Problems with 'balance' in the game

[kkev]

Apologies for the long post coming up...I've been playing ICC for a few seasons and have noticed that the game seems to decide before some matches who will win. Having played quite a few games where the opponents batsmen seem to play and miss, have catches dropped etc far more than my players, i decided to try an experiment.

In a game against Bangladesh (I play as England) in our first innings, we lost 10 wickets and our batsmen gave a total of four chances (dropped catches, catchable shots, lbw appeals, played and missed). They lost 10 wickets, but their batsmen gave 16 chances.
I rebooted and played the innings again, this time we were all-out with only one chance(!) and they were all out with 14 chances.
I rebooted and played again - we were all out with 3 chances, they were all out with 16 chances (including 5 dropped catches!)
I rebooted and played again - they were all out with 15 chances, we were all out with 6 chances
And finally played the innings one more time - they had 21 chances to their ten wickets. We had 5 chances to our ten wickets.
So after five innings our bowlers created 82 chances and took 50 wickets, while their bowlers took 50 wickets and only created 19 chances. I tried bowling more attackingly or defensively or batting more attackingly or defensively, but the same thing happened every innings.

In these five innings, my batsmen only scored one century (Kevin Pietersen) he scored 153 without giving one chance, and was out the first time he hit a catchable shot.

So it seems that it is built in to the computer to pre-decide results, or at least to massively favour one team some times. This makes it frustrating to play (and impossible to win some games). Is this intentional or a bug?

[GrahamB]

So it seems that it is built in to the computer to pre-decide results, or at least to massively favour one team some times. This makes it frustrating to play (and impossible to win some games). Is this intentional or a bug?

You have a good point and I agree with your suspicions.

[Tiresias]

Hi kkev. What were the scores in these games? And did you use the same tactics each time?

[Screenwriters CC]

I strictly play the English Domestic (County) game rather than international cricket on ICC. Within that constraint, I have never found this to be the case at all or at least it hasn't been something I've noticed.

[GrahamB]

I strictly play the English Domestic (County) game rather than international cricket on ICC. Within that constraint, I have never found this to be the case at all or at least it hasn't been something I've noticed.

I think that the match engine performs differently in test mode as opposed to FC mode.

[kkev]

Thanks for the replies - My scores varied between 150 up to 400. (KP hit a chanceless 150 in the 400 score and was out to the first catchable shot he played!). The Bangladesh scores were between 250 - 450. The only constant was that every innings i played my batsmen had 3 to 4 times less 'lives' than the bangladeshi batsmen.

i varied my batting and bowling from attacking to defensive and bowled different lines, with the same result. I played the first innings two more times with the same results. I then played through till the second innings where i needed 120 to win - I got to 85-9 with only one played and missed - every other chance ended in a wicket! so it seems that this match was programmed to run in Bangladesh's favour. Likewise it may be that other matches are pre-determined to run in the human player's favour - maybe that's how luck was factored into the game. It is frustating though as it means some matches are impossible to win, and little to do with skill...

[Tiresias]

Yes, that sounds infuriating!

In my (limited) experience, selection is hugely important in ICC - especially when you're playing tests and just as in real life. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but it does weight your chances of winning a match. Even so, you're absolutely right - England vs Bangladesh games should really end in a win for England, even a few seasons in, and particularly when you still have the likes of Pietersen in the side.

I think that you're also right to presume that the game does try to reach a certain result - especially in tight run chases, various final-day scenarios and (often) in the last match of a tight series. Its biggest flaw, as in previous editions, is that it is still possible for the opposition to chase down a large total on a final day pitch which is turning square and has craters in it like the face of the moon.

I have found that it is possible to outplay the game in spite of its flaws. This is annoying because it means you are no longer emulating real-life cricket (which is what ICC professes to do) but just trying to beat the computer. Basically, you need to develop a consistent, but flexible set of tactics for most matches which respond to conditions logically. These should be fairly moderate - for instance, in bright, sunny conditions on a flat wicket in the first innings I still wouldn't bat that aggressively. But, in last-day scenarios, it often helps to alter your strategy completely so that it's closer to the style of play you would employ in a one-dayer. Extremely miserly bowling will often bring you wickets if your opponents are chasing 400 with three sessions to go on a minefield of a wicket on which they would probably only be able to make 200 in real life! It should help you to thrash Bangladesh at the very least.

It's a great game but I share your frustration. I hope you manage to continue to enjoy it even so. Happy to go into the tactical stuff more but I'm no expert and there are others on this forum far more practised than I am!

