's abilities at 0 - yes, you have plenty of examples of real world genuine tailenders - but some of them occasionally pull out large innings, even if the majority of time it's not worth them making the walk onto the ground. If someone is 0 rated as a fielder, would they just try and headbutt the ball or something, or would they have basic catching and throwing abilities?

Having the discussion brings out some helpful perspectives on implementation.

 

[Snowy]

You could almost split out players into ranks (tailender, batting all rounder, bowling all rounder, batsmen - really basic example) and have different attribute effects within each rank. A 1/10 batsmen could potentially be on par with a 10/10 tailender (again, a really basic nasty example)