Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Player Ability Development and impact of Training

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lynx54321 View Post
    In practice it's very hard to identify whether a player is actually getting any better or not.
    It can usually be almost impossible to see if general technique training has helped because there are so many variables. It can say ‘player has increased their general ability’ but if they then hit a patch of bad form anyway it makes less difference. Usually I can only tell over a couple of seasons.

    The only times I can easily see improvement is when I have a batsman who has a decent average but a poor conversion rate. With general technique training the really do start turning those 87s into 100s.

    Lynx54321 is right about the number of good regens being produced each year. There are just too many. If you have a weak squad you can easily jettison most of them with the expectation of picking up talented youngsters quite easily and improving your team massively. It should be much harder to rebuild teams than it currently is. There are also plenty of regens who have had brilliant first seasons and then be let go of by their club which would almost never happen in real life.

    my main bugbare with training is the time it takes to work. I have on a few occasions put someone on technique training and it work within a month, mostly it takes longer sand sometimes never happens. This isn’t a problem but as a test I have had a ‘player improved’ message and instead of saving re-started the game from just before he improves. Instead of a quick ‘improved’ message it can take all season, or not at all. It is completely random and makes the idea of improving players rather than just ditching feel foolish.

    Comment


    • #17
      The one area I used to see improvement in was ‘bowling accuracy’ but that disappeared a few years ago.

      It was easy to see when players needed it and easy to see their improvement.

      Sureshot, I have always meant to ask if ‘defensive bowling’ has the same effect?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by cde View Post

        It can usually be almost impossible to see if general technique training has helped because there are so many variables. It can say ‘player has increased their general ability’ but if they then hit a patch of bad form anyway it makes less difference. Usually I can only tell over a couple of seasons.

        The only times I can easily see improvement is when I have a batsman who has a decent average but a poor conversion rate. With general technique training the really do start turning those 87s into 100s.

        Lynx54321 is right about the number of good regens being produced each year. There are just too many. If you have a weak squad you can easily jettison most of them with the expectation of picking up talented youngsters quite easily and improving your team massively. It should be much harder to rebuild teams than it currently is. There are also plenty of regens who have had brilliant first seasons and then be let go of by their club which would almost never happen in real life.

        my main bugbare with training is the time it takes to work. I have on a few occasions put someone on technique training and it work within a month, mostly it takes longer sand sometimes never happens. This isn’t a problem but as a test I have had a ‘player improved’ message and instead of saving re-started the game from just before he improves. Instead of a quick ‘improved’ message it can take all season, or not at all. It is completely random and makes the idea of improving players rather than just ditching feel foolish.
        It's really good to see someone echoing my thoughts. Hopefully Nige and Chris take note.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by cde View Post

          It can usually be almost impossible to see if general technique training has helped because there are so many variables. It can say ‘player has increased their general ability’ but if they then hit a patch of bad form anyway it makes less difference. Usually I can only tell over a couple of seasons.

          The only times I can easily see improvement is when I have a batsman who has a decent average but a poor conversion rate. With general technique training the really do start turning those 87s into 100s.

          Lynx54321 is right about the number of good regens being produced each year. There are just too many. If you have a weak squad you can easily jettison most of them with the expectation of picking up talented youngsters quite easily and improving your team massively. It should be much harder to rebuild teams than it currently is. There are also plenty of regens who have had brilliant first seasons and then be let go of by their club which would almost never happen in real life.

          my main bugbare with training is the time it takes to work. I have on a few occasions put someone on technique training and it work within a month, mostly it takes longer sand sometimes never happens. This isn’t a problem but as a test I have had a ‘player improved’ message and instead of saving re-started the game from just before he improves. Instead of a quick ‘improved’ message it can take all season, or not at all. It is completely random and makes the idea of improving players rather than just ditching feel foolish.
          So it sounds like the daily increase is entirely random...

          Comment


          • #20
            It might not be random as such but at least an underlying chance for technical training to be successful. Over time the % chance of training being successful might increase, meaning you could get lucky and have it succeed early or at the other end you could go a year with the same player seeing no change. Or maybe it is just a fully random chance when they’re under training.

            Maybe players have a hidden rating for ease of adaptation? It would make sense that some players are set in their ways while others adapt to training easier. Age does seem to factor into this as I’ve always felt young players can be adapted faster than older players.

