Idea for UC 2.0 - Traits?

OK, Mr Grumpy and I have discussed the idea of traits, so like the players could be a nervous starter, aggressive bowler or captain. They would all have ups and down, take a nervous starter bat skill 80 - they are a bat skill 70 until they get about 15 runs and once they've got there they become a 90 bat skill. Mr Grumpy will probably explain it better but what do you think?

Definitely has potential.

The Opener control was a nod in this direction but I never used it. If you had an Opener then you got no bonus, only a penalty for batting outside top 3. There needs to be less stick and more carrot.

Nervous starter? I guess I am thinking, "would I use this". I could... my fear would be, if the nervous starter got out cheaply, form would be down. I guess in UC this would even out though. I'm up for it.

When batting, what about traits dictating how fast a player scores. This would be handy for tailenders: a night watchman type could be Defensive or a Grafter, but you could then have a Slogger who could come in and smack a boundary or two before holing out.

Bowlers... only thing I can think of which would be useful is a trait of Tail Removing. This could cost 3 DPs and give a bowler a Warne or McGrath quality. This would be useful in ODIs where the tail seems to bat forever; in UC Tests it wouldn't be necessary.

The PC game "International Cricket Captain" has a nice little mechanic for this sort of situation, whereby each batsman has a "settled" rating that increases the longer they're at the crease.

It's easy enough to include a trait that governs how quickly each batsman accrues "settled", make batskill a factor of (Skill * Settled). This can then be listed on a batsman's description narratively rather than as a pure stat (keep pure metagame stats like this hidden imho), so if it's low it's "slow starter" or if it's high it's "quick settler".

Interesting idea.

The aggressivity skill for batsmen, and economy for bowlers, already acted somewhat like a personnality trait.

Would choosing a trait for a player be obligatory, or optional ?

The idea with traits was that there would be a few. I haven't worked out much more than that but the most obvious ones to me are 'slow starters' and 'intelligence'. The idea would be that you don't know what trait a player has - you have to guess it from the commentary/match stats etc. So there will be a reward for paying attention to the little things.

I can think of a few generalistic type traits

Maximising powerplays (hitting with a lower chance of getting out, so not 'slogging' as such)
Run collecting - middle overs, keeping the scoreboard ticking over
Finishing - more than just slogging, but scoring runs of each ball and maximising the strike (think Michael Bevan)

In tests somethig like
Pushing on beyond 100, some players tend to score a 100 then loose focus, whereas some re-focus
Guiding the Tail maximising the amount of balls a batter faces as appossed to the tail (protecting the tail)

Bowling i can't think of as many (if any) other than height featuing in as bounce and left hand/right hand bonus etc

Mr Grumpy wrote:The idea would be that you don't know what trait a player has - you have to guess it from the commentary/match stats etc. So there will be a reward for paying attention to the little things.

I don't like this idea - too random. If we're defining a player's "personality" then skills aren't enough. What's the point of designing a Gilchrist-type to bat at #6-7 and then finding out he's a plodder? A wasted draft... let's face it, nobody wants plodders in ODIs, it's either sloggers or moderates.

Years ago someone - might have been Sarge - suggested that the skills remain the same but a characteristic of B (Bash) or D (Deflect) came in... all it did was change HOW the runs were scored, but players scored roughly the same amount in the long run.

The other issue I have is that it doesn't allow players to be adaptable. How would you model a Mark Waugh who could be a moderate-to-aggressive opener in ODIs but could knuckle down and be defensive in Tests? How would you model Viv Richards who never threw his wicket away? I felt UC had this ability already... players could go either way at random.

I like this - I posited the idea at some point on the old forum.

1) Are they random and hidden? Yes - I think this is really key. The challenge of learning more about your team by watching them play and establishing their strengths and weaknesses should make the game more interesting and rewarding, and mimics our assessment of real players - Do you remember Steve Waugh because he was a fine batsman or because he saved his best innings for when the team really needed him?

2) ideas for traits: I think that there should be some that are just plain good and some that are just plain bad - managers should be faced occasionally with players who have a fatal flaw.
Batting:
Prefered position (number or upper/middle/lower/tail)
Slow/fast starter
Choker (worse when victory in sight)
Gritty (better when team position is poor)
prone to runouts
nervous starter
loses focus (skill declines later in innings)
flat track bully (disproportionately good against bad bowling and vice versa)

Bowling:
Confidence bowler (skill affected by early results)
Slow starter (better over longer spells)
prone to injury
workhorse (doesn't get worse over long spells)
opening bowler
talisman bowler (fielders get better when they bowl)

What I appreciated in old UC was that every player was capable of every trait at some point - not very often, but once in a while, and it would make a game memorable.

