Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 Biased?

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

  • 2012 Biased?

    Have played this game since first release, but only bought 2012 a week ago on ipad. Started as England skipper and destroyed SA, with absolute ease. Hmmm, now that shouldn't happen against the top nation in the world. So I switched and started a new game as SA. Again, struggled against England and lost, with Bopara (yes, that below average test player) scoring big hundreds against the best bowling attack. Really? Come on, what's going on?

    So I thought, okay, it must be England being very good and unbeatable. Carried on into NZ series, and still SA struggled. Morkel and Steyn incapable of taking wickets, Kallis struggling to get to 30 runs. Even funnier, NZ easily getting past 400 every time at a crazy run rate, Watling scoring big hundreds as opener and even Ryder playing like a test veteran. Even Franklyn and Bracewell getting tons. Really?

    My conclusion is that the SA team have been dampened down skills wise to help keep England at top of pile and winning. Has this been done because you need to get sales up? Totally ruined it for me with 2012, only worth playing county and forgetting internationals. I'd rather earn a tough series win against SA than watch them perform like Bangladesh!!

  • #2
    I don't think the game is biased.. When the game was made a year ago, ENGLAND were no.1 in the world, not South Africa! I find England and South Africa fairly similar in quality - I'm sure South Africa will be the better team in the 2013 game - especially the bowling attack. Steyn and Philander have much better Strike rates and averages than Anderson and co, whilst Morne Morkel has an average and strike rate closer to Anderson's.

    England are a quality team anyway - they beat India in India. As a South African, I hope we can do the same next time, but it is always tough in India!

    As the game develops it is easier to win when managing England and a county as it is easier to identify the top regens. At the start of the 2012 northern hemisphere season the balance is about right, bearing in mind SA had not yet played England.

    Comment


    • #3
      Graham, can't agree with you. England went to SA and burgled a draw where we were dominated in three of the four tests, and only thanks to some very strange selection decisions did we escape. Talk about the SA bowling attack only being good once they got to England ... sorry, bowling Australia out for 47 with Philander destroying them? How easily we forget. Also, we were whitewashed by Pakistan 3-0, and lost a series in the Windies against a team that would struggle in county cricket. We only got to number one because we had a nice run against teams that refused to try and play against us. Everyone knew deep down that we hadn't really showed ourselves to be a true number one, and so it proved when SA came to our shores. For me, this game is biased against SA, it is ridiculous when Steyn can't take wickets yet pie chucker Broad rises to the top of the rankings. Only Anderson out of England's bowlers is good in real life, yet his average is still over 30!! Come on, they can easily bring out an update to redress the balance and make the game right. As it stands, it is just awful to play at the moment as England captain because I'm not challenged at all, and that sucks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Anderson averaged 24 over the last 3 years which although isn't as good as Steyn or Philander, is very good. Anderson's overall average (like Morkel's) is less flattering courtesy of an inconsistent early career. I also find Kallis a little below par in the game - perhaps he can be improved and also made more injury prone?

        I agree Broad is too good in the game. In real life he is terrible or ordinary for 6 or 7 tests then amazing for 3, then poor again etc!

        Amla, Steyn and Philander are pretty amazing in my game! The "Proteas of the future" thread should ensure the depth in talent is accurate in the next game.

        I think Nigel and Chris are committed to accuracy and I am sure there is no vendetta against SA. I cannot wait for the new game!

        Comment


        • #5
          I think I need to side with Graham on this one- I've played 2012 for many, many hours, with all teams. I always seem to comfortably beat everyone with South Africa and struggle with England (especially in ODI and T20).

          I will agree however some players aren't quite rated accordingly, Broad for one, Michael Clarke is another one, then there's the flip side with the overrated ones. I can only trust Nigel and Chris will address this for 2013.

          Keep in mind that every Save is a new generated save, so no two saves will be same- one save may have Bopara and England dominating, the next one could have Warner and Australia dominating and England struggling.
          That's the beauty of ICC, it has that unpredictability attached to it that we only see in reality.

          Art imitating life.
          The Cult Of Personality

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah, i actually know the stats and it's a matter of fact that guys like Duminy, De Villiers, Smith are rated much higher than Amla in the game. Infact even Warner has a much higher rating than Amla. It's shocking, makes you wonder whether the developers had been living under a rock that previous year. That's not even the worst of it. There isn't a single Aus bat who played the previous year with a rating lower than Michael Clarke. Infact, there isnt a single specialist batsman that played test cricket the previous year (2011) in the entire game with a lower ratting than Clarke. What makes this even more unacceptable is the fact that Clarke had scored 1167runs@ 68.65 with a highest of 329 the year before.
            It doesnt end here. Dhoni is very underrated and there are many Indian players who have achieved nothing in real cricket who have ratings as high as and beyond even Cook. I'm not sure where the developers get their information from but i'm so glad there are logical people out there who have given us the ability to adjust these quite nonsensical ratings.
            As far as bolwers go Broad is rated slightly better than Anderson and Finn while Swann isnt even in the picture. For Aus Pattison and Siddle are highly overrated and again, who we see and could see back then as the best in the world are very poorly rated Eg: Ajmal.
            Anyway i could go on forever. There are countless more inexcusable errors. The only question I have is, who rates the players? Wouldn't it be wise to have someone knowledgeable about the game because from the looks of it, whoever did it last year really can't tell class when it's staring him in the face

