Boundary Conditions

[Scritty]

Ok - not boundary as in 4's and 6's
In programming (more specifically testing) terms - a boundary condition is when you test the limited absolute of a procedure and variable - normally in conjunction with testing attached or interlinked variables and pre-set limits at the same time.

Right (sorry about that)

The unbalanced nature of longer format cricket - as detailed in several threads here. I don't think there is a "Catch up mode" or a "Everyone's a VVS Laxman in the 4th innings mode" - I think a calculated (as opposed to pre-set) boundary condition is being exceeded.

I have not the slightest idea how the ball by ball outcome is calculated in this game (let's get that straight from the outset) but it must surely include a lot of factors

Batting ability
Bowling ability
Bat fatigue
Bowl fatigue
Ball age
Bowler type
Bandedness
Pitch
Weather
Played in batter
Played in for bowler

and many many more.

At some point during a five day game this goes pear shaped. Most typically it's the miraculous 3rd or 4th innings scores that totally belie everything that has gone before.

My guess (and it is a guess only) is that some calculated variable is either attritionally reduced or slowly increased during the course of a game based on the underlying playing conditions (most likely of the pitch) - but player fatigue, confidence or other factors that may or may not exist in the game could also do it - as well as hundreds of other variables which may or may not exist in ICC2010.

Now their should be a sensible cut off for most variables. A pitch can only get so bad - confidence can only get so high - a "devil may care" attitude in the face of a large deficit will only carry a team so far.

Well my guess (and I re-iterate - it's a pure guess) is that one or more of these calculated variables is allowed to increase (or decrease) past what most would consider a sensible maximum (or minimum).

After yet another series full of miracuous 4th and 5th day events (always the team behind at that point pulls off a stroke of dogged batting/great bowling and both) I've decided to put my thinking cap on and think about this issue.

Am I griping about this from a "sore loser" point of view?
No! I benefit from these miracles as often as I suffer at the hands of them.

But they happen all the time - I rarely play a 5 day game where one doesn't occur.

This is why I think it's attritional. 20 over, 50 over cricket plays fantastically well and right to a mean average of score/wickets/boundaries and individual performances that I personally find very much in line with both real life and my expectations.

4 day 1st class cricket in the UK plays ok with a few foibles on the 4th day. Matches that finish on day three seem perfectly normal - the longer it goes on though the stranger the events that occur.

Test matches - most of which go well into a fourth and 75% into a 5th day are totally baffling. Not "hard" I win as many as I lose to these strange results - but sides making 450 for 2 on pitches without a green light in sight for either spin or bounce happen so regularly that it can't just be conincidence. I'm so confident that I now always put the opposition in. Whatever they set me in the fourth - the chances are I can get it or save the game.

Strangely - this doesn't work just when it should. If the pitch is "ok" or perhaps just a bit better than "ok" for a 4th and 5th day I often fail ( say 1/3rd full of green on the pitch meter or spinometer or a little better when the 4th innings starts) I get bowled out then sometimes for a decent 4th innings score. Chasing 450 on an average pitch I get nobbled for 220-230 as the pitch wears a little.
But if the pitch is terrible - I will more than likely romp home or save the game.

If I was testing software the first thing I would think of is that a boundary condition has been breached - possibly ever reset

i.e say a variable for overall pitch condition is allowed to go to -255... a further deterioration "clocks" the variable and it resets to zero which might mean its suddenly a brilliant pitch. All the individual elements say it's terrible, but when added up in the internal workings of the game engine it's breached a sensible boundary condition and "bang" it resets

I've played every version except the 2001 Ashes version for literally thousands of hours. 2010 is the first time this has occured. I also notice that boundary conditions are breached all the time in older versions. At around the 1200 wicket mark it resets to zero in the individual player stats for example.

Like I said at the top of the post - I have no idea if any of this is the case. But as someone who tests software all the time (currently Beta for Star Wars the old republic and 2 other games) this is exactly the sort of thing I would look out for, and the sort of reason that may be given (when a developer decides to give a reason - many don't)

Scritty

[El_Zigi]

Clearly, when it comes to test cricket in ICC 2010, something is most definitely amiss. I think what you've described above is a very plausible sounding theory for what might be the problem. Another possible explanation (only really expanding on yours a small bit) could be this. As you said above, we can only assume that when it comes to ball-by-ball calculations a fair number of factors must come into play. These factors probably ultimately determine the nature of the contest b/w bat and ball, ie which is more likely to succeed over the other. It could be that, as test matches go on, due to some fault (possibly something like what you described), the nature of the contest b/w bat and ball becomes horribly skewed in favour of bat over ball.

