From The Pavilion

ok to tie in with the other post about splitting tech, that will work in conjunction with this one.

Currently, not enough technique/power will lead to a fall and possible dismissal or missed run-scoring opportunity.
Also, if you have too much tech/power then it is capped, 100% for part of it and a small % for the next bit of surplus, then nothing.
So your poor/exceptional bat and you poor/reas (rough guess) all else being equal will be the same.

Tech and Power gaps removed or allowable gap increased

Tech and power diminishing returns removed or allowable gap increased

It is likely that the gap will be a flat cap in the first instance, say four levels with a view at monitoring and tweaking where applicable.

Thoughts?


More tech is good for defence.
More strength is good for attack. (Before you ask)

Just to understand will a worlclass tech and spec bat avg higher with a lower strike rate than an exceptional bat tech batter over say 50 innings everything else equal ?

I want to understand whether these changes will meaningfully allow managers to train certain type of players which are different from what we currently get. If yes than this would add great variety for different formats and more fun to training as well

In theory yes but I will test it on a bigger scale once full testing is underway

GM-crowfan65 wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 3:10 am

Tech and Power gaps removed or allowable gap increased

Tech and power diminishing returns removed or allowable gap increased

It is likely that the gap will be a flat cap in the first instance, say four levels with a view at monitoring and tweaking

I don't get what you are saying here

So what is the problem you are trying to solve here?

Are you suggesting that bowlers who have say ordinary batting but high tech - eg exceptional or world class bat too well? Sure massively higher tech does help.... but is it really an issue? I don't see bowlers scoring loads of runs and at most it seems to add a batting summary level (obviously this depends on experience and other skills too).

All this will do is make it more important to have all rounders in your side since straight bowlers will likely get out earlier.

I would have thought that there are many other priorities to solve ahead of this.


Dave

It's about discussing possible changes to vary the player base; there are several we want to discuss so I can get an idea about the time for each one and which can be done separately. I did say in the first idea that this isn't a tomorrow thing as I will need time to work it all out

Jujoh wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 7:50 am

GM-crowfan65 wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 3:10 am

Tech and Power gaps removed or allowable gap increased

Tech and power diminishing returns removed or allowable gap increased

It is likely that the gap will be a flat cap in the first instance, say four levels with a view at monitoring and tweaking

I don't get what you are saying here

If the primary is higher than tech or power, then there is a penalty. Removing this will allow people to train differently.

If tech/strength is higher than primary then you don't get the full value of it.

I think the result of variably trained players would only be temporary from this.

Whilst there won't be a cap, managers will work out an optimum benchmark and most players will end up moulded accordingly (which is supposedly what has led to so many similar players).

MrMoose wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 9:26 am

I think the result of variably trained players would only be temporary from this.

Whilst there won't be a cap, managers will work out an optimum benchmark and most players will end up moulded accordingly (which is supposedly what has led to so many similar players).

I agree it would probably have minimal impact on its own, but it could work very well with other ideas if implemented. For example, if talents are trainable and have more variety, you might see managers train tech more heavily on an opener and power more heavily on a finisher.

DangerDave wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 9:03 am

So what is the problem you are trying to solve here?

Are you suggesting that bowlers who have say ordinary batting but high tech - eg exceptional or world class bat too well? Sure massively higher tech does help.... but is it really an issue? I don't see bowlers scoring loads of runs and at most it seems to add a batting summary level (obviously this depends on experience and other skills too).

All this will do is make it more important to have all rounders in your side since straight bowlers will likely get out earlier.

I would have thought that there are many other priorities to solve ahead of this.


Dave

It's the opposite. Currently there is a limit on how much of a gap you can have between primary, tech and power before you don't get any more benefit. If a player has ordinary batting but world class tech, then they are treated as if they only have reasonable (?) tech. Conversely, if a player has high batting but low tech or power, their performance takes a significant hit. Crowfan is proposing decreasing or removing this effect, which would allow for more varied training rather than forcing everyone to keep all their players' important skills within a couple of levels of each other. It would hopefully lead to more diverse players and management choices.

I think that's important to remember, any one of these changes will have little effect individually, but when combined with them all, is when we will see more variation

MrMoose wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 9:26 am

I think the result of variably trained players would only be temporary from this.

Whilst there won't be a cap, managers will work out an optimum benchmark and most players will end up moulded accordingly (which is supposedly what has led to so many similar players).

I can tell you already that I would have a different target skill set for my 1-5 batters. I will be all tech no power (but will bat 5 in T20) 2 will be slightly more tech than power, 3 and 4 will be equal, 5 will be way more power than tech and will open on T20

I'm ready for this let's go.

I don't know about bowlers, but I think I would definitely train some bowling types to be more wickets takers and others to be more economical.

Like fast bowlers can have no tech but all power, mediums can have no power and just bowl all maidens.

DangerDave wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 9:03 am

So what is the problem you are trying to solve here?

Are you suggesting that bowlers who have say ordinary batting but high tech - eg exceptional or world class bat too well? Sure massively higher tech does help.... but is it really an issue? I don't see bowlers scoring loads of runs and at most it seems to add a batting summary level (obviously this depends on experience and other skills too).

All this will do is make it more important to have all rounders in your side since straight bowlers will likely get out earlier.

I would have thought that there are many other priorities to solve ahead of this.


Dave

The problem that they are trying to solve is the generic player builds. Every player is pretty much trained the same - keep primary and technique about the same, train power at 24.

Would be interesting to know what priorities you would have above this.

If I was developer, outside of essential maintenance I would probably have this as my number 2 priority. The 21-24 issue would be my number one.

MrMoose wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 02, 2025 9:26 am

I think the result of variably trained players would only be temporary from this.

Whilst there won't be a cap, managers will work out an optimum benchmark and most players will end up moulded accordingly (which is supposedly what has led to so many similar players).

If done properly ..

The goal should be that people want to train different players - there should be no optimal build. You might want to develop different skills for an opener to a finisher. There are four skills to play with primary, technique, strength and endurance - you should be able to use those skills to create different types of players useful in different conditions. It would make sense if this combined with talents - if you have bouncer you need more strength, swing might require more technique.

Ideally ... this would be combined with changing the way training works so you aren't penalised for training power as a teenager.

I think the summaries are part of the problem. Not really sure why the game needs them.