Attributes and Mentalities

[cd779]

Going through the English county teams and correcting players bowling styles has been interesting, and has led to lots of changes in overall ratings e.g. a 70 rated bowler may only be a 50 rated player when he is correctly assigned to the role of all-rounder. Having also noted that even among the licensed players it seems that mentalities are off (Alastair Cook as 'aggressive'), I thought it would be good if we could come up with some sort of system for how to rate players and how to set their mentalities.

For attributes, how would people feel about a system such as this:
90-99: All-time greats (Bradman, Warne)
85-89: Best players in the world (Kohli, Root, Smith, Williamson, Steyn)
80-84: World class (Broad, Ashwin, Warner, Stokes, Bairstow)
75-79: Good international players (Woakes, Moeen, Khawaja)
70-74: Emerging international players (Handscomb, Adil Rashid, Stoneman, Malan)
65-69: Top domestic players/new internationals (Ballance, Vince, Paine, Ball)
60-64: Good domestic players (Sam Northeast, Leach, Mason Crane, Hameed)
50-59: Average domestic players
40-49: New and below average domestic players

Obviously it's always going to be subjective (I'm sure some will disagree with some of the examples I've given), but do we think it's a good idea to have something like this in mind when we edit teams or not?

For bowling mentality, I have no idea, but I thought for batting mentality we could potentially base it off strike rates? For example, Test strike rate:
Below 50 - Conservative or precise (Alastair Cook)
50-60 - Balanced or aggressive
60 and above - Aggressive or brute

What do you guys think - it could be beneficial to throw some ideas around at this early stage while teams are still being made up.

 

[bl8000]

I like this idea a lot. This would only help to improve the gameplay even further in my opinion. You should fear some batsman and bowlers and right now everyone feels a touch generic but that makes complete sense because the teams are unlicensed.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I definitely think it is a good idea. So I will write an essay now.

I was only thinking of something similar last night. I'd ignore the Overall rating though, the important ones are the BAT BWL FLD ratings at the top right hand. Unless someone tells me otherwise I would look to rate both a players batting and bowling in the categories.

I hadn't really looked too closely, but they looking now they are quite a mix. Smith is the top rated licensed player with a batting rating of 78 but the likes of de Villiers, Kohli, Dhoni are in the 80s. I don't know if these have been edited or are the settings that the default was on. Even the licensed teams have some very questionable ratings.

I would base the ratings around the licensed players, myself, these are the players that have been played with the most (based on the beta).

Just adjusting tweaking what you suggested a little @cd779. I'd get rid of the legend levels there's no need to make them better just because they are legends really, Smith, Root, Kohli have probably better stats than a lot already.

World Class - Batting 78 (Smith) Bowling 73 (Anderson)
Senior International - Batting 70 (Warner) Bowling 64 (Hazlewood)
Regular International - Batting 63 (Khawaja) Bowling 57 (Wood)
Emerging International - Batting 59 (Renshaw) Bowling 53 (Curran/Zampa)
Senior Domestic - Batting 54 (Malan) Bowling 49 (Crane)
Regular Domestic - Batting 48 (Turner) Bowling 44 (Swepson)
Emerging Domestic - Batting 41 (Richardson) Bowling 39 (Overton)
Amateur - Batting 29 Bowling 26
Club - Batting 18 Bowling 15

There is also technical abilities to consider - probably with Judgement being the one that could have the biggest impact if it works like it is explained to work.

So for example you could say Anderson is world class bowling and club level batting

How you decide the level would be the tricky part. You could go with a players averages but then are they career averages or a time-frame like the last two years. Or do you just let people decide?

It depends on how good a job we want to do with it. For me, I'd favour combining the objective averages with some subjective input from people to come up with an average that someone fits into. Cause if you do it with averages there are some associate players with really good averages but that you wouldn't call World Class. I'd also select the people involved carefully.

Mentalities I'd perhaps do an average of their FC/LA/T20 strike rates.

Conservative - 64 and below
Precise - 78
Balanced - 85
Aggressive - 92
Brute - 106+

Bowler mentalities I think would depend a lot more on something subjective but for consistency you could just average it out in terms of their economy rate.

