Welcome to UC

Hey - looks like Mark has set up a forum for us to discuss how to resurrect UC.
First thing we need to do is round up some of the old UCers. Then I need someone to help me fix the PHP scripts on the website so it works properly and then I can teach Mark how to do some coding! And UC 2.0 may become a reality.
Cheers
Tim (aka Mr Grumpy apparently)

I got to this forum by following the link in the "Bring Back UC" group on Facebook... but the *actual* Ultra Cricket group is better for reaching people (I blame Tasleem for doubling up)

Might be worth trying the old mailing lists... see what's live, let word travel around.

Hi all,

Am looking forward to the return of UC.

If I can help at all, I would love to... but since I am a user rather than a dealer of computer products/services, I don't know whether I can help out with any scripting/coding issues!

Anyhoo, if I can help, please let me know!

Mr Silly
(aka Paul of GM, LFC, EFC etc)

Bricks wrote:
Might be worth trying the old mailing lists... see what's live, let word travel around.

Sent emails all the old UC1ers (I think) and Three have replied!

I had a team in UC1 named DCB but don't recall getting an email. Old lists have old email addresses ...

Nice to see UC is still on the burner, even if it's on a very low setting currently.

Aha! I have joined. Yes thanks Bricks .. but if I didn't create the group then perhaps we wouldn't be here today? =)

I think the best way to start is to create a list of problems everyone had with the original UC. That way, we can say "Right, these things have to be fixed in order to improve UC to 2.0"

I think overall my biggest problem with UC was the fact that it was designed in such a way that it would cost poor Tim money and time to keep running. Sure, keeping a website on the internet (hosting) is understandable, but from what I heard it was more than just that (dedicated connections, maintenance, etc)? Perhaps Tim can give us a better idea.

I would say that if you are looking to redevelop from the beginning, then make cost + efficiency your #1 objective. How this can be done I'm not sure as I have little knowledge of the setup of UC and what is required to run a PBeM league in this manner, but there are other websites out there I'm sure that have had similar problems in the past and they have redeveloped a more self-automated system now.

With regards to the current UC code, I thought it was perfectly fine overall except for tests almost always ending up in a draw. Apart from that I was pretty satisfied, although I know Bricks will disagree with me! I think he could write a book on what he would like to see changed in the code =)

Looking forward to hearing everyone else's opinions!

- Taz.

Whilst a UC 2.0 would be terrific, part of me would be happy with an OLD SKOOL UC 1.0... run just like it was for the first 9 seasons (single conference) with not such a heavy reliance on the Web. I am in the minority though

I found my test always ended in results - very hard to force a draw as the bowlers always dominated.

I agree with Bricks I almost never had draws, in the last ten seasons I had three for MTA and one for ZMB. But perhaps this is because of my weak batting

Just wanted to say hello and how glad i was to get an email from UC! Been a while, used to run teams CCK, AZI and FZI. Not majorly succesful but FZI had a season in the top flight for a brief while (UC2 i think!) but it was tremendous fun and was sad when it died.

But good to hear the heartbeat once more (even if a little feint for now!)

Enzo.

....pop pickers.

I'm in - shaken if not stirred.

The only issue I had was the amount of times I could only get 1-3 wickets in a 50 over game despite the manic slogging of the opposition, this negatively affected the bowling averages and form.
Although this is probably a bowler/pitch issue, in terms of the programming it always put me at a disadvantage for the next test match.

UC has always punished mistakes (drafting) but I prefer that as it helps me not make the same mistake again.

I have missed the weekly results e-mail....

Gary,

One of the things I'd consider changing is the whole drafting element. I know drafting was supposed to represent the fact that, in international cricket, you have a large pool of players available and you can pick the ones you really need, but it always felt a bit too constructed to me. I'd rather a larger squad but less construction, putting more onus on matching the squad to the conditions than making sure you get the one-off draft right.

Hi All,

Happy to see that there is talk of UC coming back.
Have certainly missed it....even though I was pretty hopeless (over a long period).

As many have said earlier....I was happy with how the code worked....so really, no improvement required (not sure about the admin side obviously)

Stu

Hello all,

Nice to hear from old UCers after so long !

I'd love to see UC start again. I really have no complaints with UC 1.0, so I wouldn't mind if it started again just as it was.

Suzanne (WLW, STS, CTB, JAW).

It's been a while since I have heard UC mentioned. Even after being off-line for a while it is still the best cricket game on the net.

UC 1.0 was pretty much perfect.

