Russia 122 for 2 at Lunch

[cooks1st100]

I think everyone is missing a major point here. Yes we know the AI batting is somewhat over-powered, but @Langeveldt you were bowling with a swinging ball on a presumably greenish wicket, yet you gave away 43 runs with Lyon! How many extras did you gave away on top of this buffet bowling?? Take these away and you may have seen a more realistic score and most probably a couple of extra wickets. The fact that the AI scored at more than 4 runs an over on Pro suggests to me that there is something up with your bowling and your bowler selection. I struggled to get the AI scoring much above 3 with all the bowling huds switched off and the AI batsman rated at a decent rating.

 

[Lupin]

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.

If your 'Catching' skill represents with '0' it should'nt mean that you have no arms but It should mean that the outcome of actually catching the ball is unlikely.

The definition of unlikley is a question of balancing, so I don't know this. The idea is, that every fielder/batsmen/bowler/wicketkeeper knows their technique from the textbook, but the difference in skill means a difference how succesfull he will be on the pitch.

 

[grkrama]

HE changed [HASHTAG]#blameross[/HASHTAG][DOUBLEPOST=1443758721][/DOUBLEPOST]0 is for montypanesar it doesnt mean he should miss all catches but that he should miss all(90+%) tough catches or shouldnt dive etc to take blinders also with a good probability of dropping sitters.


I think a good place to rate Zeros would be to look at the real world worst in each skill/category and then build up to 90 for the best in real world.


The key for a Rus AUS or say afg vs aus is i have to try very hard to loose as AUS.


For a Real world example ICC WC is a good one were most people knew the results before a lot of matches in qualifier stages.


I also believe this will increase as the skillset of the players and the actual nuance of it increases, right now the problem is not exactly RUS vs AUS.

The key is Mcgrath and ishant sharma feel the same or offer the same level of difficulty.

When the attribs or skillsets in Academy can reflect these nuanced differences then the process of getting more balanced matchups would be easier. without resorting to match fixing.

 

[kushari]

From my Experience of playing both Offline (both Casual & Career Mode with difficulty level pro & higher) and Online (more than 1700 hrs till date), I came to conclusion that somehow the Skills and Attributes are much more evident and easy to distinguish when you are playing Online (without selecting Normalization Option) than when you are playing Offline (Against AI).

For example, if in Online, I am batting with a Batsman with helmet rating of 1 or 2, he will without fail will always struggle to bat against any bowler with helmet rating 4 or 5 (No matter how much you defend or concentrate when batting).. Similarly, if I am bowling with a bowler with helmet rating 1 or 2, it will be almost impossible for me to get a wicket unless the opponent makes a mistake. So, it automatically proves that both Skills & Attributes does play a major effect on the game experience when you are playing online, but somehow the same logic does not apply when it comes to bowling or batting against AI (or any Offline Mode). That means the issue is not that skills and attributes does not make any difference, but the difference of skills and attributes in offline play is much vague than what you can see/experience on online mode. Only reason I can think of why it is so, is that its a design choice by BAS to balance the game (so that result is not obvious even before the match begins) when playing Offline.

 

[Acid Burn]

I agree 100 % with @kushari , on the Online part . Although I would like the difference to be slightly more than it is now , it is definitely evident .

Ive had numerous last wicket stands in online mode of 30 + , but had to pack away the big shots and concentrate as hell !

On the bowling side I dont pick the difference up easily , if I bowl with Gibbs and Amla with gentle Medium Pacers vs Morne , Steyn and Co . All of them gets the wickets for me.

I would really like for a few more distinguishable features to No-hope Bowlers and Batters . Everyone cannot be good All-Rounders.

 

[kushari]

I agree 100 % with @kushari , on the Online part . Although I would like the difference to be slightly more than it is now , it is definitely evident .

Ive had numerous last wicket stands in online mode of 30 + , but had to pack away the big shots and concentrate as hell !

On the bowling side I dont pick the difference up easily , if I bowl with Gibbs and Amla with gentle Medium Pacers vs Morne , Steyn and Co . All of them gets the wickets for me.

I would really like for a few more distinguishable features to No-hope Bowlers and Batters . Everyone cannot be good All-Rounders.

For the bowling part, what I meant was, that Skill & Attributes does make a huge impact. For example, if you bowl with a bowler with "Zero" In-swing/Out-swing skills, you wont be able to bowl In-swing/Out-swing with that bowler on regular basis (Of-course user input also does make a little difference in the outcome), but if you bowl with a bowler with "Zero" In-swing & Out-swing skills in an Offline mode, he will still be able to bowl those more frequently. Its not about getting wickets or not (as it depends on your opponent also), its about whether the bowler will mostly bowl as per his skills or not, in my view in Online, it will always without fail will bowl as per the skills & attributes assigned to him. At-least that is my experience.

 

[Acid Burn]

Yes , Kushari , in that sense you are 100 % right.

Our Online bunch have tinkered with the attributes alot , and I can vouch that they do make a difference in Online mode .

Not allways as much as I would have like , but defnitly there. The big problem is that we dont know exactly what to expect to see from half of the attributes , hence we tinker around and hope for the best .

