Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CC20 Review

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Sureshot Anything?

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi,

      There's a lot of interesting feedback here. Player development itself it quite well balanced I think. We have several different types of players who will improve at different stages of their careers. Some have a flat curve, some improve very sharply and some get slightly worse after looking good to start with. There's more we could do with that, but it's certainly improved over the years from the very predictable trends we sued to have. Ability changes are influenced by training (particularly technique) and form. I'm not sure how much detail I should give, as I want people to play the game assuming it mirrors real life and, if it doesn't, improve the engine rather than explain the algorithm.

      Something that is a big issue identified here is that young players in the initial database don't often become stars (unless they are well rated to start with). I think this is a really good point and one we could improved. Obviously everyone will have very difference opinions on which of these players have the most potential. One thing we've looked into is using real 2nd team scores to rate players. This data isn't so easy to obtain but it would be a good start. Another option would be to get more fan ratings for the players.

      On the game engine. It think we've made major strides with the realism this year. There's still some tweaking to be done with the max aggression level which I'll be working on next. There's also a list of suggestions for minor improvements I'll take another look at. Time has been pretty tight over the last few weeks. We had a very hard time getting the Android game released and then I've had to take time out for childcare after not seeing much of my family for months. Hoping to get some more time over the next few weeks.

      Thanks again for all the great feedback and suggestions.

      Chris

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chris Child View Post
        Hi,

        There's a lot of interesting feedback here. Player development itself it quite well balanced I think. We have several different types of players who will improve at different stages of their careers. Some have a flat curve, some improve very sharply and some get slightly worse after looking good to start with. There's more we could do with that, but it's certainly improved over the years from the very predictable trends we sued to have. Ability changes are influenced by training (particularly technique) and form. I'm not sure how much detail I should give, as I want people to play the game assuming it mirrors real life and, if it doesn't, improve the engine rather than explain the algorithm.

        Chris
        Chris Child I understand the reluctance to explain the algorithm but it feels like if we want to mirror real life in that case, we need more data to track the development of players, or just their general ability. For example a few things such as:
        • Coach feedback - Right now it's not very clear what each technique training actually improves, and the relatively rare messages you receive about successful training isn't particularly informative either. Furthermore, you'd expect coaches to provide feedback if they are developing naturally and getting noticeably better even if they haven't been assigned specific coaching.
        • 2nd XI stats - there are a lot of good stats, but form can really mask overall ability. You don't get the "smell test" of are they a flat track bully who will struggle with a step up in quality which in real life observing an innings would provide
        I'm sure there would be other, possibly even better information we could use to mirror real life scouting of players more, but that's just some examples of suggestions we could have.
        Last edited by Impirion; 09-03-2020, 08:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chris Child View Post
          Hi,

          There's a lot of interesting feedback here. Player development itself it quite well balanced I think. We have several different types of players who will improve at different stages of their careers. Some have a flat curve, some improve very sharply and some get slightly worse after looking good to start with. There's more we could do with that, but it's certainly improved over the years from the very predictable trends we sued to have. Ability changes are influenced by training (particularly technique) and form. I'm not sure how much detail I should give, as I want people to play the game assuming it mirrors real life and, if it doesn't, improve the engine rather than explain the algorithm.

          Something that is a big issue identified here is that young players in the initial database don't often become stars (unless they are well rated to start with). I think this is a really good point and one we could improved. Obviously everyone will have very difference opinions on which of these players have the most potential. One thing we've looked into is using real 2nd team scores to rate players. This data isn't so easy to obtain but it would be a good start. Another option would be to get more fan ratings for the players.

          On the game engine. It think we've made major strides with the realism this year. There's still some tweaking to be done with the max aggression level which I'll be working on next. There's also a list of suggestions for minor improvements I'll take another look at. Time has been pretty tight over the last few weeks. We had a very hard time getting the Android game released and then I've had to take time out for childcare after not seeing much of my family for months. Hoping to get some more time over the next few weeks.

          Thanks again for all the great feedback and suggestions.

          Chris
          Thanks for that reply Chris. I do appreciate that and pleased to hear you were able to take some time out with your family during these times. I've certainly enjoyed having CC to help me through some of the boredom of lockdown! It's a great game but young player development remains a major issue for me.

          I hear what you're saying about young players developing on different curves but I'm genuinly just not seeing it in game. I've played multiple saves up to say the five year mark (and beyond) and when you peruse the County sides at this point qlmost all the players who started the game aged 18-22 without an already high rating are either uncontracted and on the scrap heap or still in squads but with very few or no appearances to their name. Towards the end of each season every county gets 1 or 2 regens who straight away are better than these young players and push them straight to the bottom of the pile whilst they waltz into the first XI. I see this every save. I feel like regen spawn ability should be nerfed, they should spawn with similar abilities to the real life young players and instant good one's should be exceptions not the norm.