            There’s then the fact that things like aggression can only be changed by one step - you can make a Very Def batsman into Def but it will never then go up to Avg. I keep a training log so I know who’s already been changed, to avoid wasting time if I forget. I’m not sure if this also applies to preferences like foot and side but I don’t think I can recall ever having a player make a double change in those.

            Comment


            • #21
              I’ve never tried going two steps in any direction but it makes sense you can’t completely change a player.

              It’s the extremes of preference I try to flatted off and found most effective. When I first started playing, I think CC12, I had a great aggressive opener who had a habit of getting out trying to smack the ball when a simple defensive shot would do. I thought the answer was defensive training. I expected him to remain just as aggressive but able to play a few more defensive shots so was alarmed when the training worked and he became an average aggression batsman! Now I would put him on general training.

              Maybe there is % chance of improvement that increases over time but it sure feels completely random!

              Comment


              • #22
                Do we know why it is so nebulous? If the aim is to force us to use available data to work things out, it feels like we don't have sufficient data?

                Comment


                • #23
                  It isn’t a lack of data I find a problem, you can usually see what a player needs and it does seem to work but it’s the time it takes that feels so nebulous.

                  The effect of batting preferences are the most obvious to see change but the general and bowling training is a bit harder to always see. They MUST do something but does that batsman suddenly get fewer ducks because of the training or a run of form? More wickets because conditions this season have suited a bowler better than the pancakes of last year? Lots of variables!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by cde View Post
                    It isn’t a lack of data I find a problem, you can usually see what a player needs and it does seem to work but it’s the time it takes that feels so nebulous.

                    The effect of batting preferences are the most obvious to see change but the general and bowling training is a bit harder to always see. They MUST do something but does that batsman suddenly get fewer ducks because of the training or a run of form? More wickets because conditions this season have suited a bowler better than the pancakes of last year? Lots of variables!
                    I mean, you have literally described a lack of data there. There are lots of variables, more than the data can support drawing conclusions from.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I suppose that what I mean is that the same data you would have in real life is there and you can get most of the information you want out of it. What I was trying to point out is that it will take time to see that improvement in their averages because that is the point of using player averages to gauge a player’s overall ability.

                      You can make quick conclusions but you have to exercise judgement as to if a player is improving, taking into account strength of opponent, form, conditions, etc.

                      What there is is not is a visible metric for where a player is on their ability curve and I imagine there never will be. It would take away an element of the game the developers have made clear they are unwilling to change. Personally I think they are right, giving too much away would take away any challenge in player selection and development and it can already be too easy anyway.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The thing is, for prospects most of the things you have mentioned there are not available as the judgement is generally done off 2nd XI performances initially. There is no strength of opponent, summary of average form over particular periods, conditions the matches were played in.

                        Secondly, I have no problem for players not having a visible metric of ability. However, if players are getting better naturally, it feels to me that there should be feedback for that in a slightly more obvious way such as coach feedback that you would have in real life.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Impirion View Post
                          The thing is, for prospects most of the things you have mentioned there are not available as the judgement is generally done off 2nd XI performances initially. There is no strength of opponent, summary of average form over particular periods, conditions the matches were played in.

                          Secondly, I have no problem for players not having a visible metric of ability. However, if players are getting better naturally, it feels to me that there should be feedback for that in a slightly more obvious way such as coach feedback that you would have in real life.
                          Sorry if I misunderstood you there. The coach feedback would be good for when you are looking to improve training. I don’t mind if a player has hit a ceiling and a season spent on training goes in vain - there are loads of players who keep working on their technique to no avail - but an encouraging message or even “player is not improving” after a long time in training would be nice.

                          While there are no details of 2nd XI matches to gauge comparative strength I’m not sure that matters too much. From 2nd XI to FC 2nd division is a big step up, 2nd division to 1st is also a step up while moving up to Test is the biggest of all. Neither player or coaches know for sure that a player can make it to the next level until they try no matter their record or ability, players try and fail all the time while players who look fairly average can thrive at the highest levels. The game does reflect because as in the real world you don’t know until it’s tried and then you might just be trying something unsuitable for the player.

                          Saying that I find the pitch maps really useful for gauging how good a bowler is - which is not available outside of the game being played or if the game appears in the news section.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            This thread is really interesting.

                            Sureshot It would be good to know what the technique training actually does... Does improving their batting or bowling technique make them a better player?

                            I can get how increasing aggressiveness has a clear change, I'm just not sure how technique training actually changes anything. The few times it works, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X