Attributes and Difficulty Levels

[cooks1st100]

Again, another thread where ideas and suggestions for the next edition can be posted but I've been wondering how attributes should be addressed across the difficulty levels.

For example: If you were to give a player 100% for catching it would be fair if he never dropped a catch (AI and automatic fielding). But should this still apply if playing on rookie?

Does there need to be a benchmark where the attributes are as set, say pro level and above, or should they remain constant throughout the levels with other factors determining what makes a level easier or more difficult?

One idea of mine would be to to reduce the difficulty levels to only 3 and call them "club", "county" and "test" rather than the current 5, these could also be the steps up in career mode if this mode was to start at a lower roots level.

But again, how should attributes relate to these levels?

 

[Ajh1977]

I would rather have the 5 levels as it is, don't forget young kids play the game too, and non gamers like me that need to find a balance between amatuer and pro, then there are the really good players who smash veteran leaving only legend to possibly challenge them. Re-name them if you want by all means, but I think lowering the amount of skill levels would certainly alienate a lot of people caught between the levels.

 

[cooks1st100]

I would rather have the 5 levels as it is, don't forget young kids play the game too, and non gamers like me that need to find a balance between amatuer and pro, then there are the really good players who smash veteran leaving only legend to possibly challenge them. Re-name them if you want by all means, but I think lowering the amount of skill levels would certainly alienate a lot of people caught between the levels.

Does the game really need 5 difficulty levels though? 3 levels with the addition of some sliders that will increase/ decrease difficulty of certain in-game aspects should surely be enough.

But my main point is in regards to the attributes across the levels. How should this work?

 

[Ajh1977]

I guess one way to implement it would be if you are playing on the lowest level (as is now out of 5) and you face a 5* bowler his stats are reduced by a certain percent, maybe in increments of 20% per level, so in this instance the bowler is reduced to a 1* bowler. I'm not completely sure if this is the answer but its an idea.

Also on a side note, personally I would stick with the 5 skill levels rather than try to mess about with sliders to make 5 outta 3. Also as I'm not technically minded I could spend more time trying to get the balance right than playing the game. Just my preference.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Does the game really need 5 difficulty levels though?

No: it needs more.

With less difficulty levels you end up with huge difficulty gaps between levels and either turn off casual players by giving them a hard difficulty curve between easy and medium, or make the game way, way too easy at the high ends. We need more ways to adjust the difficulty of the AI, not less!

Firstly they need to close that gap between Rookie and Pro especially on the batting side, either by making Rookie slightly harder or by adding in another level in the middle. Past that there are other solutions to the difficulty thing that might be worth considering implementing, at least in the long term. EA's recent American Football games (at least the last NCAA Football does) allows you to set differing difficulty levels for Offence and Defence and that means that if you are good at one side of the game but bad at the other then you can set it so you have a fair challenge in your game rather than a situation where you win every game 56-14 because you always score quickly and because you have a fair challenge with the defence are able to stop them from scoring and losing every game in 24-21 you can't stop the other team from scoring while you aren't guaranteed to score because you have a fair challenge with that side of the ball. I've always felt that dynamic difficulty is something that more games should try and go for: MLB The Show 16 implement a very good system which automatically adjusts difficulty up and down in order to ensure that you have a fair challenge and has loads of steps between each of the names difficulty modes in order to ensure that you aren't suddenly playing a much harder game but are working up to that level - this isn't something that you'll get in C16 though... I'm also once again going to talk about sliders in order to allow someone to massage certain elements of the games which they either dominate at or can't do at all - in my case perhaps make it slightly easier to play against spinners and slightly harder to bowl spin.

 

[Ajh1977]

@IceAgeComing that's about it for me in a nutshell, if these things were implemented it would definately improve the individual needs of each player, personally, the more control you have over gameplay the better, whether you really want to challenge yourself or have it easy.

 

[cooks1st100]

Firstly they need to close that gap between Rookie and Pro especially on the batting side

They have, it's called Amateur!

 

[IceAgeComing]

I meant to say between Amateur and Pro: I get confused about the differences between the bottom two levels since they seem identical to me while pro is a lot, lot harder

 

[cooks1st100]

I meant to say between Amateur and Pro: I get confused about the differences between the bottom two levels since they seem identical to me while pro is a lot, lot harder

The thing is, this is exactly what I'm saying. We have two levels that seem practically the same. I also don't see much of a difference between veteran and legend either.

What the game needs is attributes that actually make a difference between good players and bad and therefore make a difference between good and bad teams. That way if I play on the easiest level and I start finding it too easy I can move up a level, then say I choose to play as England Vs India now on the middle level but I get stuffed. I should then be able to play England Vs Leistershire and most probably beat them although it will be more a of challenge than the easiest level. As I improve I can then play against better teams and with teams who are more evenly rated.

That's how the levels should work in my opinion.[DOUBLEPOST=1444949113][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm also once again going to talk about sliders in order to allow someone to massage certain elements of the games which they either dominate at or can't do at all - in my case perhaps make it slightly easier to play against spinners and slightly harder to bowl spin.

Exactly what I said in my second post.

