I thought rather than tag everyone I'd tag only those directly relevant when it came to assuming no comment = no opinion but realised I've tagged everyone bar one so in case you want to wade in - @Magrat Garlick
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Stumped!
- Thread starter GHick405
- Start date
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No strong opinion on redrawing. It’s a fun friendly comp for an online cricket management game for people posting on an online cricket forum. Nobody cares enough to deli be rarely tank games or manipulate results and if we can’t trust other people to act in good faith then what’s the point.
however, if it’s important enough for somebody to voice their concerns about it then I don’t care if the change gets made
however, if it’s important enough for somebody to voice their concerns about it then I don’t care if the change gets made
SillyCowCorner1
Request Your Custom Title Now!
At the moment, I am happy with whatever decision you take,
GG CC and Mooo CC are bitter rivals, so it’ll be fun if they are in the same division…but, I’m equally happy if they are separated.
GG CC and Mooo CC are bitter rivals, so it’ll be fun if they are in the same division…but, I’m equally happy if they are separated.
cnerd123
likes this
Shari's already joined his group btw, so it's just HB and MG we're waiting on. Shri's team would effectively be a bot but maybe he'll drop in once in a while to keep it alive.
The Comp is just a bit of fun. Redrawing stuff might be more effort than it's worth. Running these things are a voluntary effort and given someone has stepped up to do it I think we should support them rather than ask them to do more work. We've had mains Vs affiliates in past CWCs and I've always enjoyed those games, so I'd rather press on than attempt to redo things.
We can try and ensure that in future CWCs we keep Mains and Affiliates separate in the early rounds where practicable. But these sorts of match ups will be inevitable, given how the strength of the teams vary. We saw in CWC4 too, where some mains and their affiliates wound up in the same division.
I've seen teams from the same club get drawn up against each other all the time in real life sport too. From first hand experience, it is almost never a consideration when making a schedule. Sometimes things just end up that way.
The Comp is just a bit of fun. Redrawing stuff might be more effort than it's worth. Running these things are a voluntary effort and given someone has stepped up to do it I think we should support them rather than ask them to do more work. We've had mains Vs affiliates in past CWCs and I've always enjoyed those games, so I'd rather press on than attempt to redo things.
We can try and ensure that in future CWCs we keep Mains and Affiliates separate in the early rounds where practicable. But these sorts of match ups will be inevitable, given how the strength of the teams vary. We saw in CWC4 too, where some mains and their affiliates wound up in the same division.
I've seen teams from the same club get drawn up against each other all the time in real life sport too. From first hand experience, it is almost never a consideration when making a schedule. Sometimes things just end up that way.
ataraxia
International Coach
cnerd123
likes this
Just on this a bit
It's frustrating when luck goes against us, but it's sometimes worth putting things into perspective.
In baseball a game normally lasts around 280 pitches, making it comparable to a T20. Baseball analysts often look at a 20-game stretch as a 'slump', because smaller sample sizes than that are considered as not much more significant than background noise.
I think we need to take a similar approach to Stumped, where we're playing mostly limited overs cricket and only 14 games in each format in the competitive leagues. We saw this with Zach Burger last season - his numbers were terrific overall and in the friendlies, but somehow in the league he was underwhelming. A lot of this could just be sample size issues.
The stats bear out that over a bowler's career, better skills and higher average BQ = better results. If you look at the end of season charts, the top performers are usually all guns. But yes, lots of wickets do fall to lower BQ balls. Part of this is a result of game design - lower BQ balls tend to be more on the stumps, BQ drops as the innings progress, which is also when weaker batters are in the middle and more aggressive strokes are played. Part of this is also just the nature of cricket - **** gets wickets. It's natural in our game to see batters hit long-hops and fulltosses to fielders, to play all over half volleys, to be strangled down leg. And a lot of times these wickets fall as a result of pressure being built by good bowling. The loose ball enticing a rare mistake. Now - does this happen disproportionately more in Stumped than IRL cricket? Who knows. How does one even begin to do that analysis. But I play/watch/umpire a lot of cricket and I can't say I'm surprised to see a spinner take a bag of wickets bowling filth after the seamers have done the hard yards.
But, more broadly, Stumped's just a game. It's never going to be a perfect simulation of cricket. Don't fret too much about the details
Your luck will turn. I've gone through this loop multiple times - losing games due to bad rolls of the RNG, but then pulling off fantastic wins out of nowhere. It's the charm of this game, unlike Battrick or FTP where results are boringly predictable.
StephenZA
Hall of Fame Member
I can agree with all of this... but I`m also a person who likes to try understand what and why things do and do not happen.Just on this a bit
It's frustrating when luck goes against us, but it's sometimes worth putting things into perspective.
In baseball a game normally lasts around 280 pitches, making it comparable to a T20. Baseball analysts often look at a 20-game stretch as a 'slump', because smaller sample sizes than that are considered as not much more significant than background noise.
I think we need to take a similar approach to Stumped, where we're playing mostly limited overs cricket and only 14 games in each format in the competitive leagues. We saw this with Zach Burger last season - his numbers were terrific overall and in the friendlies, but somehow in the league he was underwhelming. A lot of this could just be sample size issues.
