Finding a balance

[FaaipDeOiad]

One thing I worry about with this is that we want to encourage people to be specialists rather than having hoards of all-rounders. When you say "you have this many points but you can only put X amount in one field", you're sort of encouraging people to specialise in multiple disciplines. We'll get the odd batting and fielding only people, but not many. I think we want to give a bit of incentive for people to stick to one discipline.

 

[Robertinho]

Sorry, what do you mean? Elaborate?

 

[Loony BoB]

One thing I worry about with this is that we want to encourage people to be specialists rather than having hoards of all-rounders. When you say "you have this many points but you can only put X amount in one field", you're sort of encouraging people to specialise in multiple disciplines. We'll get the odd batting and fielding only people, but not many. I think we want to give a bit of incentive for people to stick to one discipline.

There's a reason for that, though. The limits are in place because if you have five batsmen averaging 70, five bowlers averaging 8 and a keeper with a rating of 50, you're not exactly playing entirely fair. There have always been limits in place. The limits are in place so people remember to put something onto their fielding instead of putting 18-20 points on batting and nothing on either bowling OR fielding, which would be kind of stupid. Nobody should really go for a fielding rating below 15 in my opinion. A fielding rating of 3 is like not having a fielder at all. Useless. If someone wants to be that bad, so be it, but I personally wouldn't suggest it. I wouldn't like having a fielder with a rating below 15 at all, to be honest - catches win matches, and in the sim we use, there are often more drops than catches.

EDIT: Also, you'll find that not one of my options allows for a bowling average to be lower than a batting average, and in order to get them close, you need to have absolutely tripe fielding. It doesn't encourage all rounders at all.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, what do you mean? Elaborate?

What I mean is, if someone has (say) 15 points to distribute but can only put 10 in one field, they're generally going to be an all-rounder or a batsman who bowls/bowler who bats. We already have far too many people like that and far too few specialists.

Daniel does make a good point about fielding ratings though.

I still think I'm fairly happy with the current system , with people signing up with what they like, Liam placing limitations on rookies and adjusting them down for inexperience, and experienced players getting boosted simming stats because of it. I think it works well right now, and while it isn't ideal it's not a dire problem the way that some people seem to think it is.

It's good to have people speculating about the system and coming up with ideas though, because if we come up with a better sign-up system it will only be a good thing.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

What I mean is, if someone has (say) 15 points to distribute but can only put 10 in one field, they're generally going to be an all-rounder or a batsman who bowls/bowler who bats. We already have far too many people like that and far too few specialists.

Daniel does make a good point about fielding ratings though.

I still think I'm fairly happy with the current system , with people signing up with what they like, Liam placing limitations on rookies and adjusting them down for inexperience, and experienced players getting boosted simming stats because of it. I think it works well right now, and while it isn't ideal it's not a dire problem the way that some people seem to think it is.

It's good to have people speculating about the system and coming up with ideas though, because if we come up with a better sign-up system it will only be a good thing.

I kinda agree, but I also think that if everyone knew HOW it was adjusted, it would be better, though. That way most people would start out on a level playing field, and it wouldn't solely be up to Liam to play God and decide exactly how good they are. So someone signing up with massive stats would be adjusted according to Dan's stats sheet until they fit.

See this example of a gun all-rounder:

40 bat (equates to 12.33 points under the latest suggestion), 20 bowl (eqv. to 15 pts) and 27 field (eqv. to 8 pts).

He has 33.33 points. Now we only want 20 in total, so we divide everything by 33.3/20 = 5/3:

Bat: 7.4 points, bowl: 9, field: 4.8

Which, converted back to averages, gives him:

Bat: 22.2, bowl: 32, field: 14.4 (rounded to 15).

Perhaps an exponential function for bowling would come in useful, too, instead of the 2-point deduction - after all, we aren't asking people to use the sheet, just warning them that unreasonable sign-ups will be converted (Liam would be the only one to actually do all the conversions, and I'm sure it can be done in 3 minutes with a conversion sheet).

 

[Loony BoB]

That's a brilliant way of doing things, Vimes. I say we pass all rookies to Vimes to adjust the stats before they're allocated to a team.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

That's a brilliant way of doing things, Vimes. I say we pass all rookies to Vimes to adjust the stats before they're allocated to a team.

Thanks (I think!)

Anyway, tinkered a bit more with it and figured that the best way of doing it would be awfully complicated, but still basically the same as in the example above. This system would be able to handle everything but the weirdest of sign-ups, I think.

Enough waffle - I shall now try to explain.

First, the sign-up averages are converted into points using a linear equation - similar to what Dan's been doing. The table of averages into points can be seen in the right-hand table in the attached image.

Second, the procedure I outlined above is applied, so that everyone's linear points gets normalised to a certain amount of points - at the moment 20.

Third, these points are converted into averages, but this uses the left-hand table - a so-called normal function, for those who like statistics. Basically, this has the effect of cluttering everyone around the "middle values" - 18 for batting, 35 for bowling - if they try to be all-rounders, while rewarding those with a bit more skill in one form.

A few examples of what this method actually turns out (bat/bowl/field ---> converted bat/bowl/field):

Gun all-rounder:

40/20/27 ---> 22.47/34.16/12

Gun all-rounder w/o fielding:

40/20/3 ---> 24.94/33.21/3

Batting all-rounder:

30/20/15 ---> 20.90/32.57/9

Specialist batsman:

50/50/3 ---> 45.51/39.2/3

Specialist bowler:

3/16/3 ---> 0.5/20.33/3.