 

[MattW]

I meant to say between Amateur and Pro: I get confused about the differences between the bottom two levels since they seem identical to me while pro is a lot, lot harder

Yep, there's a big jump between Amateur and Pro because of it introducing the footwork mechanic - I don't know if a semi-pro difficulty in between them or adding a degree of footwork assistance to Pro would be the better solution there, but there's something needed to bridge the gap there.

It's probably hard to tell the difference between the low difficulties when you're good at the game - but for some I'm sure the timing window difference between Rookie and Amateur would make a huge difference.

--

My general opinion (a word I'd like to highlight, underline and make flash so people don't read non-existent context into me participating in these discussions) would be to totally agree with the idea that attributes should be the primary factor, and to go back to something said in the other thread that perfect input should be pegged at the cricketer's potential. The difficulties just changing how hard it is to achieve that perfect input, but not changing the underlying factors, save perhaps for differences in AI tactical difficulty, to add more challenge to the higher levels with smarter AI decision making.

I'd also say "why not both" about 5 difficulties and implementing better difficulties. As a general principle the majority of players should be accommodated by a difficulty level, and have room to increase their challenge later.

 

[blockerdave]

Ability to have separate difficulty for at least: batting, bowling, tactical difficulty is essential. Like, non-negotiable.

For example @Ajh1977 shouldnt be forced in to playing a crap AI just bevause he's not much of a gamer

I've left this out of my bullets in Matt's thread and I've no idea why - from day one almost I've thought it was needed

 

[grkrama]

My general opinion (a word I'd like to highlight, underline and make flash so people don't read non-existent context into me participating in these discussions) would be to totally agree with the idea that attributes should be the primary factor, and to go back to something said in the other thread that perfect input should be pegged at the cricketer's potential. The difficulties just changing how hard it is to achieve that perfect input, but not changing the underlying factors, save perhaps for differences in AI tactical difficulty, to add more challenge to the higher levels with smarter AI decision making.

I'd also say "why not both" about 5 difficulties and implementing better difficulties. As a general principle the majority of players should be accommodated by a difficulty level, and have room to increase their challenge later.

Like blocker said say someone is playing on amateur it should not mean that they have have an AI that doesn't change the field at all despite having clarke as captain.

or just because im playing legend shouldnt mean certain teams should constantly score 400-600 regardless of conditions or easily 190+ in t20s even in simulation.

Sliders is certainly the way to go.

Also Matt would it be possible for you to explain what experience that BA wants to offer at a particular difficulty, Like @ legend we want players to find these harder than real life by say 20% etc if you can tell us what you guys are gunning for or had in mind during 14 it would help.

 

[MattW]

Also Matt would it be possible for you to explain what experience that BA wants to offer at a particular difficulty, Like @ legend we want players to find these harder than real life by say 20% etc if you can tell us what you guys are gunning for or had in mind during 14 it would help.

No. I am really not in a position to seek to give 'Big Ant' explanations of things. I wasn't around when the original decisions were made for DBC14 and details like this aren't set in stone for the next edition.

To add my view again - difficulty settings should be all about accessibility of a gaming experience. It's an issue personal for me - I've had to stop playing games I liked because my skill level meant I could not progress beyond a certain point despite being on the easiest difficulty setting. Obviously that doesn't translate exactly to a sports game - but the majority of people should be able to get a realistic and/or fun experience out of a game regardless of their ability, provided they are playing on difficulty settings that match their ability, and to ensure that as much as possible, those settings are available.

 

[Biggs]

but the majority of people should be able to get a realistic and/or fun experience out of a game regardless of their ability, provided they are playing on difficulty settings that match their ability, and to ensure that as much as possible, those settings are available.

This guy gets all of this. I can't echo this enough, one thing I DETEST in gaming in general, but sports games specifically is "well you play on x level and I play on a higher one so I'm better" which is total rubbish. By the same account, people that say "X level isn't hard enough for me but y level is too hard" are missing the point entirely. You need to have gradients of difficulty so that you're equally challenged if you want it, but if you want to have a blast and have fun, then there should be plenty of allowance for that as well. For the most part, I genuinely believe DBC has got it right although there is a chasm between Pro and the higher levels which feel in need of an intermediary there as Pro is about right for me, but any higher is a depressing nightmare most of the time.

 

[Deleted member 149013]

This guy gets all of this. I can't echo this enough, one thing I DETEST in gaming in general, but sports games specifically is "well you play on x level and I play on a higher one so I'm better" which is total rubbish. By the same account, people that say "X level isn't hard enough for me but y level is too hard" are missing the point entirely. You need to have gradients of difficulty so that you're equally challenged if you want it, but if you want to have a blast and have fun, then there should be plenty of allowance for that as well. For the most part, I genuinely believe DBC has got it right although there is a chasm between Pro and the higher levels which feel in need of an intermediary there as Pro is about right for me, but any higher is a depressing nightmare most of the time.

Know exactly what you mean.

The people that want to compare which level you did a game on like its comparing dick size.

It’s these people - “yeah I completed the game in like 3 days yeah”

Or “you did that level on normal.. normal is to easy I did it on hard” or along the lines of that.

But they say it like it means something and look down on you if you doesn’t meet their expectation.

With Bradman tend to stick with pro.. maybe have a blast bowling on rookie you get some good edges on that level.
Keep meaning to unlock the trophy for winning a test match on legend still can’t do it.