 

[T.J.Hooker]

The thing is, there are a lot of moving parts to try and nail down.

So, let's say a poorly rated AI part time spinner comes on to bowl. I don't want him to bowl deliveries that look identical to a proper spinner's deliveries but are magically easier to hit. I want him to be easier to hit because he bowls bad deliveries that proper spinners rarely bowl, and because the game properly models the ease of hitting bad deliveries.

I want him to bowl crappily flighted deliveries with very little turn and drift, and I want him to bowl long hops and half volleys that I can see coming and latch onto, knowing that anything better than C grade input from me is probably good enough to get four, and that I won't be in danger of dismissal unless my input is really poor.

I want the game to understand, for instance, that a genuine half volley negates movement off the deck and almost takes the possibility of an edge behind out of the game. In real life, if you can bat, you spot half volleys more or less straight out of the hand and dispatching them to the fence is about the same level of difficulty as a straightforward defensive shot, especially if you're keeping things simple with a check drive.

It's a little more complicated for proper spinners because if a delivery is properly flighted then it takes a little bit of skill to read the flight and get right to the pitch, but against quicker half volleys you really just have to play straight and make contact.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Just further to that, I'm going to post my old video of one of the early net practice builds, where there was a more realistic level of turn and bounce, and spin was more realistic and fun to play as a result.

There is still much less turn and bounce than a real pro legger in this vid and it's very slow, but there is enough turn and bounce that I'm actually having to play for turn, which I really enjoyed, and there's enough bounce to allow pull shots on the short ones - the ai bowls a load of short deliveries here, no idea why it doesn't pitch up. If the ai threw in a googly or a flipper on a few of these cut shots I'd be in real danger of an lbw, and that is exactly the danger that exists vs leg spin in real cricket.

I'm a bit gutted that the final game doesn't feature enough turn to require that you actually play for turn, or enough bounce to allow you to properly spank a long hop, and the knock on effect is that there's very little to differentiate world class spin bowling in DBC from part time rubbish. It all feels more or less the same.

 

[Langeveldt]

I think everyone is missing a major point here. Yes we know the AI batting is somewhat over-powered, but @Langeveldt you were bowling with a swinging ball on a presumably greenish wicket, yet you gave away 43 runs with Lyon! How many extras did you gave away on top of this buffet bowling?? Take these away and you may have seen a more realistic score and most probably a couple of extra wickets. The fact that the AI scored at more than 4 runs an over on Pro suggests to me that there is something up with your bowling and your bowler selection. I struggled to get the AI scoring much above 3 with all the bowling huds switched off and the AI batsman rated at a decent rating.

I don't think I gave away any extras at all. I was bowling with aids, consistantly all in the green zone. In swingers, outswingers, the odd short ball. I don't know what more one needs to do.

Lyon, granted shouldn't be bowling on a green top, but then neither should the Russians be able to consistently hit him inside out over cover for four. I was only testing them out vs. spin as well, trying to make in inroad into their rock solid batting

 

[Langeveldt]

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.

I'm glad I'm able to put views forward to someone who actually works on the game. That's awesome in itself.

It doesn't really matter what the effects are of having level 0 players, so long as we can tell the difference. That's why we are losing immersion here.

Perhaps go by what the worst players in your game would be? Chris Martin would be a 0.. Well he could come onto the front foot and work the ball around, maybe hit say 5 runs before nicking off or missing a ball. That could be your benchmark. Okay we now have a massive range of different players playing the game. In your testing maybe benchmark that for PRO mode.

Bowling wise, well how would Alistair Cook bowl? He can turn his arm over and would bowl wicket to wicket. But there would be zero movement, far less pace, and a lack of accuracy. "Red" "Green" and "Yellow" balls maybe not necessarily ending up where they should.

At the risk of bringing up "other" cricket games. Just see how BLIC 2005 and AC09 varied the skilling of the batsmen. Those were rudimentary titles without the same depth as DBC14, but it worked.. And if the attributes don't always work perfectly, well that's why there is such a good editor. I remember tweaking tailenders in BLIC 2005 so they weren't quite so useless, to where they could hit a 10 or a 15.

Thanks for taking on board our comments here. I'd be happy to test and provide feedback if ever things did change now or in the next iteration.

 

[Ajh1977]

As far as I'm concerned its pretty simple, it should be massively different playing against a poor team than a great team, it should be massively different bowling to Tendulkar than Tufnell, and playing a team of the former should result in plenty of centuries and playing the latter should result in a hi score of 20+ and being all out for less than 100. I think one way to implement it would be to have the pitch play a bigger part. Also i agree with a previous post on how ratings should tie in with a players average, so throught a series or career, a player with low skills averages low scores. Jimmy Anderson scored 81 in a 200 partenership v India, but it was on a nice pitch, and in over 100 tests he hadn't done it before. Also there should be certain shots the poorer batsman just can't pull off, and tailenders generally don't hit the ball where they're aiming, or score streaky runs. Attributes should be able to control the repertoire of shots available to a batsman and how well they play them. Eg if playing a cut shot a tailender is just as likely to edge it to slip than cut it successfully behind point. This would also bring field settings into play more as you would anticipate more edges etc from tailenders.