On rare occasions you'd get stuck with a total prat who couldn't do anything. Those were the hardest, you'd spend hard-earned training points on building this player up, and for what? Nothing.

On other occasions, you got overachievers who far exceeded their skills. These were the most satisfying players. They didn't come along that often for other people, because those people were trying to max out the skills rather than play the game for the game's sake (i.e. test and ODI results). Part time bowlers in the game were ruined for this reason.

If we have traits then it should be possible to nominate at least 1 positive trait per player. E.g. if I want an opener then I should be able to state at draft-time that player's preferred position (1-2), and it should cost nothing to do this. (Let's not get started on the useless *== for 4 DPs... I found it cheaper to go +== and use clinics)

Workhorse bowler... we already had this: spinners. UC bowlers failed to get tired... once my brother tried this with his team COB, he managed to have his spinner bowl the first FOUR SESSIONS STRAIGHT.

I've been playing From The Pavilion for the past couple of years and it has traits (or talents to use its own terminology) and I think they work well.

There are a range of different talents. For example, the opener talent gives that batsman a skill boost when the ball is new but there is also a seam specialist talent which gives a skill boost when facing a fast bowler, similar talents but subtly different.

There are also what are called triggered talents. The googly talent doesn't give a skill boost most of the time, only when the bowler decideds to bowl a googly. The boundary hitter talent doesn't give a skill boost but kicks in when a batsman would normally score a 1 or 2. There's an increased chance it becomes a 4.

Then there are training talents. A gifted keeper will train faster than normal in that skill only. Or the prodigy talent trains faster in all skills but only when you're young.

That said, FTP needs things like talents because it has very little in the way of in-game tactics like UC.

Tactics - that's something UC can always hang its hat on.

I remember when SRC made the combined-ladder-era Super League, I managed to hold on to a top four spot for a couple of seasons despite having no more than 1 player with a skill over 100. I put it down to my tactics. At the time, most of the top-fours were doing well in Tests, but I was making a mark in ODIs.

Tactics made a big difference if teams had skills in the 70s and 80s with the odd 90 here and there. Unfortunately managers found that if you get 100s and 110s, it makes tactics redundant. I found with AU that by having lower skills, and playing against teams with similar skills, tactics came into play and you got more realistic cricket simulations... a player could take the game by the scruff of the neck and reel off a great century or take a bag of wickets. Form also made a big difference - there's something helpful about being able to pick players in ++ form than just a battery of players in negative form each week.

I explain this because I've tried both ways and I find the "maximising as few players as possible" strategy unsatisfying. I'm pretty sure I hold the record for most seasons played without winning the Super League. When not trying to win the top level of the competition, you get an appreciation for the finer points of the game, and if you win while doing it, then that's a bonus.

Hence I'm not willing to change the game dramatically, as I felt what we had previously worked really well, just not enough people tried it.

Think of it this way: if you were to draft a team based on Australia 2009-10, how might you go about it? I think you'd get a lot of people do this with their bowlers:

Bollinger bowl bad bad === great good fast seam avg X L
Harris bowl bad bad === great good fast seam avg X ..
Johnson bowl bad bad === great good fast swing avg X L
Hauritz bowl bad bad === great good slow swing avg X ..
...

These guys would risk a long tail because it makes more sense to spend the most points on bowling, rather than give an extra shift to batting. Once upon a time, bad/bad batsmen could average between 8 and 12... later on it changed and bad/bads averaged about 1-3. Of the above, maybe Bollinger could be realistically bad/bad, but the others? Well, take Hauritz - I would save a couple of points and give him some more "character":

Hauritz bowl med bad =-+ good good slow swing med X ..

There should be appropriate reward for doing this, and there probably is, given he doesn't come up against some 115-skill fast bowling bastard who knocks his head off. And that batting profile shouldn't mean weakness against swing, it should mean *low scoring* against seam/spin but more scoring opportunities against swing/drift. (For the same reason, we need to encourage *.= and *=. types, not "punish the dots".)