I always fancied an expanded commentary, a bit like cricinfo's one, and the stat-tacker/stat guru would be a neat add on.

Even little things like designing stadium apearance, uniform, batt labels and so forth would be a nice addition

phild wrote:I know drafting was supposed to represent the fact that, in international cricket, you have a large pool of players available and you can pick the ones you really need, but it always felt a bit too constructed to me.

I know what you mean here Phil. I felt that the issue wasn't that you were *forced* to construct players, but that in the blind pursuit of success, people naturally streamlined their squads and designed as few players as possible. The lack of workload injuries meant that you didn't get penalised for putting all your eggs in one basket. (In one season SRC used 12 players in 16 Tests - one bowler was injured for one game.)

When I created AU the aim was to have a broad squad where I could pick players based not so much on conditions, but primarily on form. I had a very different training strategy too and I found most players topped out in the high 80s skills (no player higher than "good") with a few Test specialists reaching 90s. AU were very competitive and I found the results from games more realistic. I was able to conclude that UC wasn't broken, it was teams having players with *too much skill* - once skills got over 100 you didn't get realistic games. Mainly because, they cancelled out tactics.

One issue with something like UC is differentiating between a game and a simulation. In a simulation you'd have to model a much larger squad and injuries etc but to make UC work as a game I had to take out the randomness so you won due to skill not luck. In the end as you pesky managers got smarter and found some of the extremes worked well the end result was less a simulation of cricket. It was still cricket like enough to keep most happy but it was not all that realistic.

Tim

I was broadly happy with the old UC - for me there were three types of improvement syou might consider:

Game balance: for me the main issue was the disincentive for a broad squad. A couple of facets of the game had a significant influence management decisions which would have made having broader squads a lot more important: Frequent injuries for fast bowlers (on average 1 in 7 fast bowlers in injured at any one time) and wides: there was no penalty to having a Superb/av bowler because they took wickets but didn't leak runs. If you fixed these two you'd end up witn a decent incentive towards bigger (and therefore more tricky to manage) squads

Gameplay change: specifically changing the resource balance of the game by allowing larger squads, different training etc. When we ran UCITC UC teams suffered primarily because they had wide age ranges while all the 'real' players were all at their peak ages

Presentation: I liked UC outputs but I know they put of a few potential players - not sure how you'd improve it but I think Its about format rather than content detail

My ha'penny worth, but whatever: BRING BACK UC!

Hi,
Let me introduce myself first. I joined the old UC in its last season and had reasonably successful season with my team Alphabets. I really enjoyed it and wanted to continue for ever. Unfortunately, it was the last season for UC. Then I joined Taz's ITC League and finished second in it's only season. Then I started my own ITC league and it is currently in it's fifth season. But ITC can not match the excitement and realism of UC. Can't wait for new UC to start. I am not a technical expert. But ready to do anything to bring back UC

Just to say hello and great to see that something is stirring Down Under

I ,like possibly many others have changed my email in the last year so would not get any messages.

Good luck to all working on the re-launch.

I can't remember but was UC listed on this site?
Might be worth an entry when ready to go.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/pbm_list/mixed.html

Robin

UC1 WCR
UC2 AYR

G'day everyone,

Another pyjama clad patient has wandered out of the nursing home, unsure of exactly where he is or what he did yesterday but convinced he did play Ultra Cricket at some time or other and if he can only find it again, everything will be alright.

crico

You won't spot it unless you're not looking directly at it, Chris

Hi there,

It's good to see that things are indeed stirring.
I too thought the match engine before was very good indeed, it really doesn't need changing that much. Maybe the odd (very minor) tweak but I felt the balance between overall simplicity and complex tactics was superb.
And even to this day it felt more real than any other cricket management sim out there.
..now over to the ideas board!

I just want to add that what I think worked really well from UC1 were the tactics and the level playing field in the competition. It's one of the things that really annoys me about other online games that I have to play for 3+ years before I can start competing with established teams. In UC there was a chance of upsets even after only a couple of seasons and it was never really ludicrous ie. bowling sides out for <10 runs was extraordinarily rare as it should be!
Not allowing a vast difference in skills actually adds to the excitement. As does giving better drafts to the lower teams did even things up a lot.
So please don't change these qualities!

Yo Custard,
I agree totally with what you said. When the diamond structure came in, newbies were put into the middle divisions, not the bottom. And the results weren't lop-sided!!
On this basis, I'd push for a reintroduction of the game as-is.