Non pure player rule

[eddiesmith]

There has been a suggestion that the game is getting too predictable and we should consider bringing in a new rule requiring 2 non pure players in each team

I know some people want an answer soon so I will leave this poll open for 2 weeks and will make the decision then

Anyone who wants to put an argument for either please do to show some what the main advantages might be

The poll will not be public as I am hoping to get most people to vote and you will not be forced to follow your captain

 

[Armageddon]

Make it 2 I say, give the all rounders more of a say in the game and continue to see who the more tactically sound captains are, especially knowing we have the best two skips in the game

Would see more all rounders pushing for the medals. Let's go two!

 

[Sidey_87]

Definately needs to be looked at, i think we should go to 2.
Because the best formula for tests has been worked out.

 

[Dipper]

Definately needs to be looked at, i think we should go to 2.
Because the best formula for tests has been worked out.

What the man says, as it is all the teams that do well have largely played a similar 'formation', there's no tactical element anymore.

Get the 2 allrounder rule in & nobody can be sure what will work best as there's so many options, NP bat 1 np bowler.....2 pue allrounders, who knows.

Also good for the allrounders gives them more of a go, a few of them get rolled out for the one dayers but don't see much Test action.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

You need to give NP bats better stats if you introduce it.

 

[Cap]

why do you need to HAVE 2 non pure why can't it be optional ?
give people a chance to make some tatical calls

 

[Frodo]

I think the idea stinks!!!

We need to get this game as close to reality as possible. Otherwise forget about fantasy cricket, call it fantasy funnygame.

The thought of a captain picking a team with no purebowlers and just 2 allrounders is abhorrent.

For me make it a minimum of four bowlers in a team and the captain can decide on the mix. That's plenty of flexibility and close to reality.

It's supposed to be about CRICKET

 

[Sidey_87]

I think the idea stinks!!!

We need to get this game as close to reality as possible. Otherwise forget about fantasy cricket, call it fantasy funnygame.

The thought of a captain picking a team with no purebowlers and just 2 allrounders is abhorrent.

For me make it a minimum of four bowlers in a team and the captain can decide on the mix. That's plenty of flexibility and close to reality.

It's supposed to be about CRICKET

If you were to choose 2 all rounder's alone to bowl you would get smashed 9 times out of 10.
If the rule was you must have 4 bowlers i think most captains would take 4 pure bowlers, unless you had a Stmookeyj in your team.
I know what you are saying, but for that to happen the A/R would have to be more valuable and have better stats.

 

[Frodo]

If you were to choose 2 all rounder's alone to bowl you would get smashed 9 times out of 10.
If the rule was you must have 4 bowlers i think most captains would take 4 pure bowlers, unless you had a Stmookeyj in your team.
I know what you are saying, but for that to happen the A/R would have to be more valuable and have better stats.

Doesn't matter if you get smashed or not, the proposed rule allows for a farcical situation. Many teams play without an allrounder, nothing wrong with that. And yes, if we want to encourage more allrounder selection then increase their stats, but IIRC the purebowlers stats were improved last season by Kapow because the allrounders had a clear advantage.

The only change needed is a four bowler minimum.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

I dont get the point really.

 

[grayza]

i said keep it at 1, but it doesnt really worry me as the majority of games i played 2 anyway

 

[Dipper]

The only change needed is a four bowler minimum.

you're missing the point big time Frodo, if you bring in a 4 bowler minimum then there's no room for tactical outflanking anymore, essentially anyone who knows what they're doing will play 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler & 3 pure bowlers.

There's no fun anymore if you can't try to outsmart people.

There's no way that you can win games playing 2 non pure bowlers & no pure bowlers so it(2 np rule) gets rid of the packing the side out with batsmen thing but at the same time keeping the essence of this thing which is trying to find a way of being more succesful.

When the Allies were winning every year you said that we must be cheating as you seemed to think that this thing was a dice game, random in it's results, if it was I wouldn't bother with it anymore, we kept winning because we were ahead of the field in terms of tactics, if there's 1 np player with a 4 bowler minimum then there's nowhere to go with tactics anymore, we've reached the zenith, tactically eeveryone is more switched on now, we won our fist 2 titles almost by simply not playing np bats, it took 3 years for the rest of the field to cotton on to that one but now we're in the professional era.

As much as this thing is a cricket simulation the more important thing is that it's as enjoyable as possible.If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Here's something for you to chew on.


KCC won most of their games playing 6 bats, 1np bowler, 3 pure bowlers
Allies won a lot of game playing the same
WSC won most games playing 6 pure bats, 1 A/R, either 3 pure bowlers or 2 pure bowlers 1 np
Victoria, 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler, 3 pure bowlers for most of the time.

See a correlation there?

Top 4 sides.

The only way I found to outsmart that was to pick 8 bats I did it once, to KCC which is a testament to how good they are, we won but I've never used it again as it's not really in the spirit of the thing.

Keep it the same for next year & we'll have every team playing the same basic way & we'll all win about half our games & lose about half.

 

[nananana catman]

We have absolutely no depth in the n-p area, keep it at 1

 

[Frodo]

you're missing the point big time Frodo, if you bring in a 4 bowler minimum then there's no room for tactical outflanking anymore, essentially anyone who knows what they're doing will play 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler & 3 pure bowlers.

There's no fun anymore if you can't try to outsmart people.

There's no way that you can win games playing 2 non pure bowlers & no pure bowlers so it(2 np rule) gets rid of the packing the side out with batsmen thing but at the same time keeping the essence of this thing which is trying to find a way of being more succesful.