            Comment


            • #7
              I find Amla amazing so disagree with you there - I also think you are being harsh on the creators of the game. How do you know a player's rating anyway? Surely it varies from save to save and there must be several "attributes" which are hidden, not just a raw ability rating.
              Last edited by Graham_5000; 06-02-2013, 07:38 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I wouldn't make such a bold statement and call it a "matter of fact" if i was just pulling information out of thin air. I don't mean to sound rude but what you "think" is irrelevant. The fact is that the information i have provided is accurate and regardless of your views, they will always remain a fact. How i know is also irrelevant.
                Yes there are other attributes such as preferences but the there are 2 batting ability values which play the largest roles by far. One is their actual ability and the other is their potential, as in in how good they could possibly be in their best form. The best players have a rating of 1600-1800. Amla is 1400. Clarke is 1200, which is the same as Khawaja and Hughes. Warner is 1600, Ponting is 1600, even Watson is 1400. You say i'm being harsh but when the game was created Clarke had done some amazing things already. How did the developers decided that Clarke is rated lower than almost all specialist batsman in test cricket?!?! There's a reason the AI doesn't auto select him when you play as a team other than Aus. There are Indian players who arent even considered for national selection in real life with ratings between 1600-1800. Dean Brownlie and Kane Williamson are rated higher than Clarke and Amla. Even B Nash(WI) and Morgan(Eng) are rated higher than Clarke!!!
                If Amla is doing amazing it's because his rating is still "decent" (1400) for a normal player so when he's in form ofcourse he'll make some runs. But the ability assigned to him is unacceptable.
                Also it doesn't vary from save to save. Their ability will always remain as it is. Only how well they perform varies ie- Their form.
                Ps: Pattison is rated better as a bowler than Styen.....How did the developers come that conclusion? Based on what?
                The reason I sound harsh on the developers is simply because of their gross miscalculations. Being a little off is acceptable, but such blatant errors make you seriously question the knowledge of the people rating these players
                Last edited by nids; 06-03-2013, 02:10 PM. Reason: additional info

                Comment


                • #9
                  http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/

                  Surely the rankings above combined with overall stats determine ability?

                  Nids, if you know all the player abilities, why not publish the top 20 ranked bowlers and batsmen, then we can have more information? I doubt that Pattinson is better than Steyn?!

                  Are there not other ability numbers for bowlers and batsmen e.g. Economy rating for bowlers? Some bowlers take lots of wickets but go for runs.

                  Maybe either an editor (with block of edited saves for online game) or a ranking list of players should be published by the makers alongside ICC 2013? If what you say is true then I am shocked.

                  Stats and official rankings should be used together to determine abilities. Young players could perhaps be given a more random potential range. Eg a player who is 25 could be given a potential ranking that is random between a narrow band of numbers, whereas a 20 year old would get a much wider band? I am rambling now sorry.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/

                    Surely the rankings above combined with overall stats determine ability? I doubt Pattinson is better than Steyn!

                    Nids, if you know all the player abilities, why not publish the top 20 ranked bowlers and batsmen, then we can have more information?

                    Are there not other ability numbers for bowlers and batsmen e.g. Economy rating for bowlers? Some bowlers take lots of wickets but go for runs.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sure not a problem, i'll have to go through all the players to get you the best which will take me about an hour so I'll do it once i get home. Expect it in a couple hours. If you want I could provide the top 10 for each test nation. That would probably be more useful for you and it would actually be easier for me
                      Also yes you're correct. As far as bowlers go there are many values, eg: Accuracy Level and potential. Aggression level and potential. Overall ability level and potantial. Bowling Type and ofcourse bowling economy.
                      As far as how the ratings are decided by the developers goes......well i have no idea to be honest. That's the same question I'm asking because there seems to be no logical process following it. It's like whoever is deciding what the players should be rated is allowing their personal opinion to take precedence over actual fact.
                      No doubt Pattison isn't as good as Steyn. The mans a proven legend. Pattison is good but has an very very long way to go before you can even consider saying his name in the same sentence as Steyn yet in the game he is certainly rated better. Granted it's not by much, but pattison is still better rated in the game. I'm not sure how the developers figured that?!?!
                      Last edited by nids; 06-03-2013, 04:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There'll be no posting of ratings on the forum, we keep them hidden in the game for a reason (and yes, I'm perfectly aware what you think that reason will be). Consider that a final warning on the matter.