[Sureshot]

Apologies for the long post coming up...I've been playing ICC for a few seasons and have noticed that the game seems to decide before some matches who will win. Having played quite a few games where the opponents batsmen seem to play and miss, have catches dropped etc far more than my players, i decided to try an experiment.

In a game against Bangladesh (I play as England) in our first innings, we lost 10 wickets and our batsmen gave a total of four chances (dropped catches, catchable shots, lbw appeals, played and missed). They lost 10 wickets, but their batsmen gave 16 chances.
I rebooted and played the innings again, this time we were all-out with only one chance(!) and they were all out with 14 chances.
I rebooted and played again - we were all out with 3 chances, they were all out with 16 chances (including 5 dropped catches!)
I rebooted and played again - they were all out with 15 chances, we were all out with 6 chances
And finally played the innings one more time - they had 21 chances to their ten wickets. We had 5 chances to our ten wickets.
So after five innings our bowlers created 82 chances and took 50 wickets, while their bowlers took 50 wickets and only created 19 chances. I tried bowling more attackingly or defensively or batting more attackingly or defensively, but the same thing happened every innings.

In these five innings, my batsmen only scored one century (Kevin Pietersen) he scored 153 without giving one chance, and was out the first time he hit a catchable shot.

So it seems that it is built in to the computer to pre-decide results, or at least to massively favour one team some times. This makes it frustrating to play (and impossible to win some games). Is this intentional or a bug?

I may be mis-reading this post, and I am slightly confused but here goes...

That seems quite logical to me. You are England playing against Bangladesh. Your bowlers will create more chances, their batsman will play & miss a lot more than yours. Remember guys this is a coded computer game. It uses data to ascertain results. It's not like real life but the code is designed to reflect on real life as realistically as possible.

[Tiresias]

I think the problem was he lost, despite generating a multitude of chances against Bangladesh when they tended to get a wicket first time!

[Mongrel]

The problem is that the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe sides become too competitive too quickly. I'm all for slight development in the long term, but to have Bangladesh scoring 300-400 consistently by 2010 is fanciful.

I still maintain that batting average are ten runs too low, and bowling averages are also about 5-10 runs too low.

[Sureshot]

I see, so there is a consensus that the lesser countries develop too rapidly into good teams?

[kkev]

I think the problem was he lost, despite generating a multitude of chances against Bangladesh when they tended to get a wicket first time!

yep, that's what i meant to say - you put it much more concisely

some matches against the computer seem to have pre-determined results. when the computer bats their players have lots of 'lives', catches dropped by my players, lbw appeals, catchable shots etc. when my team bats nearly every chance the computer creates ends in my players getting out.

as i said in my original post, i tried replaying the same game again and again and kept count of wickets vs chances and the same thing kept happening - it makes some games impossible to win and takes any skill element out of the game..

[Tiresias]

Sorry for replying so long after your last post!

As I probably said earlier, I think there's a balance between selection strategy and in-match strategy in ICC. If you select the wrong side in real life, a game will be much harder to win. The way ICC compensates for this is by making games tough to win if you have the wrong balance in a side, no matter how you play the game once the match is underway. Selection is a much trickier matter than it sometimes appears to be.

Having said that, if you're losing heavily to Bangladesh while playing as England then I think it might be a question of your in-match tactics! Traditionally in ICC games Bangladesh have improved over time, although I don't know if that's the case in the 2008 version as I have only reached 2012!

What you do need to do is formulate a robust, but relatively flexible set of tactics for matches. By this I mean that there needs to be a disciplined approach, for example, to the way you control field settings, or batsman/bowler aggression. At the same time, you need to be able to respond to match circumstances - for example, there's no point sticking rigidly to your overall Test Match playing style (which will typically be quite slow and accumulative) in a last-session run-chase.

I hope this isn't too patronizing and it may be that you've already developed a set of effective tactics which are helping you hammer Australia when you play them, but seem to be totally useless against Bangladesh! If so, there's definitely something wrong with the game! If not, I'd be happy to exchange notes on tactics if it would be of use!

[kkev]

thanks for the reply - i'm usually pretty successful in ICC 2008. I'm top of the Test and One-day rankings and have won almost every series in the last 5-6 years.

I win 9 out of 10 games, but I tried replaying one game against Bangladesh 6 times - with different tactics each time and lost every time in the way discussed above.

This makes it look even more like some matches are pre-determined - this could be down to selection like you say...if so this is annoying because it effectively means that the human player can't have any effect during the game, in which case why bother?