I agree there should be more variety in UC players and teams. But I think that's an argument to increase the randomness of the player drafting process. I would be happy with a draft that went something like:
Player1 opening batter
Player2 great bowler
Player3 aggressive batter
And the skills that aren't specified would be assigned randomly within certain constraints so your opener might end up a part-time spinner as well if he happens to be drafted with extra points there. Or he might be a handy fielder. You wouldn't know till you got him.

However, I would be perfectly happy for UC to return as it was or in any other form Tim or Mark decide. I'm not going to be doing the work or taking any financial risk so I'm in no position to demand anything.

As for Hauritz, I think you were very generous in your assessment of his bowling but that's another argument

I really like the ideas for the traits here - and I think that on the whole they should be hidden just like real life.
However I don't like the preferred position (opening bat). I think that should be decided given his mental traits, (quick starter and likes quick bowling. Which is then up to the manager to spot and take advantage of.

I like the talisman idea and each team could add a little of this to the highest player as they look for him for inspiration. This of course could be a problem if said player was a choker!

ooh - just thought of another trait.
a "training or playing" trait where a player gains more experience (skill) from whichever preference they have.

Hey played UC for several seasons back when only UC1 existed then had teams in UC2, UC3, UC5 loved the game and can not wait to be able to play again either as UC 1.0 or UC 2.0 keep me posted if and when it starts again

I just realized I should have posted this here not in the "Welcome" thread...


I just have a couple of suggestions for improvements and my solutions that I feel should be relatively easy to implement with the old code. Some people play for fun, and others play to win, but I think the following solutions should make both camps happy:

1. I agree with Bricks and Alex about promoting broader squads.
My solution: This can easily be addressed by having bowling and batting traits play more of a role, especially according to pitch and weather conditions. The diversity of the pitch and weather amongst team owners' choices should automatically take care of the rest. Teams that train narrow squads will not be able to win too many away games unless they nurture and pick players according to conditions. This suggestion also addresses the factor of home ground advantage, which was not very well replicated in UC.
Also, 100+ skills did play havoc in the old UC by negating several other in-game factors, so the other aspect is to lower the peak attainable skill level for any trait by reducing the weekly max allocation of TPs per player, or by limiting the max allowable TPs per trait (the former is better otherwise you will have too many players who are very alike). e.g. If you get 100 TPs a week, and you can only spend a max of 7 a week on a player, you are automatically going to promote broader squads. Also like Warrick's idea of not being able to play and train in the same week..

2.One other thing that I would like is to see is for players to be at their peak for a bit longer. You induct a new player, train him forever and hate to see him go down so quickly. Maybe the initial training slope could be faster, with a longer plateau period before the player shows signs of aging.
My solution: One way this could be addressed is by introducing a "Fitness" quality that would need to be trained weekly as well. This is currently an intrinsic and hidden aspect of players and tied to age, but IMHO making this trainable is more realistic and advantageous. This trait could attribute to a few things such as in game fatigue such as during a long (batting) innings or higher bowling workload, or energy levels on day 4/5 of a test match, but more importantly this would be tied to injuries (thereby promoting broader squads again), and would also be responsible for maintaing players at their peaks longer. Instead of being stuck with average or great fitness throughout their career, this should be an attribute that is "progressively trainable" (explained below).
Here is one example of this coule be envisioned: All players start out with a somewhat randomly assigned base "fitness" level, based on the number of DP spent on the trait, but initial fitness can not be better than "average". A player who is regularly trained in fitness would improve their fitness over time to be "great" or "superb" in fitness, and sustain their peak skills longer (maybe till age 7 or 8 ), whereas an "average/good" fitness would follow the normal longevity of old UC. If they are not trained in fitness, then fitness would decline over a few weeks (From average to mediocre to poor to bad) and these players would be more susceptible to injuries and also fade quicker.

Oh, I would also prefer UC to start with a clean slate, no old teams and records, so we can have new teams and more new records every week...

Either way, pleeeeaaaase bring UC back soooooon

Cheers,
Andy

UAB, ANL, FLD, ZZZ, and ex-captain of IRL

Just a quick suggestion, and this isnt my idea...cant remember where exactly I heard it, but that skills "cap out" at 100

Thats not to say that you cant have a 115 skill fast bowler, but the 15 above 100 only means he will have more longevity while the skill comes back down

Thought it to be a good idea when I first heard it