2012 Biased?

[bnd3]

It looks like pitches will be improved according to geographical region..

2013 features include:
"Re-designed and additional stadiums, including different outfield sizes and playing surfaces."

I wish they would improve the SA weather! Some areas in SA are summer rainfall, others have dry summers.

I hope you're right, but I'd taken that quote to mean they were just improving the graphics in the highlights rather than making any substantial real in-game improvements.

[Graham_5000]

I agree in general. However, also after too many hours of playing to count, in nearly every save Australia always dip to one of the worst teams in the world, Stuart Broad is unplayable on any surface, spinners pick up 5 or 6 wickets on day 1 pitches in South Africa and Sri Lanka and Bangladesh become test powerhouses.

It looks like pitches will be improved according to geographical region..

2013 features include:
"Re-designed and additional stadiums, including different outfield sizes and playing surfaces."

I wish they would improve the SA weather! Some areas in SA are summer rainfall, others have dry summers.

[badgercd]

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.

I agree in general. However, also after too many hours of playing to count, in nearly every save Australia always dip to one of the worst teams in the world, Stuart Broad is unplayable on any surface, spinners pick up 5 or 6 wickets on day 1 pitches in South Africa and Sri Lanka and Bangladesh become test powerhouses.

[CharlesDarwini]

sorry that was a bit rude... what i mean to say is.. could you please rate ajmal.. clarke.. amla.. morne morkel.. junaid khan.. mohammed irfan.. ms dhoni.. sangakara .. dilshan..and a few more a bit more highly .. and drop broad... siddle.. jack bird.. butler.. finn.. swann...mitch marsh.. a few unknown indian batsmen.. etc. a bit lower


really sorry for my previous comments..

You guys obviously know better (its your job at the end of the day)

however you may want to take this into context.. not necessarily if you find it stupid :

Talents in the sub-continent(you may not know of.. due to their lack of popularity):

Batsmen:

Umar amin.. very talented with good technique and back in international cricket with good part time medium pace bowling ( avaraged 45 with the bat scoring 767 runs in first class season this year) ( avarage of 35 in first class cricket with the ball in his career at an economy of 2.92 and 24 wickets... whilst in t20's has an average of 23 at an economy of 6.86 with 15 wickets)
Ahmed shahzad... batted really well in bpl, t20's against south africa.. and has around 2 t20 centuries at only 21 years
Haris Sohail.. another talented one but with really good technique as well (averaged 134 runs in first class with 673 runs)

Bowlers:

Junaid khan ... amazing talent bowled really well against india.. had injury problems in south africa and avaraged 16 with 41 wickets in first class season)
Ehsan Adil ... pretty good as well .. really consistent in his line and length has good bounce due to his height as well ( 54 wickets at 17 in first class season this year).. sort of handy with the bat as well
Raza Hasan .. not amazing but good is all i'm gonna say.. suited to t20's however

All Rounders
Hammad Azam .. hits it hard and well.. and recently became much better with the ball as well (56 wickets at 20.. and 802 runs at an avarage of 30)


if you guys think this is good info then i could give some more on sri lanka.. india etc. just thought i'll see if you guys see it of any significance then i'll do the rest

[CharlesDarwini]

i regret posting this.. didn't know how to delete it i sincerely apologise

[Graham_5000]

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

What a wonderful sounding afternoon! Have fun..

[Sureshot]

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.

[Graham_5000]

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!

[nids]

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??

[Sureshot]

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.

[nids]

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?!?!

[ThandiPienaar]

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.

[ThandiPienaar]

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.

[nids]

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

[Graham_5000]

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.