Russia 122 for 2 at Lunch

[Langeveldt]

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

Can you give the Tendulkars massive philtra?

 

[tazzron]

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

It's all going to be okay friend.

 

[Biggs]

Can you give the Tendulkars massive philtra?

Of all the things i'll be giving them ...that's the least of their worries.

But seriously, I think I will do this, prolly against like, New Zealand though. Since that's the logical equivalent to a Frankendulkar team.

 

[Langeveldt]

Of all the things i'll be giving them ...that's the least of their worries.

But seriously, I think I will do this, prolly against like, New Zealand though. Since that's the logical equivalent to a Frankendulkar team.

Cool.. If it's any help I was using a green pitch, pro mode, "normal" bowling, IE predominantly outswingers, maybe a full ball, a short ball, an inswinger etc. I used out of the box teams but reduced all Russians power and anticipation to the minimum. Don't know if it makes a difference but I was playing at the ground that sort of looks like Trent Bridge

 

[Biggs]

I'll have to be careful because only a handful of teams I have gone through and attributed correctly, since I mostly play with the gamecocks against Matt. Actually, it's maybe not a bad idea to use my custom team. I'll have a think, thanks for the pitch info though, good advice.

 

[Deleted member 149013]

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.

Just give it a rest.

What you posted on the other thread.

“In addition, you will not target other members or otherwise attempt to provoke a reaction out of them

You will be expected to behave in a responsible manner and be respectful to all other members of the community”

You are not following this yourself and now are harassing another member.

So if he comes back at you with a reply it’s all your own doing.

 

[cooks1st100]

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.

This is my problem with your argument I'm afraid. You have played one session of a match, Russia had only one decent partnership and you gave away a massive amount of runs bowling a spinner on a green track. Plus, reducing strength isn't going to result in more wickets, it's more likely to result in less in fact. I would suggest that you play the game again bowling as you should in the conditions and then make an assessment based on that. The AI batting on pro is nowhere near as good as you are making it out to be.

I'm not saying that there don't need to be improvements next time around, but your original post is completely flawed.

 

[MattW]

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.

By all means do, BLIC 2005 is one of my favourite cricket games.

It's very much a different game, especially with things like being able to move the pitch marker after release, but it was fun and there's features it got right that haven't been matched since.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I hate BLIC 05 with a burning passion. Batting on broadcast cam has always been retarded so I wouldn't have bought a game with no reverse cam anyway, but even beyond that the slow, loopy deliveries were a total dealbreaker. It's like they'd never seen a real cricket delivery.

 

[Langeveldt]

This is my problem with your argument I'm afraid. You have played one session of a match, Russia had only one decent partnership and you gave away a massive amount of runs bowling a spinner on a green track. Plus, reducing strength isn't going to result in more wickets, it's more likely to result in less in fact. I would suggest that you play the game again bowling as you should in the conditions and then make an assessment based on that. The AI batting on pro is nowhere near as good as you are making it out to be.

I'm not saying that there don't need to be improvements next time around, but your original post is completely flawed.

I've got 980 hours logged on Steam, nearly all of it bowling on various difficulty levels, using various game versions as they were released, and noticing the same thing over and over again. Just because I didn't talk about it on here, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. My worries started when chasing 560 against Australia, Zimbabwe got over the line with 270 from Chigumbura and 110 from Tendai Chatara. I would say it was my naff bowling, but I had no trouble getting all the Australians to scoop the ball to mid on and mid off and get out. EDIT - I think that was watching AI vs. AI, and everyone then said "Why does that matter?" Well I think it matters if you are playing career mode, surely.

In what world should reducing batsman strength result in less wickets? And why would a top five in the world off spinner automatically get slaughtered just because there is a bit of grass on the pitch, against Russia? Navjot Sidhu they ain't.. I'll play the rest of the day out to prove a point, and not bowl Lyon at all. I bet you they will comfortably get over 200 against Ryan Harris and co.

 

[Daniboy95]

You are not following this yourself and now are harassing another member.

So if he comes back at you with a reply it’s all your own doing.

I would rather say that he is simply asking trouble for himself

 

[cooks1st100]

I've got 980 hours logged on Steam, nearly all of it bowling on various difficulty levels, using various game versions as they were released, and noticing the same thing over and over again. Just because I didn't talk about it on here, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. My worries started when chasing 560 against Australia, Zimbabwe got over the line with 270 from Chigumbura and 110 from Tendai Chatara. I would say it was my naff bowling, but I had no trouble getting all the Australians to scoop the ball to mid on and mid off and get out. EDIT - I think that was watching AI vs. AI, and everyone then said "Why does that matter?" Well I think it matters if you are playing career mode, surely.

In what world should reducing batsman strength result in less wickets? And why would a top five in the world off spinner automatically get slaughtered just because there is a bit of grass on the pitch, against Russia? Navjot Sidhu they ain't.. I'll play the rest of the day out to prove a point, and not bowl Lyon at all. I bet you they will comfortably get over 200 against Ryan Harris and co.

Well I don't know what you are doing wrong tbh if that's the case. I had no problems skittling teams out no matter the conditions on pro. I was finding it more difficult to make them competitive. Spinners would go for hardly more than 2 an over until I reduced their attributes significantly.

I bought up strength because you had highlighted it in a way that it would weaken a batsman as a result of lowering it. It doesn't, although it may slightly lower run-rates as the ball won't reach the boundary quite so often but this also depends on the consistency value. The way it can result in less wickets is that it causes aerial shots to drop short of fielders stood on the rope more often than not as opposed to being hit straight at them. run and acceleration also need to be reduced to maximise this.

You may have 980 hours logged mainly bowling, well, I spent well over half of that amount of time just testing these things and getting a far more realistic experience than most as a result. To get a good balance it's not just a case of changing one or two attributes, it is a sum of many parts.

 

[Biggs]

To get a good balance it's not just a case of changing one or two attributes, it is a sum of many parts.

This. All of this.

I've found the reduced skills/attirbutes thread has helped a bunch, along with most of the teams I play with/against not being rated higher than a "3" on that little meter so they're all evenly balanced. Sometimes they sneak over into "4" but that's only with the likes of say, the NZ, Australian and South African ODI teams that I've tweaked. I've barely touched the domestic or grade T20 teams and just downloaded form the Academy and hoped for the best.

Whatever happens, next time around we really should/need to be clued in from the get-go what attributes affect what part of the created player. In fact, I'd lock of attirbutes or any "skilling" of the players pre-release in any stand alone academy. If we get one...

 

[MattW]

Whatever happens, next time around we really should/need to be clued in from the get-go what attributes affect what part of the created player. In fact, I'd lock of attirbutes or any "skilling" of the players pre-release in any stand alone academy. If we get one...

I'd say there was a problem with the dual goals of the academy - obviously Big Ant wanted plenty of teams available early on, but the earliest teams and players either didn't have any stats or were missing some of the things unlocked later. The worst case are all the get best county teams that play at Melbourne stadium.

Dunno how you achieve both getting players with stats made on the basis of experiencing the impact of the changes in game while still having everything in place at launch.

 

[Biggs]

I think prolly one way to go is to have stats all locked off and/or having a base set of stats for bowler/batsman and they can be ajusted after launch.

The other way to go would be to have a little cheat-sheet about how each stat/attribute works in the game, so we "kinda" know what we're doing?

You're right though, it's tough.