                        No, we don't nerf SA international players to make England the best. With your attitude, I'm not interested in answering the rest.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sorry if you feel badly towards my attitude. My intention isn't to offend you. Also that's not a problem, I won't post anything. I wasn't aware it was something you didn't want people to know. Also the only reason I'm talking about it now despite being aware of this for a long time is because the new version is due shortly and 2012 is on it's way out. But if it's an issue then don't worry, i won't post anything about it anymore. As far as why you do it, well i believe the reason is for greater realism and allowing people to experiment and figure out their best squads themselves with which I completely understand and agree.
                          I also don't think you nerf SA players to make Eng better. One of the more inaccurate ratings is Clarke and he's not South African . The thing is it's frustrating when such obvious errors are made because I value my time and money of course. If i'm going to spend both on the game then I believe I have a right to voice my opinion, be it good or bad. And in particular when easily avoidable errors are made. Spending hours/days on the game with certain players who are proven legends just to find out they don't even have a half decent rating and shouldn't have been in the team in the first place is a bit of a bummer.
                          It's bad because even I could fix that myself and I'll do it for free!! It would only take me a couple hours and make the playing experience so much better, so why not put in that little bit extra??
                          Last edited by nids; 06-03-2013, 10:16 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You were a little obnoxious towards the makers and dismissive of my post! Not to worry though as I can tell you didn't mean to cause offence.

                            In my 2015 Somerset game, SA are top with Steyn, Philander and Morkel in the top 8 bowlers and Amla, Smith and de Villers in the top 7 batsmen! To me this suggests that SA are dominant in the short-medium term. This is despite the fact that England were number one when the game was made. I have never seen the likes of Williamson, James Pattinson etc at the top of the rankings, so perhaps the rating you have access to is for a sub attribute e.g. Aggression, accuracy or leg side shots etc?

                            I have never had access to the ratings so I could be wrong. Personally I wouldn't want to know them anyway, as it would ruin the game a little for me. I wouldn't mind knowing a ranking order of ability for the uncapped SA batsmen and bowlers though in order to aim for greater accuracy along the lines that the Proteas thread is addressing, but I think the thread has addressed most of the over and under rated players.

                            By the way I agree with you with regards Clarke, but you can bring that sort of thing up in the database sticky and I'm sure it would get considered for rectification.

                            I think that people should show a little more respect for the development team. The game is great and constructive criticism is welcomed here (look at the Protea thread for examples of this).

                            Anyway I look forward to playing a new game in the coming months!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nids View Post
                              Sorry if you feel badly towards my attitude. My intention isn't to offend you. Also that's not a problem, I won't post anything. I wasn't aware it was something you didn't want people to know. Also the only reason I'm talking about it now despite being aware of this for a long time is because the new version is due shortly and 2012 is on it's way out. But if it's an issue then don't worry, i won't post anything about it anymore. As far as why you do it, well i believe the reason is for greater realism and allowing people to experiment and figure out their best squads themselves with which I completely understand and agree.
                              I also don't think you nerf SA players to make Eng better. One of the more inaccurate ratings is Clarke and he's not South African . The thing is it's frustrating when such obvious errors are made because I value my time and money of course. If i'm going to spend both on the game then I believe I have a right to voice my opinion, be it good or bad. And in particular when easily avoidable errors are made. Spending hours/days on the game with certain players who are proven legends just to find out they don't even have a half decent rating and shouldn't have been in the team in the first place is a bit of a bummer.
                              It's bad because even I could fix that myself and I'll do it for free!! It would only take me a couple hours and make the playing experience so much better, so why not put in that little bit extra??
                              I agree, you have a right to voice your opinion and that's exactly why we have the forums, we want you to tell us when we've got something wrong. But how that message is put across is very important.

                              Have a look at the South Africa thread, that is exactly what we want. Full of brilliant information and people posting in a helpful manner, ultimately, we all want the same thing. Accuracy. We've made some changes this year which should go another step in removing inaccuracies.

                              We don't have ratings in the game (a part of it's charm, I think), so having them available on the forum would just be confusing. Not to mention, we don't want people assuming the ratings you have access to is to be taken as gospel, because that might not be accurate.

                              We all know how subject to opinion player ratings (to an extent, obviously) are and without carefully controlling it, we could end up in a minefield.

                              We're quite happy for you to use the editor and say, "Sureshot/Chris, do you think x could do with improving/nerfing, he should be more at the level of y?". We'd just rather the numbers aren't brought in to it.

                              Ratings change every year and we're always looking for ways to improve the game, be that through system and process changes or by taking on your feedback. This forum is an awesome resource for us and it improves the game experience for everyone concerned, we just want to ensure the feedback we get is constructive and that everyone is following the same line.

                              Whenever I have a query on a player rating I will run through a few seasons on different saves just to build up my data on that player. If you don't do that, be useful if you did.

                              In fact, I shall be working on the ratings this afternoon whilst watching the ODI.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X