I'm fairly pleased with it, but would appreciate comments. I'll also try to add in a random function in there somewhere.

Edit: Oh, and there's no need to do manual calculations - I've devised a spreadsheet for that.

 

[Loony BoB]

1) Need to find out what to do with a keeper
2) I think you should boost up the fielding stats a little. The "gun all rounder" puts in awesome stats for fielding (the best listed, in fact) and ends up crap. While most fielders in the current system have 15-21, I'd be surprised if there are more than 1-2 with fielding stats under 15. All of your examples ended up slacking.

Otherwise I like it.

 

[age_master]

yeah i wouldn't want anyone to have fielding 6 or below...

 

[bryce]

I signed up with averages of 20/16 hoping to be a bowler who was maybe a late order slogger - I never actually intended to be an allrounder at all.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I actually think this makes specialists a bit too good in comparison.

An all-rounder who puts nothing in fielding there averages half of what a specialist bat does and 13 more with the ball than a specialist bowler, which means you'd be looking at even the very best all-rounders being poor with the bat and rarely getting a bowl because everyone with the ball would average 20.

However, I think your idea for the system is a good one, and that's the way we should do it. I just think the figures themselves need slight adjustment.

Anyway, looking at your examples of post-adjustment figures, a batsman starting with 45 as a simming average is extreme. I've seen the simming stats for the blues, and suffice to say that rookie would be better than just about everyone, and the bowling specialist in your example averaging 20 WOULD be better than everyone, and by a fair margin at that. I don't think batsmen should be signing up with averages any higher than 40, or bowlers any lower than 25 or 26. And I think an all-rounder who averages say 30 with both bat and ball should be possible, or say 20/28 if they are a bowling all rounder or 35/32 if they are a batting all-rounder... that sort of thing.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think we need some all ronders, as long as they are average with the bat and bowl or batting or bowling all rounders. I think 39 with the bat is ok, but i think bowler should be able to have 24 bowling averages. Maybe this could be a solution, the highest points you can put in one field is 12 and you have 16 points in total.

Top Batsmen (39 (12) BAT, 15 (4) FLD)
Top Bowler (24 (12) BWL, 15 (4) FLD or BAT)
Top Keeper (39 (12) FLD, 15 (4) BAT)
Batting All Rounder (BAT 30 (10), BWL 36 (6) )
Bowling All Rounder (BWL 28 (10), BAT 21 (6) )

 

[Robertinho]

Specialist batsman:

50/50/3 ---> 45.51/39.2/3

So you make their bowling better?

Looking at your all rounders, this guy has 20+ more batting and only 6 or so more bowling.. I mean, specialist bats shouldn't bowl at all

Tharmi's new idea looks reasonable, infact it is pretty good to be honest. EDIT - however, the all rounders have virtually no fielding?!

 

[chaminda_00]

EDIT - however, the all rounders have virtually no fielding?!

Its near impossible to make fair a formula where all rounders can be decent fielders. You can't be good in all fields, you have to lose in one area. If you increase the points then you get all keepers signing up with 39 Fielding and 21-27 Batting.

 

[Loony BoB]

Its near impossible to make fair a formula where all rounders can be decent fielders. You can't be good in all fields, you have to lose in one area. If you increase the points then you get all keepers signing up with 39 Fielding and 21-27 Batting.

I noticed that Vimes uses negative points for batting and bowling. He should do the same with fielding - 12 or 15 being 0 points.

 

[new_age_ar]

I think we need some all ronders, as long as they are average with the bat and bowl or batting or bowling all rounders. I think 39 with the bat is ok, but i think bowler should be able to have 24 bowling averages. Maybe this could be a solution, the highest points you can put in one field is 12 and you have 16 points in total.

Top Batsmen (39 (12) BAT, 15 (4) FLD)
Top Bowler (24 (12) BWL, 15 (4) FLD or BAT)
Top Keeper (39 (12) FLD, 15 (4) BAT)
Batting All Rounder (BAT 30 (10), BWL 36 (6) )
Bowling All Rounder (BWL 28 (10), BAT 21 (6) )

Hey cus i don't think any keeper in their right mind would sign up with a batting average of 15.

 

[Loony BoB]

Hey cus i don't think any keeper in their right mind would sign up with a batting average of 15.

If they want to be a specialist keeper with awesome keeping stats, they shouldn't be any higher than 21 or so, that's for sure. We need our Chris Reads!

 

[marc71178]

Which is exactly the problem.

Everybody wants to sign up as being everything.

 

[new_age_ar]

If they want to be a specialist keeper with awesome keeping stats, they shouldn't be any higher than 21 or so, that's for sure. We need our Chris Reads!

Aren't people signing up to play FC cricket? If so Chris Read averages 29. I don't think you will find any FC keepers that average 15 with that bat and can keep their spot, regardless how good their keeping is.

 

[Robertinho]

The point he was making - a dud with the bat, but a very good keeper. You cannot be awesome with both the gloves and the bat (atm there are only a few in the CW XI I can think of that are really that good - Hakon (FC), Chaulk (OD) - and then there's Dubb-Lynch, who's pretty much an FC specialist aswell. May have missed out on someone)