          And real youth players need to develop quicker, breaking through in 6 to 18 months rather than...never basically. It's so immersion breaking right now. Just look at the players breaking through in real life this season like Callum Taylor with his century for Glamorgan or Charlie Thurston at Northants, players like these just do nothing in game. England under 19 internationals like Ben Charlesworth at Gloucestershire just do nothing and remain dreadful long into the future.

          The only other point is please fix the County budgets, they're all over the place at the moment.

          Comment


          • #20
            Chris Child I've been having a think about this and think it may boil down to 4 issues and interested in your thoughts about them. You're assertion that young players do improve has led me to rethink a lot about this.

            1. Regens and real young players aren't created equally. I think this is undeniably true but regens are promoted with a 'ready to try in the first team' message whereas as real youth players are added when they get a pro contract so maybe the gap is by design? Or maybe real young players are rated too low hence they take too long to catch up or break into the side? I'm guessing Sureshot may be able to shed some light?

            2. Real youth players develop slowly. I take tour point that they do develop and there is a model governing how this happens but I think it takes too long for most of these players to develop in general and many are released before they get into sides.

            3. Teams do not rotate their sides enough and don't give young players chances. I'm assuming that exposure to first team cricket speeds up development (if it doesn't then it should) so perhaps the AI should blood more young players and this facet of development should again be tweaked to really help them develop into regulars. Bloated county squad sizes may impact this as well given in game counties will often have 30 or more players contracted.

            I apologise for banging on about this, I do really love the game and have to be honest in that I find in each save I feel a little disheartened when I reach the end of the first season and see most teams containing one or both of their newly generated regens when some real life prospects remain unused with desperately poor second XI stats. Similarly a lot of the stories in the forum section will see regens accumulated because good ones are a bit too easy to find and the real life young players culled asap to make room (just as the AI does too).
            Last edited by Lynx54321; 09-06-2020, 09:23 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              It'll be nice to get a return on investment from real life young players. At the moment it seems you can give them 20+ games across formats as well as coaching but they'll end up getting replaced by some regen sooner or later. Think we're getting a bit bogged down in trying to find IRL potential - it's a game, and the fact is that if an IRL player plays games and has coaching they should improve and I've never really seen that happen.While it's fun picking up three or four random players at the start of the second season and bringing them through, it does get frustrating seeing all the IRL players get nowhere. I get that some make it and some don't (I'm Kent and for every Crawley/Bell Drummond there's a Ball/Cowdrey) but a larger percentage of those that do would be nice.


              Radical thought is that if the real life players do improve at a slower rate (Prem Sisyonda? That Glamorgan spinner in another thread) then maybe have the option to disable regens for X amount of seasons?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FineLegatron View Post
                It'll be nice to get a return on investment from real life young players. At the moment it seems you can give them 20+ games across formats as well as coaching but they'll end up getting replaced by some regen sooner or later. Think we're getting a bit bogged down in trying to find IRL potential - it's a game, and the fact is that if an IRL player plays games and has coaching they should improve and I've never really seen that happen.While it's fun picking up three or four random players at the start of the second season and bringing them through, it does get frustrating seeing all the IRL players get nowhere. I get that some make it and some don't (I'm Kent and for every Crawley/Bell Drummond there's a Ball/Cowdrey) but a larger percentage of those that do would be nice.


                Radical thought is that if the real life players do improve at a slower rate (Prem Sisyonda? That Glamorgan spinner in another thread) then maybe have the option to disable regens for X amount of seasons?
                Thanks for this mate. Very much echo your thoughts and hope Chris Child reads your post.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Wow! FineLegatron what a wonderful idea! Disabling regens for 5 years as a separate option will solve all the issues, no doubt. I'm not sure how it will affect the AI selection but disabling that particular aspect in the coding for 5 years actually may not crash the game as there are more than enough players in the database across all teams & formats to last for at least 5 years I'm sure.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ruby23 View Post
                    Wow! FineLegatron what a wonderful idea! Disabling regens for 5 years as a separate option will solve all the issues, no doubt. I'm not sure how it will affect the AI selection but disabling that particular aspect in the coding for 5 years actually may not crash the game as there are more than enough players in the database across all teams & formats to last for at least 5 years I'm sure.
                    You seem to know more than me but I think if every county had ten or so youth players waiting to be picked it'll be fine for about three seasons. May need a bit more research to get them in but if the idea is that they improve in game rather than IRL assumed potential, the amount of research needed will be DOB and a "left handed bat, might be good" kind of mentality. Then the game and user takes care of them from there.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Had some more thoughts on this. Chris Child Sureshot

                      I believe currently there are two perceived issues and I have suggested solutions for both.