The stats bear out that over a bowler's career, better skills and higher average BQ = better results. If you look at the end of season charts, the top performers are usually all guns. But yes, lots of wickets do fall to lower BQ balls. Part of this is a result of game design - lower BQ balls tend to be more on the stumps, BQ drops as the innings progress, which is also when weaker batters are in the middle and more aggressive strokes are played. Part of this is also just the nature of cricket - **** gets wickets. It's natural in our game to see batters hit long-hops and fulltosses to fielders, to play all over half volleys, to be strangled down leg. And a lot of times these wickets fall as a result of pressure being built by good bowling. The loose ball enticing a rare mistake. Now - does this happen disproportionately more in Stumped than IRL cricket? Who knows. How does one even begin to do that analysis. But I play/watch/umpire a lot of cricket and I can't say I'm surprised to see a spinner take a bag of wickets bowling filth after the seamers have done the hard yards.
But, more broadly, Stumped's just a game. It's never going to be a perfect simulation of cricket. Don't fret too much about the details
Using Burger as an example... I can understand him not taking wickets because he plays against the top order batsmen who have great SS, and thus play him well and block him out. I can understand where he may go for runs in the middle overs, where I play a more aggressive field while more attacking batsmen are looking for runs. But what I can't understand is how bowling 'good' balls consistently results in both runs and no wickets, over many games. Attacking a good bowler may result in runs but should also result in more wickets. Blocking out a good bowler should not result in many runs. And an anomaly for a period of time can happen, and not statistically significant, but the consistency of this across many games you can start seeing real effects happening.
Now my question becomes this... is this 'bad luck' thing or am I not using him correctly/efficiently. Have I increased his pace to much, have I not increased it enough? Am I bowling him at the wrong time? And I can't ask those questions if I keep attributing the 'poor performances' to statistical anomalies and bad luck, that will come right. But also if/when I swap around or change his orders or his bowling partner to try see an effect but things continue on the same then what? I have a similar problem with Davidson as a batsmen at the moment.
Now I`m a highly analytical person that understands, that Stumped at its core is a financial game that revolves around the stats of the players, many many stats, and I love it for what it is. And I understand that there is a certain amount of RNG. I also understand that the person who built the system may look at cricket slightly different from what I do, so emphasis on skills or the way skills combine is different from the way I think. But I have to believe there is an overall understandable method(s) to try create a good team using the players you get and compete as best you can.
So sometimes I will make a post in frustration because I can't understand why a certain player of mine keeps getting out or is not taking wickets, game after game. Please live with me! I want to try understand and get things 'right'.. I don't have to win every game, I am looking to try understand. Thus I will also ask questions about the BQ significance, the ability significance, how important touch is, how important experience is... What do you guys think about this situation, what about this other one etc etc etc...
I apologise if it comes across as whining it really is just frustration from me trying to figure out how best to use my resources.
cnerd123
likes this
I think you're overthinking it lol.
Anecdotally - I have a teammate who has been bowling superbly for us this season. Pace, accuracy, swing, variations. But he just wasn't taking wickets. New ball, first change, middle overs, death overs. And he was so frustrated. Was going wicketless in his 7 over spells, occasionally taking just one or two.
Then last Saturday he comes on first change, and bang takes 3 wickets in a single over! Right away I tell him - there you go, that's all the wickets you've been waiting for!
Zach is not even out of Dev cricket and has 94 wickets in 50 SOD games @ 14.43. His Friendly SOD numbers are 147 wickets in 104 games @ 24.23. Those are stunning numbers, and will only get better has he grows in skill and experience. He is predominantly a L&L bowler too - his movement and variations aren't that high, so he's not going to bowling many unplayable balls. He's going to be banging away at good areas and producing results that way. But he's relatively quick and well balanced so it works out well for him.
You're overthinking it by analyzing the minutia of the game-to-game performances IMO. And if you don't stick with a system long enough to get a real sense of how it works, you'll never learn.
Anecdotally - I have a teammate who has been bowling superbly for us this season. Pace, accuracy, swing, variations. But he just wasn't taking wickets. New ball, first change, middle overs, death overs. And he was so frustrated. Was going wicketless in his 7 over spells, occasionally taking just one or two.
Then last Saturday he comes on first change, and bang takes 3 wickets in a single over! Right away I tell him - there you go, that's all the wickets you've been waiting for!
Zach is not even out of Dev cricket and has 94 wickets in 50 SOD games @ 14.43. His Friendly SOD numbers are 147 wickets in 104 games @ 24.23. Those are stunning numbers, and will only get better has he grows in skill and experience. He is predominantly a L&L bowler too - his movement and variations aren't that high, so he's not going to bowling many unplayable balls. He's going to be banging away at good areas and producing results that way. But he's relatively quick and well balanced so it works out well for him.
You're overthinking it by analyzing the minutia of the game-to-game performances IMO. And if you don't stick with a system long enough to get a real sense of how it works, you'll never learn.
StephenZA
Hall of Fame Member
This I've never heard before...
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
What should I do to accept ?
cnerd123
likes this
Join the competition here:
stumpedgame.com/ViewFriendlyComp.php?CompID=146
Just waiting on @Magrat Garlick
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
It's not linking dude
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Done
SillyCowCorner1
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It was a proper high-scoring game. Lots of half-centuries. Jardine going for runs; Jardine making runs.
All of GG’s top order among the runs. The Oxley-Sutherland partnership was a roller coaster ride.
The reply to 355 started off relatively slow but it accelerated when the RRR got over 8.
Meyappan’s wicket-taking ability came to the fore. He did most of the damage.
Ijaz’s job was so much easier. He was bowling at walking wickets. Warfield never got back the strike.
A 15-run loss hurts
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
just beat a side with five internationals in T20. if i submit orders CWC5 is over for y'all
Ah that's poor on my end, hadn't checked on the list just saw his response in here so was working on presumption there would be 2 bots in a 10 team league and redrawing potentially make sense.
But looking now seems like everyone has applied. So will just double check and accept applications