[IDEA] Technique and Power Penalties

[Mike778]

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.

Ideally as well it isn't just a case of attacking or defensive. Endurance should be factor. You have primary, technique and power. Should be able to get more than just attacking or defensive.

[MrMoose]

Call me skeptical but not convinced the ME is in a position to translate these nuances (if it is then the change is a good one).

[GM-crowfan65]

Obviously will need testing but I dont believe the code itself is difficult for this one

[DangerDave]

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.

I know.

But I would look at changing how the ME works rather than trying to split tech. In fact I doubt you will get much player variety from splitting tech. If you want aggressive bats who score quickly but are prone to getting out, then make batting and power drive that. Want to have less chance of getting out then high tech will do that. At the moment, I don't think the ME allows for a sufficient difference. That said, doing this will likely mean the U20s will need to have a different ME as power is much lower. Of course the best players will still be WC WC WC so there will still be an optimum build.

In order to develop different builds, I think the game will need a radical change to how it works - I am not sure that would be advisable.


Dave

[DangerDave]

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

I don't disagree but the current ME runs using summaries. IMO that is the main problem. If it ran using primary, tech and power separately, the game would differentiate players more

[Jujoh]

What Dave said. And what Dave said before that.

[Mike778]

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.

I know.

But I would look at changing how the ME works rather than trying to split tech. In fact I doubt you will get much player variety from splitting tech. If you want aggressive bats who score quickly but are prone to getting out, then make batting and power drive that. Want to have less chance of getting out then high tech will do that. At the moment, I don't think the ME allows for a sufficient difference. That said, doing this will likely mean the U20s will need to have a different ME as power is much lower. Of course the best players will still be WC WC WC so there will still be an optimum build.

In order to develop different builds, I think the game will need a radical change to how it works - I am not sure that would be advisable.


Dave

Re splitting technique.

I think the issue is that part of encouraging diverse players is you need to remove the penalty for not having balanced players. There is no point training technique heavy players if you get penlised for a big gap between primary and technique.

But if you remove the penalty then you create a problem with all rounders who will all be very tech heavy compared to their batting.

So the only way roumd that is to separate out bat and bowl technique.

Re the ME, needs crow really to say how the ME would handle diverse players and what can be done to support it.

[MrMoose]

Agree completely with Dave but Crow knows the ME better than anyone but guess no harm in testing it.

[GA-James018]

Just because these ideas are being brought up doesn't mean the ME isn't an ongoing point of discussion as well. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. There are a few points worth noting, though:

1. Overhauling the ME to the degree some people are asking - for example, removing summaries - would take an extremely long time and require professional expertise. We'd basically be rebuilding it from the ground up, and a game of cricket is so complex with so many variables that it's no easy task. For all the criticism of FTP's ME, it is still far and away the best simulator of actual cricket matches that I've come across. Every other online game or simulator has had much more blindingly obvious issues. There's a real risk that a rewrite might be a lot of effort only to produce something objectively worse.

2. The alternative is to maintain the current structure of the ME but make smaller tweaks, like making poor keepers perform worse in general. That's the approach we've been taking and you can look back at the season-by-season changes for examples. This is much more doable but the issue is everyone has a different opinion on what a realistic cricket game looks like, and in some cases are affected by confirmation bias (i.e. they think X is an issue, so are more likely to notice every time X happens and think it happens all the time when in fact it's very rare). Unintended consequences are also a potential problem - we could make a tweak that solves one issue but causes another.

3. Regardless of which approach is taken, the changes we're talking about will impact the ME's output anyway. For example, reducing or removing tech and power penalties could solve some of the issues people dislike about the ME. Or they could make them worse, we don't know. Either way, it makes sense to talk about other changes first and see which one(s) are worth making - assuming any are made at all, obviously - before seeing how the ME functions after those changes and thinking about what to do with the ME then.

[Turbz]

Still a significant issue is there is no defined runs distribution. Sure more power is higher attack, but that means a greater chance at more 2s and 3s rather than dots and 1s, or just more scoring opportunities not necessarily 4s and 6s. Dreadful power bats hit spinners for 6, situation dictates a lot more than skillset.
Skills to summary is probably many to 1, and summaries don't provide that variation.

With splitting tech, you will not see tailenders with high tech unless speeds are increased, won't add to the variation. Probably only compromises previous training, but won't be the first.

Run outs are still an issue as well.
No balls and wides are not related to technique or bowler skill.
Keeping as well.

[GM-crowfan65]

Given tailenders don't really have high tech now, especially with the caps and diminishing returns, it's the same as their strength.
And visually, it can be misleading, especially for people who may not read the game rules or partake in chat here or in Discord.
Splitting tech won't change variation very much on its own, but as I have said a few times, a combination of these things will.
Or we pretend nothing can be done and sit on our hands.

[DangerDave]

It is not sitting on your hands. It is debating what makes sense to do.

If the goal is:

to develop more viable variable players

.... then

the solution is to change how the ME works. I agree that may lead to a conclusion that it can't be done. The issue is at the moment everyone is incentivised to train to maximise summary since the ME runs off of summaries. Therefore training in a way that doesn't maximise summary is going to make a worse player (or at least a less good one). This will ultimately lead to the position we currently have with balanced players.

To really achieve more than one set of "good" players, you need to have the ME use different variables. Unless you do that, it is a waste of effort IMO. Yes, it isn't a waste of effort to tinker and make bad keepers or bad bowlers worse; that is fine. But unless the ME changes, your goal to have several viable ways of training players will not be met.

I know nothing of how the ME works from a coding perspective - however, would it be possible to have several "batting" summaries (eg power runs, pushing into gaps, defensive) - that way player development will be different for the role envisaged by the coach...... although I still suspect that most will be developed in a similar way.


Dave

[GM-crowfan65]

The problem is that there is more than one way to get the same summary, but people are reluctant to try it.

[MrMoose]

The problem is that there is more than one way to get the same summary, but people are reluctant to try it.

Reluctant? Or too heavily restricted by the gap penalties?

[Fgrenyu]

The problem is that there is more than one way to get the same summary, but people are reluctant to try it.

Reluctant? Or too heavily restricted by the gap penalties?

Not even that. It's getting the best possible summary for the lowest level wage.