                      1. The development of real life young prospects.

                      2. Regens

                      1. Regarding the first point I hear your explanation that there is a detailed model already in place affecting how young players develop. Without any data available to myself on actual young player current or potential ability from the database I can only summise that perhaps some of the young players in game are set very low. My suggestion therefore would be that we use a combination of player feedback, second XI/youth stats and pure randomness to look at the current and potential abilities of real life young players to ensure they can be developed and do develop into first team players.

                      As an example this season Somerset gave 5 youth players new contracts. Will Smeed, Sam Young, Lewis Goldworthy, Kasey Alridge and Ned Leonard. All are England under-19 players and Somerset's academy has recently churned out the likes of the Overton brothers, Dom Bess, Tom Banton, Tom Lammonby, Tom Abell and the list goes on. We can therefore assume that all 5 should have their potential set reasonably high.

                      In reality this season (so far) Will Smeed has burst onto the scene with a t20 fifty in his second game, Lewis Goldsworthy has been part of travelling squads and the other 3 have not been seen. Seems fair then in game we should be looking at 1 or 2 young players developing each season at a succesful county like Somerset. At a county with a lesser academy, for instance Derbyshire perhaps this should be more like 0-1. With the Somerset lads I'd suggest they should be rated:

                      Smeed: Not first choice but enough current ability that if there is an injury or his development goes well that he's breaking into the first team before the end of the first season. Potential wise he should have a shot of being an England player one day, because why not? Some of these players may well play for England and the art of player database management is capturing this.

                      Goldsworthy: Lots of hype around him, should be third best spinner at the County behind Leach and Bess with enough potential to be breaking into the first team by the end of the first season or beginning of the second.

                      Aldridge/Young/Leonard: More unknown quantities, all are England under-19 players so should not be a million miles from the first team but potential should be pretty random with maybe one breaking through in the second season and the others in the third with a risk they don't fulfill potential and average the wrong side of 30/end up solid players in D2.

                      Somerset is easy for me because they're my county but you can see how you can do the same for any county and even without knowledge of their young players you can apply the same general rule to ensure some break through reasonably early, some later and some not at all. For instance Gloucestershrie have Ben Charlesworth, Tom Price, Ollie Price, Greg Willows, Dom Goodman, Harry Hankins and George Drissell as young players.

                      Ben Charlesworth is the only one I know about. Massive hype around him, England under 19 international and already a smattering of County 50s at age 19. This guy should have a very strong chance of developing into a strong first team county player within the first season or two of the game because he's already a regular in their line ups. The others? I don't know much about any of them. They'd all be random with a reasonable chance 1 or 2 break through over the first couple seasons and the others fade out. Of course a player choosing to invest in the coaching budget and set them all on technique coaching should have a chance of seeing a better ratio.

                      As it stands in game I can tell you that every single season Willows will get a few games as they don't have many strong openers which feels about right for him. The others (including Charlesworth) will be released at some point with no games played unless they get a One Day Cup game if Gloucestershire have lost a lot of players to the Hundred. At Somerset Young will get a few games whilst Alridge and Goldsworthy will disappear.

                      2. Moving onto regens, I think this issue can be split into two seperate things.

                      1. Regens spawn at a high level of ability beyond that of the real life young players. It feels like this is deliberate but again I think they should be spawning similar to real life youth players in the model suggested above. If you take 5 random regens: 1 should be just about ready to go in your first team, 1 should be worth hanging onto for sure as he'll be alright next season especially if coached, the other 2 or 3 should be more risky and may turn out ok with coaching or may be duds. Of course everynow or then you'd get one that's really special but this should be rare.

                      As it stands I feel you generally get 2 like clockwork ready to go straight into your first team. And at the end of the season it's very easy to pick up as many good regens as you need. There should be more reward for using technique coaching on a regen and sticking with them rather than just lazily finding the instant winners.

                      2. There are far too many regens. So it seems at the start of the season there are a wedge of regens you or the AI can pick up in the first contract window then near the end of the season each County will have up to 2 more generated so lets call it about 30 (though it seems 2 is far, far more common than 1 so may be much higher). It then also seems a few more appear in the youth section when you get to the end of season contracts window. Over 3 seasons then it's no exageration to say there will have been 100 (or more) new players inserted into the game world. Now of course not all will be good but coupled with the above point most counties feel very regen heavy. I recently played a save with Southampton in the Hundred and come the end of the third season it felt like almost every available player was a regen.

