Russia 122 for 2 at Lunch

[blockerdave]

The averages I mentioned in relation to skill bars was to model the players appropriately. I wouldn't give Mohammed Shahzad a rating of 70% of skill bar and give him a rating of more like 40% skill bar.

So we go by average, until that average is inconvenient.

To put it another way, the skill bar depicts what a batsman should average over a lengthy period of time if the batsman faces a 3 Star bowling on a particular kind of pitch (say regular pitch with just a tinge of green and no cracks). Thus Bradman will have the bar full, Viv Richards will have the bar 80% full, Shahzad in your example will have the bar 30-40% full and chris Martin will have it maybe 5% full or lower. Thus Shahzad can continue averaging 49 against 1 star bowling (associates) but will struggle at intl level.

So you acknowledge that the batsman's skills make sense only relative to the skills of the bowler - i.e. exactly what i have been saying all along and exactly what you have left out of your model until now. FFS - as a poster I respect, I thought you were better than that!!

And I reiterate you need to have constraints and benchmarks (averages) to come up with a model else how exactly will you come up with a model? How exactly will you specify how good or bad a batsman is without the same?

it is possible to make subjective assessments of given skills utterly irrespective of averages. averages are too crude, two guys can average 40 & have completely different skills and attributes - for example, one might cope with even the best spinners and struggle with any decent paceman; the other might have a specific issue off the backfoot to both.

again using Football manager as an example, Peter Crouch has a better international goals per game rate (0.52) than Wayne Rooney (0.46) but i don't think any edition of FM had him has a better striker.

 

[blockerdave]

These discussions are great for the game but will these factors be accepted by the gamer point of view...If one batsman is batting really well say in his 80s at a great strike rate and the bowler against who he is weak comes to bowl and takes his wicket, what are the factors come in for his dismissal??

If the weakness factor dominates in that position it is just not acceptable even for a gamer like me when the scoring is smooth..We all need that "why did I play that" kind of a feel even on getting dismissed when playing well...
We need a setup where the gamer feels "that was bad" "Beauty of a delivery" kind of stuff because on the whole its a game that reaches every type of gamer...The discussions on the way the game should be is really good for hardcore gamers like us but that is very low percentage when compared to that casual ones...So my view on this is that we should take the game with an approach where even the casual gamers or gamers who have not played cricket to understand the concept ,the strategies ,the plans, the execution and even rotation of bowlers for effectiveness , if the game is able to exhibit that then we get a group or fans of the game who would get better with the concept of cricket...If next version does that then we can aim for these deep analysis put into the game when many are familiar with what the game actually wants us to do...

Just my view...But a game with the discussions above being made would be awesome for hardcore cricket fans like us...

the deliberate obtuseness and numerical illiteracy here is maddening. it's not about absolutes, it's not that a weaker bowler can never dismiss a good batsman, it's about relative probabilities holding conditions and user input constant. it's a very simple concept, bowler x has a better chance of dismissing batsman a than bowler y; batsman a is more likely to score a century against an attack containing bowlers x & y than bowler b. nothing in that prevents any bowler dismissing any batsman on a given occasion, or prevents either batsman making any score between 0 and infinity (carrying his bat in cricket terms). it just models the relative probability, based on skills.

FFS.

 

[blockerdave]

All we would need is a modifier like in Cricket Coach, where you can increase a persons abilities in certain formats and in that case against certain bowling, also having a weakness like pace bowling would help aswell...

Only if the game actually models relative ability, which is what I think DBC struggles with.

But yes, the more variations of ability in format, vs bowler types/ delivery types etc. the more nuances we can get; but first and foremost the game must model relative ability and the probabilities arising properly

 

[cricket_online]

So you acknowledge that the batsman's skills make sense only relative to the skills of the bowler - i.e. exactly what i have been saying all along and exactly what you have left out of your model until now. FFS - as a poster I respect, I thought you were better than that!!

My initial post about averages was a high level benchmark for Matt to see how I would rate the batsmen against a common bowling. My expectation was that folks in a cricket gaming forum would infer what a batsman's average is, i.e. a batsman's average/performance over a period of time against varied bowling across different pitch scenarios. And I do expect people to use a bit of common sense while while skilling the players, i.e. that a batsman averaging 50+ against associate nations wouldn't have the same skill level as say Lara or Tendulkar. That is exactly why I gave an example of Chris Martin as 0 and Bradman at full bar so that people would know how to apply or set the skill bar for specific players. Common sense would dictate people would see that associate batsmen would be less skilled and apply the skill bar appropriately but that's the assumption I made and looks like that's expecting too much.

 

[whiteninness]

...so what was Russia at tea?

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

the deliberate obtuseness and numerical illiteracy here is maddening. it's not about absolutes, it's not that a weaker bowler can never dismiss a good batsman, it's about relative probabilities holding conditions and user input constant. it's a very simple concept, bowler x has a better chance of dismissing batsman a than bowler y; batsman a is more likely to score a century against an attack containing bowlers x & y than bowler b. nothing in that prevents any bowler dismissing any batsman on a given occasion, or prevents either batsman making any score between 0 and infinity (carrying his bat in cricket terms). it just models the relative probability, based on skills.