I imagine the developers are fully aware that there's an issue here, tho sadly they would never admit it, and I imagine they know exactly what that problem is or could be.

Bottomline is that there is definitely an issue that needs to be fixed for 2011. Personally, there's no guarantee I'll be buying 2011 but if I decide that I might, I will certainly be checking out the demo first and playing as much test cricket as possible to see if this thing has been fixed.

Not to be all negative, I too believe that ODI and 20/20 games play pretty well. I would have one gripe about each. Batsmen getting bogged down too easily in OD games sometimes and the scores in 20/20 games are on average probably a bit lower than they should be. The former is more of an issue than the latter for me personally. But I do find I'm enjoying my ODI and 20/20 games.

(I should point out that I've only played international cricket in ICC 2010, so my experiences are entirely based on that)

[Scritty]

we can only assume that when it comes to ball-by-ball calculations a fair number of factors must come into play. These factors probably ultimately determine the nature of the contest b/w bat and ball, ie which is more likely to succeed over the other. It could be that, as test matches go on, due to some fault (possibly something like what you described), the nature of the contest b/w bat and ball becomes horribly skewed in favour of bat over ball.

Thanks Zigi - I think you've summed up in 1 paragraph the sentiment that took me 3 paragraphs to write

I would add again this seems most common when the conditions for batting are at - or nearly at - their very worst. When conditions for batting are slightly better (the pitchheld up well for 5 days) more reasonable/lower scores are made (totally at odds with what should happen if any normal cricketing logic were applied)

A decent-ish 5th day pitch is hard work for the side batting 4th under pressure.
A terrible 5th day pitch, and rather than the expected collapse - cue 450-2 or similar. And it happens over and over and over again.
(thus the thory about a variable "clocking" over and getting so low it resets)

Pure speculation - but I program quite a bit and test for big developers all the time. This is a variation on a scenario I've come across quite a few times. But as "House" will testify - symptoms can be misleading (if symptoms weren't misleading sometimes then Hugh Laurie wouldn't have a show ).

Scritty

[Phylos Fett]

Do you think that it is possible that the opposite might be true, as well? Where you have a perfect pitch, perfect batting conditions, and two players that are in brilliant form, and these all exceed the upper boundary and the game plays like the batting conditions are woeful? Or after a brilliant season, a top notch player suddenly starts playing like he would be lucky to make the 2nd team?

I reason I ask the latter is that I just finished a season where an allrounder made the most runs for the season (about 1800 runs at an average of over 80) and took wickets by the truckload (about 90 wickets at an average a touch over 20) and this season he can't seem to bat for toffee, and he can't even buy a wicket.

[Scritty]

Maybe.

But this happens in real life. Mark Lathwell, Nicky Peng and others have broken records one year - and disappeared the next.

Min Patel, Chris Silverwood and others have been the same as bowlers.

Wayne Rooney (I know it's football) but he's dropped away terribly this year after that ankle injury. Despite playing he's a shadow of his former self.

I know from the old versions of the game engine that some variables do "clock" I think over 256 hundreds in FC cricket resets that one, about 1200 (not 1024 funnily enough) resets wickets to zero.
I have done both feats without cheating. Had a player retire at 41 having started a career FC, OD, Test and ODI at age 18 and played almost 240 tests and well over 500 first class games in all - going on every England tour (not missed one) for 23 years. He had over 100 test hundreds and close to 300 hundreds in all FC games. The game clocked at 256 for hundreds. I've had several spinners "clock" the 1200 (or however many it is) wickets after long careers.