                      Ideally I think the best solution here would be to tie regen generation to player retirement/uncontracted player removal so that the overall number of "live" players stays relatively consistent and doesn't go through the roof. The reality is the game doesn't have detailed second XI and youth sides like Football Manager (and I don't think I'd want that level of detail) so the churn of generated players is excessive and I think limiting it would go a long way. It may also be worth looking at bringing in considerations like at the point of regen generation looking at current squads levels of under 23 players, existing regens and squad numbers to govern whether they even get any players added at all. Later in the game as more players have aged and more retire more may need to be generated but early on the flood of regens is too strong in my opinion.

                      To summarise these are just my thoughts. Some players like to quickly rebuild their squad with regens and enjoy this process. At the moment though I just don't feel like the game rewards efforts to bring through or develop real life young players, and neither does it reward the same for regens. You don't need to look for potentially good regens who are worth coaching and bringing on, just sign the best ones who are ready to go. I'd love to play a save where I see Somerset have foolishly released Will Smeed after the first season and I can snap him up and unleash him on D2 attacks rather than looking for a regen who I can tell from his salary demands will comfortably come in and average 40 plus. I'd love to see Tom Price get released by Gloucestershire and decide that he's worth a gamble and worth sticking on technique coaching for a season to see if he comes good because I note his second XI average this season was higher than his career second XI average.

                      I'd love to get a reply on this Chris, and if so I'm happy to stop banging on about it as there probably isn't much more I can say that I haven't said on player development. One other suggestion I'd have that would help would be setting County financial budgets to be more accurate, seems like they're currently based on current squad size which skews them and makes controlling a county with a big squad easier than it should be as you can release your backup players for extra cash quite easily when you start off with 30 players. In Football manager you have the choice to start as moneybags Man City or debt ridden Bolton Wanderers for very different challenges. In CC this should be a similar contrast between Surrey and Warwickshire when compared with Gloucestershire or Northants however existing budgets are skewing it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What did I say about Lewis Goldsworthy above...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Sureshot I've rated the youth players at several counties I've been playing as/researched. Using a scale of how they should turn out:

                          1 - Unbelievable prospect. 50+ with bat. Sub 20 with the ball.

                          2 - Top prospect, good county maybe even England standard. Average with the bat in the 40s or mid 20s with the ball. 45k+ salary.

                          3 - Solid county level prospect, averages the right side of 30 with bat and/or ball. 30-45k salary.

                          4 - Fringe county player. Mid 20s with bat, mid 30s with ball. 24-30k salary.

                          5 - Second XI standard. Sub 20, 40 plus. 18-24k salary.

                          I'd imagine anyone in a category has an 80% chance of settling at that level with 10% chance the one above or below. Happy to expand on my reasoning for each player but generally overlooked at second team averages, England under 19 recognition, 'hype' or word of mouth and attempted to overlay a realistic level of balance and randomness.

                          Somerset (Great academy)

                          Smeed - 2
                          Goldsworthy - 2
                          Aldridge - 3
                          Leonard - 2 or 3
                          Green - 3 or 4
                          Sale - 3 or 4
                          Young - 3 or 4

                          Gloucestershire (Average academy)

                          Charlesworth - 2
                          T.Price - 3
                          Willows - 3 or 4
                          O.Price - 4 or 5
                          Goodman - 4 or 5
                          H.Hankins - 4 or 5
                          G.Drissell - 4

                          Derbyshire (Poor academy)

                          Dal - 3 or 4
                          Priestley - 4 or 5
                          Conners - 3
                          Aitchinson - 2 or 3
                          Cohen - 3

                          Leicestershire (Good academy)

                          Dearden - 4
                          Swindells - 3
                          S.Evans - 3
                          A.Evans - 3 or 4
                          Bowley - 3 or 4
                          Mike - 3

                          Glamorgan (Poor but prolific academy)

                          Cooke - 3 or 4
                          Carlson - 3 or 4
                          Horton - 2, 3 or 4
                          Taylor - 3
                          Walker - 3
                          Carey - 3
                          Sisidoya - 3
                          Bull - 5
                          Brown- 5

                          Northants

                          Thurston - 2 or 3
                          Gay - 2 or 3
                          Gouldstone - 2 or 3
                          Glover - 3
                          Sole - 3 or 4
                          Zaib - 3 or 4

                          Fans of the counties may have more accurate opinions!
                          Last edited by Lynx54321; Yesterday, 08:58 AM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X