 

[cd779]

@wasteyouryouth very much enjoyed reading your post, raises a lot of interesting points - I'll go through my thoughts:

1. I agree with you on avoiding determining by OVR - I've had some previous input into attributes for FIFA titles, and it is similarly underlined that you should focus on editing individual attributes rather than the overall rating. Obviously it is difficult to edit at this level, but editing focusing on the overall batting, bowling and fielding ratings seems the way to go.

2. When I mentioned legend ratings, what I really meant is that someone like Bradman or Warne, who can both be considered the best ever in their respective roles, should occupy ratings in the high 90s - no one has bettered them so I would suggest they deserve to be right up there. Players like Botham who could be considered a legend but more for individual performances rather than overall brilliance wouldn't come into this category.

3. Thanks for going through these, I agree that looking at the licensed players ratings is the way to go (although they seem a bit odd themselves at times). Are the ratings you use as examples here (e.g. Smith batting 78) from in-game (if so, where), or are they the ratings you think should be used for that level of player?

4. In an ideal world, a combination of career average with averages from the last two years would make sense I think. But then there's the issue of multiple formats. This means, in my opinion, that subjectivity is always going to be important which is why I initially suggested just ranking players into groups (as you have here with emerging domestic, amateur, club etc) rather than being overly scientific about it. If you try to do it objectively, it could be very difficult to work out how to fit in those players who generally only play one format (your Cook's, Tymal Mills', and Morgan's).

5. Mentalities are, for me, just as important as attributes so would love to get these right - the beta testers have said they play an impact now which is amazing. Again, in principle I agree with your idea of combining averages but I think it's a bit tricky due to some playing some formats and not in others. How about - for those who play first class cricket, determining mentality solely based on that strike rate. For example, someone like Joe Root, despite playing ODI and T20 would have his mentality based only on SR in Tests. On the other hand, those who do not play first class, or focus on LA and T20 at the expense of other formats, could in many cases be automatically assigned to one of the other categories. Players like Billings and Buttler are clearly much more aggressive than a Root, or even a Bairstow or Stokes. Again it feels like subjectivity might have to be a more important thing than we would like it to be.

 

[knockedin]

Agree 100% that the overall rating actually isn't as important and to me it seems as tho the AI select their teams based on their bowling and batting skill instead of their overall rating. @wasteyouryouth makes a good point with mentalities to, they make the game much more realistic imo.

 

[knockedin]

Agree 100% that the overall rating actually isn't as important and to me it seems as tho the AI select their teams based on their bowling and batting skill instead of their overall rating. @wasteyouryouth makes a good point with mentalities to, they make the game much more realistic imo.

In saying that I have just hopped on my game and saw Smith's batting rating was 77 and Kohli's was 90, so I set their batting stats and attributes to the exact same values yet Kohli's batting rating went up even though I reduced some of his skills where as Smith's stayed the same after I upgraded nearly every skill of his. Not sure how the ratings are calculated.

EDIT
Just worked out that it is only the players from Aus and Eng international teams that seem to be like this, all other players batting/bowling ratings reflect their overalls.

 

[bl8000]

Is it easier to do this in the pc academy?

I ask because I noticed today when editing the pakistan bowler sami on ps4 he had the correct stats on his stat page. It just took a decent amount of time on the ps4 to flip back and forth while adjusting ratings.

If all players have the correct stats in-game this could be much easier to do on the pc.

Just like you guys are doing, make a formula that this stat equals this rating and we are golden.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

@wasteyouryouth very much enjoyed reading your post, raises a lot of interesting points - I'll go through my thoughts:

1. I agree with you on avoiding determining by OVR - I've had some previous input into attributes for FIFA titles, and it is similarly underlined that you should focus on editing individual attributes rather than the overall rating. Obviously it is difficult to edit at this level, but editing focusing on the overall batting, bowling and fielding ratings seems the way to go.

2. When I mentioned legend ratings, what I really meant is that someone like Bradman or Warne, who can both be considered the best ever in their respective roles, should occupy ratings in the high 90s - no one has bettered them so I would suggest they deserve to be right up there. Players like Botham who could be considered a legend but more for individual performances rather than overall brilliance wouldn't come into this category.

3. Thanks for going through these, I agree that looking at the licensed players ratings is the way to go (although they seem a bit odd themselves at times). Are the ratings you use as examples here (e.g. Smith batting 78) from in-game (if so, where), or are they the ratings you think should be used for that level of player?