Scritty

[enigma]

i.e say a variable for overall pitch condition is allowed to go to -255... a further deterioration "clocks" the variable and it resets to zero which might mean its suddenly a brilliant pitch. All the individual elements say it's terrible, but when added up in the internal workings of the game engine it's breached a sensible boundary condition and "bang" it resets

Nice assessment of the whole issue & the part in bold is really something that developers should look into, even though I do believe the deteriorating pitches can be used effectively in our favour with the right tactics while us getting away with draws or wins on deteriorating pitches could well have something to do with computer not attacking us enough & bowling defensively so maybe the developers could also look into computer's bowling tactics when the pitch is deteriorating.

Do you think that it is possible that the opposite might be true, as well? Where you have a perfect pitch, perfect batting conditions, and two players that are in brilliant form, and these all exceed the upper boundary and the game plays like the batting conditions are woeful?

This is my major concern to be honest.

[Scritty]

Yes - I think this is possible also.

It's a major frustration. Sure - now and again players will play out of character, a side will collapse on a great pitch - or dig in and do really well on an indifferent surface.

But in ICC2010 you can tweak line and length, aggression and any other characteristic as much as you like - but when you lose 3 quick wickets on a great surface...you just KNOW you're going to lose the next 7 for under a hundred no matter what you do.

At that point - the feeling of helplessness, and the suspicion that the "game is playing you" rather than the other way around often means the end of a play session for me. I sometimes go back to ICC2009 - where this doesn't happen - or ICC2002 (my fave - mostly because I can put my own piccies in the game).

As i've said before - it would be ok if this was a rare occurance - but a miraculous 4th innings save ot a calamatous collapse despite zero and 1 aggression ,and great batsmen in on very good pitches happen far too often.

It just doesn't feel as if I'm controlling any aspect of the game.
In other words - it stops feeling like a game - or indeed a cricket simulation - and feel like I'm purely at the whim of a dodgy algorithm which will do exactly what it wants to do no matter what.

ICC2010 is the first time this has happened.


[EDIT] Noticed that certain operating systems calculate "random" numbers differently depending on hardware factors - I wonder if this has been accounted for?

[enigma]

Yup, sometimes there's that aura of inevitability about things when we just know that no matter what aggression we'd have our batsmen on, we are going to have a collapse no matter what, & interestingly enough, based on my experience, such collapses usually take place in batting-friendly conditions, one wouldn't mind them in bowling-friendly I guess, that'd only be somewhat realistic I suppose. And just like you (& many others I guess), such collapses always result in an end of play-session for me, not to mention enormous frustration.

And the feeling of helplessness & the feeling of not having any influence on the game, that's exactly NOT how we should be feeling while playing a "management sim".

I hope they also look into the last point you've made about OSs generating random numbers differently.

[El_Zigi]

Here's the result from the latest Test match I played. This match relates to my gripe (posted elsewhere on this forum) about spinners being more effective in the first half of a test match in, seemingly, less helpful conditions. To be honest I haven't had too many of those massive 4th innings scores described in this thread but I have had quite a few games like this where the spinners become less effective even tho the conditions are deteriorating in their favour as the match goes on.

Pak (me) v SA
Toss: SA (who chose to bat first)
Pitch: No help for pace/some help for spin
Weather: mixture of sunny and unsettled for the 5 days

1st: SA - 251 ao
2nd: Pak - 244 ao
3rd: SA - 444/7 dec
4th: Pak - 310/3

Result: Match Drawn

So SA 251 ao. 9 wkts taken by my spinners. Pitch at 'some help for spin' for duration of innings.
Pak 244 ao. 6 wkts taken by SA spinners. Pitch at 'good for spinners' for majority of innings.
SA 444/7 dec. Spinners combined figures: 110-16-334-5. Pitch at 'excellent for spinners' for vast majority of innings.
Pak 310/3. SA spinners take 2 wkts in 55 overs. Pitch at 'excellent for spinners' for duration of innings.

So what's the issue?

Is it a problem like what Scriity has described? Or is there some hidden pitch rating that's having an effect that we simply don't know about? Personally I think there's a fault in the game, possibly something like what Scritty has described. I just wish the devs would be upfront about this and everything else posted on this thread.

[enigma]

I've been consistently rolling over oppositions on turning pitches even with mediocre spinners, it's not impossible to do.

The reason why our spinners might end up taking wickets when the pitch isn't that helpful is because at that time, computer will try to bat more aggressively against them while as the pitch starts turning a lot, computer would likely be a lot more defensive in his batting-approach.