FFS.

Actually you are right there I had to google what obtuseness actually meant hence the illiteracy also applies...But the example you gave cleared it up ,thanks for that...So the chances are backed by the skillset and attribute and also stats??

 

[Dutch]

...so what was Russia at tea?

Pretty good but you get tired of caviar on toast.....[DOUBLEPOST=1444067323][/DOUBLEPOST]Before anyone gets in an argument with @blockerdave....he signs his posts off with FFS...Friendly, Fun, Sexy.....

 

[blockerdave]

My initial post about averages was a high level benchmark for Matt to see how I would rate the batsmen against a common bowling. My expectation was that folks in a cricket gaming forum would infer what a batsman's average is, i.e. a batsman's average/performance over a period of time against varied bowling across different pitch scenarios. And I do expect people to use a bit of common sense while while skilling the players, i.e. that a batsman averaging 50+ against associate nations wouldn't have the same skill level as say Lara or Tendulkar. That is exactly why I gave an example of Chris Martin as 0 and Bradman at full bar so that people would know how to apply or set the skill bar for specific players. Common sense would dictate people would see that associate batsmen would be less skilled and apply the skill bar appropriately but that's the assumption I made and looks like that's expecting too much.

whatever.

Your model was too simple, too crude, and ass backward in trying to work out skills from averages.

Your post hoc attempts to claim you were speaking about averages relative to a given bowler skill level fools nobody. If that were the case your first post in response to me would have been "well yes I meant their expected average vs international standard bowling" and I'd have said "ok yes, we agree then that relative abilities of batsman and bowler is key" but instead you spoke rubbish over a number of posts & when presented with a number of cases your model falls down on try to claim you meant something different (ie the same as me) all along and I was too stupid to see it...

FFS.[DOUBLEPOST=1444067830][/DOUBLEPOST]

Pretty good but you get tired of caviar on toast.....[DOUBLEPOST=1444067323][/DOUBLEPOST]Before anyone gets in an argument with @blockerdave....he signs his posts off with FFS...Friendly, Fun, Sexy.....

If you'd me you'd know it means Fat, Follicly-challenged & Smelly

 

[cricket_online]

whatever.

Your model was too simple, too crude, and ass backward in trying to work out skills from averages.

Your post hoc attempts to claim you were speaking about averages relative to a given bowler skill level fools nobody. If that were the case your first post in response to me would have been "well yes I meant their expected average vs international standard bowling" and I'd have said "ok yes, we agree then that relative abilities of batsman and bowler is key" but instead you spoke rubbish over a number of posts & when presented with a number of cases your model falls down on try to claim you meant something different (ie the same as me) all along and I was too stupid to see it...

Ok, if you didn't think I was referring to averages in the context of Test averages why do you think I referenced Bradman averaging 80s or 90s? Do you think I was saying he would average 80 against WI of 80s and also same against say Afghanistan? Read my original post again and try to understand what the context was, i.e. to be able to have a mechanism for us to create batsmen with varying skill levels from 0 (Chris Martin) to 100 (Bradman). That was not a "Model" as you keep stating and I wasn't building or designing one there.

A model is much more comprehensive and takes in factors such as skill level (what I was illustrating), opposing team and bowlers' rating, pitch conditions, match situation, type of delivery, batsman's strength & weaknesses along with players' input to come up with an outcome. I wasn't doing so and my post was more an illustration of a batsman and bowlers' overall skill bar and if you can't get that point so be it. It's not my fault you assumed "skill level/bar" for "Model".

P.S. - I can't understand why you sound so p***ed and upset. Is everything ok?

 

[tazzron]

The manner in which he's replying to you doesn't deserve a response, @cricket_online . My suggesting is to ignore him and let him vent by himself.

 

[cricket_online]

The manner in which he's replying to you doesn't deserve a response, @cricket_online . My suggesting is to ignore him and let him vent by himself.

Naah blocker's a good bloke and it's a good thing folks here are passionate about cricket gaming... I thought I was in a club of one

 

[Langeveldt]

...so what was Russia at tea?

Haha, a good question.. In truth I haven't carried on, but I still have the save file.

Perhaps if they end up 123 all out and Johnson takes 9 for, we might have to eat some words.

Maybe someone else can test this further. But I think we have all come to a conclusion. The argument is how we fix it..

I've watched this thread with interest. And I hate to bring my beloved Brian Lara Cricket 05 up. But if that can show different skills, then this title, or the next one, where the cricket gamer can change the size of a man's philtrum FFS, should be able to as well.

 

[Biggs]

I fully intend on playing AS Russia against a team of Tendulkars, the only true way to test all this.

 

[tazzron]

Naah blocker's a good bloke and it's a good thing folks here are passionate about cricket gaming... I thought I was in a club of one

I don't doubt that. But before even seeing your comment questioning why he sounds pissed off, I thought the same thing and asked if he was okay. When someone is in that state, there's no point responding.

 

[blockerdave]

ooh a self-inserting Tazzron. isn't technology wonderful