4. In an ideal world, a combination of career average with averages from the last two years would make sense I think. But then there's the issue of multiple formats. This means, in my opinion, that subjectivity is always going to be important which is why I initially suggested just ranking players into groups (as you have here with emerging domestic, amateur, club etc) rather than being overly scientific about it. If you try to do it objectively, it could be very difficult to work out how to fit in those players who generally only play one format (your Cook's, Tymal Mills', and Morgan's).

5. Mentalities are, for me, just as important as attributes so would love to get these right - the beta testers have said they play an impact now which is amazing. Again, in principle I agree with your idea of combining averages but I think it's a bit tricky due to some playing some formats and not in others. How about - for those who play first class cricket, determining mentality solely based on that strike rate. For example, someone like Joe Root, despite playing ODI and T20 would have his mentality based only on SR in Tests. On the other hand, those who do not play first class, or focus on LA and T20 at the expense of other formats, could in many cases be automatically assigned to one of the other categories. Players like Billings and Buttler are clearly much more aggressive than a Root, or even a Bairstow or Stokes. Again it feels like subjectivity might have to be a more important thing than we would like it to be.

1. I'd leave the fielding ratings. Unless someone can effectively work out how to determine where fielders are assigned based on their rating. It might be possible to look at the Australia and England sides to see where people field and determine something based on that. I don't how much it has changed since DBC 17 but it seemed to allocate players to inside the circle, outside the circle and then the slips. This is why you'd often end up with bowlers in the slips, which I know lots of people had problems with.

2. This is where I think having a little mixture of opinion and stats helps balance the two. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, Ravi Jadeja has a better test average than Shane Warne. There is no way I'd say Jadeja was a better bowler though.

3. The ratings I used were examples from the game. They are a bit of a mix, I just picked the players that seemed to fit the categories best.

4. I still think you could have a little objectivity. I know it's perhaps adding to the complexity but a rank could be assigned to each format and produce an average. Someone like Cook actually has pretty good stats in limited overs.

5. I definitely think with mentalities it's as easy to take the main format they play as the determining factor. If someone is primarily a limited overs play, like Morgan then aggressive/brute makes more sense. It could be that 'Brute' is limited to lower middle order/lower order batsmen and limited overs specialists. It depends how balanced they are across all formats. If a Brute is always going to hit over the top (rough description from in the game) then is that gonna have them lobbing it over the infield in tests?

I could quite easily pull together a spreadsheet that could combine real life stats and opinion. If you had say five people give their opinion on a player you could allocate points: 10 = legend, 1 = club (something like that). Then do an average of the stats and opinions to get balanced rating. It'd probably make more sense to limit it to maybe a handful of teams and use them as guinea pigs to see how they play in the game before. My worry about editing stuff like stats is that it might work for me but ruin other people's games if I share a player or team. I'm probably the only person, based on what I've read about mentalities, but I'm firmly in the camp that Alistair Cook would be precise not conservative.

 

[Sweppy12]

@wasteyouryouth if anyone has objections to the ratings it takes 30 seconds for them to edit it themselves

 

[wasteyouryouth]

@wasteyouryouth if anyone has objections to the ratings it takes 30 seconds for them to edit it themselves

Yeah I know and that's generally why I think it's easier to leave it to people to make skills changes. While I'd be up for coming up with a system to balance the skill ratings, y only concern is if you do mass changes what impact it would have on the game. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

 

[Deleted member 185125]

Is there a way to edit the skills of licensed players? Mathew Wade 81 seems to be on the higher side.

 

[Llewelynf]

Is there a way to edit the skills of licensed players? Mathew Wade 81 seems to be on the higher side.

Yes. I would suggest maybe roughly 10 points down for each.

 

[cd779]

Just a random thought, but assuming there's a stamina attribute, I wonder if it could be used to effect with making players suitable for their preferred format. Could you make, for example, Alastair Cook have brilliant stamina while Tymal Mills and other T20 specialists have awful stamina, with one day players like Eoin Morgan somewhere in the middle?

 

[Champ_BD]

Yes. I would suggest maybe roughly 10 points down for each.

It doesn’t alllow us to edit skills for the licesnsed players though

 

[Deleted member 185125]

It doesn’t alllow us to edit skills for the licesnsed players though

I was able to edit the skills.