As for computer's spinners running through our batting in non-spin-friendly conditions, well, that's just a conundrum for the moment, to say the least. As I've said in the past, spinners are generally overperforming while computer's spinners (even part-timers) seem to have an uncanny ability to effect collapses.

[El_Zigi]

The reason why our spinners might end up taking wickets when the pitch isn't that helpful is because at that time, computer will try to bat more aggressively against them while as the pitch starts turning a lot, computer would likely be a lot more defensive in his batting-approach.

This wouldn't make any sense, to me at least, because when my spinners are taking wickets they generally are going at 2 to 2.5 an over whereas when they're not taking wickets they're generally going at 2.8 to 3.3 or so an over. You would think they'd be more expensive when the AI is more aggressive as you suggest it might be. It's not a case of me being too aggressive for too long, I'll change my fields/aggression depending on how the AI batsman is doing. In a nutshell, just like with being more effective in the first half of a test with regard to taking wickets, my spinners generally are more economical too in the first half of a test.

[enigma]

Firstly, I'd meant computer would tend to be comparatively a little more aggressive when pitch isn't spin-friendly than when it is, not that it'd try to smash the spinners to every corner. Secondly, set-batsmen will capitalise on the loose balls a lot more than unsettled-batsmen so obviously, your spinners would've comparatively lower economy-rates when they're taking wickets than when they aren't. So, even if batsmen are batting a little defensively when it is turning, if the batting-side isn't losing wickets regularly then the set-batsmen will put away bad balls a lot more easily. It is also possible that computer bats a little more aggressively on a non-spinning pitch when its batsmen are settled & the spinner hasn't yet taken lots of wickets but when a spinner ends up taking a couple of wickets in succession (which isn't at all an odd scenario in ICC), computer becomes more defensive against him than it previously was. The game isn't so straight-forward that high aggression would always result in higher economy-rates & vice versa on such a small scale of variance that we're talking about & obviously, there're other factors that come into the equation.

Further, as I've said, it's not mpossible to take wickets on turning pitches, even with average spinners. The thing is that a bowling-strategy that can often fetch us wickets on a non-spinning pitch mayn't necessarily fetch wickets on a spinning pitch & I think that's what gets a lot of gamers confused.

[Scritty]

Spiiners being pre-eminent in the game goes way back.

Look at Warnes average - Muralitheran's, Kumble's.
They were not quite as good as the best seamers of their day. They bowled a lot more overs though and therefore took a lot more wickets.

IN ICC spinners have always been the key. I rarely play without 2. They bowl a stack of overs, keep the runs down, and when mature take wickets at under 20. They've been doing this since the original ICC

I have a theory (Brontosaurus' are very narrow at one end - much MUCH bigger in the middle , then narrow again at the other end)

No the theory really is.

Seamers benefit from uneven pitch
Swingers benefit from uneven pitch and atmosphere
Spinners benefit from uneven pitch, atmosphere and turn

The slower the bowler, the more beneficial effects stack up for them.
(Spinners do drift it considerably more in swing friendly conditions I'm told by the weak backed, dolly dropper, "peace loving" spinners I play along side)

Wheras grafting at the gym 4 times a week to get fit to bowl quick - putting up with knees that feel like they have more bones in than any knee really should (and they don't all fit), a sore lower back and exhaustion - and the constant need to see the guy 22 yards away as your sworn enemy you must hurt or remove by any means possible...gets you no-where. In real life or simulated cricket.

Am I bitter?

Yeah - when the leggy at my club (with an RPO of almost 7) gets "Bowler of the year" for taking the most wickets - despite many of them being the oppositions 8,9,10 and 11 (or "Godfrey", "Frasier", "Pike" and "Mainwaring" as I like to call them), and me - with 5 wickets less - nearly all my wickets being top 6 batsmen - and with an RPO of under 3 doesn't get a mention - then yeah - I'm bitter.


Note for youngster - none British readers: "Brontosaurus" reference = Monty Python
"Godfrey", "Frasier", "Pike" and "Mainwaring" = "Dad's Army"

Still - first game Sunday - so who cares?

Scritty