 

[blockerdave]

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.

The "something" is obvious, and in the spirit of the other thread I'll bullet it:

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.

The something is obvious, and in the spirit of the other thread i'll bullet it for you:

• a non-linear increase in ability through the levels, that is identifiable from the skills and attributes a player has
  • the difference is demonstrable, both in the performance of the AI, and in the ease/difficulty of performing a skill for a human player
    • that is, holding the input constant, it should be demonstrably easier to land the ball in a consistent area with a high skilled bowler than a low skilled bowler
    • holding input (and bowler ability) constant, you'd time the ball better and edge/hit in the air less with a high skilled batsman than a low skilled batsman
  • the difference is relative to both batter and bowler
    • that is, a batsman of skill level 2 would find it easier against a bowler of levels 2 or 1 vs 4 or 5: i.e. a county player may score well domestically, and struggle in internationals, or an associate score well vs other associates and struggle vs test nations
    • therefore, holding input constant, one would expect varying results:
      • batter & bowler skill level 2
      • batter level 2, bowler level 4
      • batter level 4, bowler level 2
      • batter & bowler level 4
  • if we assume the game is modelling only professional players, from domestic journeymen up to all time world stars, then we can assume a base level of competency in all factors:
    • can broadly defend and have one or two attacking shots, land the ball on the pitch when bowling, and make simple catches and stops and throws
    • this is better presented as a non-zero value: skills shouldn't be able to fall below 10%
    • the lowest level batsmen, should NOT be able to play every shot
      • a level of competence from the bowler would still be expected to dismiss even the worst batsmen - even a top-skilled bowler won't dismiss him bowling lollipops
      • but the baseline for the accuracy, pace, movement etc. required to dismiss (or force mistakes at least, play and miss, edge, play off the wrong foot) would be lower for lower skilled batsmen
      • holding input (and batsman ability) constant, balls for a high-rated bowler would have a higher probability of dismissal than from a low rated bowler
    • the lowest level bowlers should NOT be able to deliver balls at the same pace as a high-rated bowler, or have every delivery available
      • they can land the ball on the pitch, but are unlikely to be able to hit the same spot every time
        • holding input constant, the likely landing zone for a low skilled bowler would be larger than for a high skilled bowler
      • they are unlikely to generate as much movement as a high skilled bowler, and when they do it would be at the expense of accuracy/consistency
      • the level of "perfection" in input for a low-skilled bowler to dismiss a batsman should be determined by the batsman's skill relative to the bowler, modified by match difficulty and conditions

 

[MattW]

I'll agree with all of that - however, to press on, there's the issue that comes up if you try and achieve these two aims -

can broadly defend

they can land the ball on the pitch, but are unlikely to be able to hit the same spot every time

One of the problems about bad bowlers would be the scenario where bringing on a bad bowler can be more effective than bringing on an okay one (or even a good one, as the case frequently is with DBC14)

The obvious thing being, that a bad batsman would most likely be bad because they can't read the ball very well - who would probably be best when you've got an okay bowler delivering something resembling line and length, but something that's not too threatening; but for a bad bowler, being all over the place can make them hard to read, something a slightly decent batsman should easily read and cart away/leave as appropriate, but a bad batsmen would logically have more trouble with.

I suppose what I'm asking is, would the worst bowler dismiss the worst batsman, or would a batsman of any skill be able to counter very poor bowling? I would personally lean towards batting in that scenario - because you can throw your bat at stuff and hope for the best, and it would only be essentially down to luck if those shots end up carrying to a fielder.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I suppose what I'm asking is, would the worst bowler dismiss the worst batsman, or would a batsman of any skill be able to counter very poor bowling? I would personally lean towards batting in that scenario - because you can throw your bat at stuff and hope for the best, and it would only be essentially down to luck if those shots end up carrying to a fielder.

I would say the worst bowler should be able to dismiss the best batsman with superb input from the bowler and woeful input from the batsman, with the quality of the wicket an important factor.

But some of this comes down to how realistically you model batting difficulty. Any batsman in the world should be vulnerable to a couple of inches of movement in the last .15 secs of a delivery. If the game models that correctly, then a bunch of these questions might answer themselves (I suggest very optimistically).

So, to go back to club cricket again, here are all the cards from the matches Viv Richards played in the Lancashire League in 1987. This is possibly the greatest attacking batsman of all time, still nearly in his prime, versus teams of amateurs from northern England plus one pro :

The Home of CricketArchive

Very probably on first class standard wickets, none of these guys would have stood much of a chance, especially in a game Richards was taking dead seriously. But on club standard wickets in the frequently wet north of England, amateur bowlers had a shot at picking up the best batsman in the world for 20 or 30. They didn't often manage it, but it did happen.

--

Seriously, look at this for a game :

The Home of CricketArchive

Richards hit 103 out of 199 for Rishton. Steve Waugh was the pro for Nelson, bowling 12 overs 0-52, then getting his side nearly over the line with 93, but he's stumped off Richards' bowling in the final couple of overs and they lose by 2 runs.