Bug Reports Thread

[RTB]

This is an interesting one. In some peoples games Vettori doesnt bowl at all but in others Vettori bows the correct amount of overs and does well.

In my game Vettori was great in 2008 before inexplicably being dropped in 2009. He played just 3 ODIs in 2010 and wasnt in the NZ World Cup squad 2011 ( hes not retired and has been doing well in domestic cricket and in the occasional ODIs he has played). As of April 2011 NZs first choice attack appears to be Gillespie, Southee, Franklin, Oram, Hiini (none of which are spinners). Ryder also seems to bowl a lot.

Maybe it has something to do with the ai only using 5 bowlers. New Zealand had 6 (O'Brien, Gillespie, Ryder, Oram, Southee & Vettori). For some reason Vetttori is ignored. I have also noticed that in ODI the ai only uses 5 bowlers. Isn't this unrealistic as well. I bet you will have difficulty finding a recent ODI were 5 bowlers bowled 10 overs each.

[muhammad saad]

One more thing plz plz plz include the U19 Worldcup.

[muhammad saad]

How about offline tournaments b/w your saved teams (along with the saved player statistics just like online statistics being saved) it will be good if you match up 2008 Yorkshire with 2080 Yorkshire.

[Shelsey]

Just played internationals only option as England. Played 3 tests against New Zealand. Despite playing all 3 tests, Vetori only bowled one over in the entire series. Is this a bug?

This is an interesting one. In some peoples games Vettori doesnt bowl at all but in others Vettori bows the correct amount of overs and does well.

In my game Vettori was great in 2008 before inexplicably being dropped in 2009. He played just 3 ODIs in 2010 and wasnt in the NZ World Cup squad 2011 ( hes not retired and has been doing well in domestic cricket and in the occasional ODIs he has played). As of April 2011 NZs first choice attack appears to be Gillespie, Southee, Franklin, Oram, Hiini (none of which are spinners). Ryder also seems to bowl a lot.

[RTB]

Daniel Vetori

Just played internationals only option as England. Played 3 tests against New Zealand. Despite playing all 3 tests, Vetori only bowled one over in the entire series. Is this a bug?

[GrahamB]

Seeing as I've never encountered this error, I'd offer that it may be an issue with your graphics card. Do you have all the latest drivers for it and the latest version of DirectX?

Pretty sure I do, but I'll check anyway.

[aus5892]

Seeing as I've never encountered this error, I'd offer that it may be an issue with your graphics card. Do you have all the latest drivers for it and the latest version of DirectX?

[GrahamB]

[Nivoleum]

I haven't got a screenshot, as my trial has expired, but there is a noticeable glitch in LBW replays. Sometimes, the ball tracker seems to go straight down into the ground, then bounce back up to normal height after a second or so. Does anyone else have this problem?

[Chris Child]

Thanks again

Excellent analysis. It looks like a little bit of adjustment is needed to the aggression levels, but we're pretty close. I've changed these quite a bit since the early versions. The game play balance seems fine now, which was my main concern, so a few tweaks to match real matches should make it perfect.

[Sureshot]

Ah right, I thought you meant games that were NR.

[AlexB]

To correct one thing, there were 18 rain affected games in this season's group stages of the Friends Provident Trophy. You didn't divide by two

Not that it matters to the average scores, but rain affected was more - I've just done a quick scanned recount on the sly at work and got 35.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/countycricket2008/engine/series/319688.html

I'm including matches with curtailed overs each side (on the basis that they started late due to rain - this was the type of match I was using in my example - there are plenty of games where both sides had only 20-something or 30-something overs by prior arrangement, so D/L never came into it)
Those with curtailed 2nd innings only;
No result games
Games where no ballas were bowled at all.

It's a fair chunk - but I definitely agree that if D/L can't be done properly then it shouldn't be done at all.

[Sureshot]

To correct one thing, there were 18 rain affected games in this season's group stages of the Friends Provident Trophy. You didn't divide by two

The first thing to note is the number of rain affected games IRL (36) v.s number affected by rain in ICC2008 (0). However, I don't mind this as it's a game, and I'd prefer to win/lose by playing than by random chance, and I can see D/L would be a nuightmare to programme. A good compromise might be to have rain affected matches, but where some play is always possible (i.e the overs get reduced for each side as IRL)? This would add some different strategies to the game, as a 29 over game would need more aggression than the 40/50 over versions, but more patience than Twenty20. Plus it might be easier to program?

I don't think it should be put in the game, unless it is done properly. Ie, Duckworth-Lewis.

[AlexB]

These numbers are based on relatively small sample sizes, but probably big enought to indicate a pattern. Based on the fact I actually want to play the game, and how each scorecard needs to be looked at individually, I'll be happy to update the Twenty20 when the tournament is complete, and to provide the 1st year's Pro40 numbers - however it would help of others could work out their completed 1st innings averages to help build a significant sample and help Chris hopefully tweak run-rates in the game.

I appreciate that this will make the game harder if the AI starts getting an extra 1.5 runs an over in Twenty20 and 20-25 extra in total in the 50 over matches, but it will add a sense of realism.

Of course, thinking about it, do the skill levels address this? I would have thought 'normal' would be closest to the RL numbers, but maybe not.

[AlexB]

Ok, done a similar exercise on the FP Trophy from this year - my game is at the SF stage, and the RL trophy is at the final stage, so very similar.

The first thing to note is the number of rain affected games IRL (36) v.s number affected by rain in ICC2008 (0). However, I don't mind this as it's a game, and I'd prefer to win/lose by playing than by random chance, and I can see D/L would be a nuightmare to programme. A good compromise might be to have rain affected matches, but where some play is always possible (i.e the overs get reduced for each side as IRL)? This would add some different strategies to the game, as a 29 over game would need more aggression than the 40/50 over versions, but more patience than Twenty20. Plus it might be easier to program?

As far as average scores go, it's cloers than Twenty20 - the average FP Trophy 1st innings total IRL in 2008 where at least 49 overs were bowled is 251.76 (51 innings). In my ICC2008 game (52 cards) it was 230.90 - so the difference here is about 10%.

There some notable thoughts:
IRL there were 7 300+ 1st innings; there was 1 (remember this is all AI v. AI to eliminate any affect my good/bad play may have)
The highest score in my ICC game's 52 cards was 307: IRL it was 391 (there were also two other scores of 350 this year)
There were 6 RL totals less than 200, the lowest was 155
There were 7 ICC totals less than 200, the lowest was 133
IRL there were 11 totals between 200-225, in my ICC game there were 15
IRL there were 9 totals between 275-300, in ICC 6

This suggests that the main problem in ICC is that there's roughly the right unmber of lowish totals (maybe it will prove to be one or two too many over a significant sample size), but there are not anywhere near enough big totals, which is bringing the overall average down.

Also, given the number of matches (36) that were abandoned/rain affected IRL, the number of innings into the 50th over in ICC should be way higher than the RL total - therefore the number of batting collapses or teams simply not seeing enough innings through is way too high.

All of this is with ICC being played on normal skill level btw