When the Allies were winning every year you said that we must be cheating as you seemed to think that this thing was a dice game, random in it's results, if it was I wouldn't bother with it anymore, we kept winning because we were ahead of the field in terms of tactics, if there's 1 np player with a 4 bowler minimum then there's nowhere to go with tactics anymore, we've reached the zenith, tactically eeveryone is more switched on now, we won our fist 2 titles almost by simply not playing np bats, it took 3 years for the rest of the field to cotton on to that one but now we're in the professional era.

As much as this thing is a cricket simulation the more important thing is that it's as enjoyable as possible.If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Here's something for you to chew on.


KCC won most of their games playing 6 bats, 1np bowler, 3 pure bowlers
Allies won a lot of game playing the same
WSC won most games playing 6 pure bats, 1 A/R, either 3 pure bowlers or 2 pure bowlers 1 np
Victoria, 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler, 3 pure bowlers for most of the time.

See a correlation there?

Top 4 sides.

The only way I found to outsmart that was to pick 8 bats I did it once, to KCC which is a testament to how good they are, we won but I've never used it again as it's not really in the spirit of the thing.

Keep it the same for next year & we'll have every team playing the same basic way & we'll all win about half our games & lose about half.

I see your point completely, and disagree. I see this competition as being about all the players. You see the competition as a tactical battle between a dozen captains with everyone else being 'sundries'. I don't mind if every team finishes with 11 wins and 11 losses, it gives averyone something to cheer about and gives a nice close competition.
Your goals can be satisfied with a minimum four bowler rule and slightly raising the allrounder stats. If all rounders are taking wickets and scoring runs they are going to get selected.


ps I never thought you were cheating and never said anything like that.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

I voted for two non pure players, either way I am not too fussed, as a captain it is pretty easy at the moment, especially in the one dayers, I just pick 6 bats, 4 bowlers and an all rounder. Each week I just substitute a batsman. Easy as.

If we change the rules I am cool with that as it will make things harder to pick but a little bit more exciting.

 

[Leg_Spinning_Sensation]

Give 2 a shot, it's more unpredictable and if Frodo's main argument is that it makes it less like cricket then someone should point out to him that their are usually more than 4 pure bowlers and an all rounder who can bowl. Maybe if we brought in the part timer style of player which is bat average 43 and bowl:60?

 

[spell_check]

Yes, good idea. It can open up more possibilites such as two pure bowlers, one pure all rounder, one non pure; or one pure bowler, three pure all rounders; three pure bowlers, two non pure all rounders etc.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Seems familiar...

 

[Cassius_Clay]

you're missing the point big time Frodo, if you bring in a 4 bowler minimum then there's no room for tactical outflanking anymore, essentially anyone who knows what they're doing will play 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler & 3 pure bowlers.

There's no fun anymore if you can't try to outsmart people.

There's no way that you can win games playing 2 non pure bowlers & no pure bowlers so it(2 np rule) gets rid of the packing the side out with batsmen thing but at the same time keeping the essence of this thing which is trying to find a way of being more succesful.

When the Allies were winning every year you said that we must be cheating as you seemed to think that this thing was a dice game, random in it's results, if it was I wouldn't bother with it anymore, we kept winning because we were ahead of the field in terms of tactics, if there's 1 np player with a 4 bowler minimum then there's nowhere to go with tactics anymore, we've reached the zenith, tactically eeveryone is more switched on now, we won our fist 2 titles almost by simply not playing np bats, it took 3 years for the rest of the field to cotton on to that one but now we're in the professional era.

As much as this thing is a cricket simulation the more important thing is that it's as enjoyable as possible.If every game is like a toss of a coin it'll be sh*thouse.

Here's something for you to chew on.


KCC won most of their games playing 6 bats, 1np bowler, 3 pure bowlers
Allies won a lot of game playing the same
WSC won most games playing 6 pure bats, 1 A/R, either 3 pure bowlers or 2 pure bowlers 1 np
Victoria, 6 pure bats, 1 np bowler, 3 pure bowlers for most of the time.

See a correlation there?

Top 4 sides.

The only way I found to outsmart that was to pick 8 bats I did it once, to KCC which is a testament to how good they are, we won but I've never used it again as it's not really in the spirit of the thing.

Keep it the same for next year & we'll have every team playing the same basic way & we'll all win about half our games & lose about half.

I want you to show me how many formations you can make having this new 2 non player rule compared to the one we have in place right now.

 

[Frodo]

One other point. I had decided that smaller squads would be preferable, however if this rule comes in the allrounders become critical and you would probably need 4 in your squad. So that means squad size would need to increase.

 

[jod23]

Hmm... im open for it to go back to 2. I sometimes play with two all rounders anyways.

 

[funkyfreo]

Hmm I'm not so sure just going to 2 non-pures will really change much. At the end of the day a relatively simple sim is always going to end up with a particular line up dominating, and if a few catch on they will do well. I just wish I had caught on (or rather paid attention) before taking over

I think the main thing is that the averages get tinkered with by Ed in the off season to come up with a scenario where it is not so easy to arraive at a dominant formula.

Or make restrictions something like:
1) at least 2 pure bowlers.
2) either a 3rd bowler out of pure bowler or a np bowler or a bowling ar.
3) at least a 4th bowler - np bat or batting ar.

so that is at least 4 bowlers - but with lots of combos. that is just a suggestion, can be tweaked. But I think having at least 4 bowlers is a must.

Even if a particular formula wins out, the chances of everyone even having that formula in their squad is slim.

But it all depends on the tweaking with the stats making things even.

I'd be happy for np bats to have full batting stats too. Everyone wants a Freddie.

And I'd throw in a smokey of injuries.

Anyone who does not post in a test match recieves a stats penalty for the next test match - an injury. So either gets dropped or plays with reduced stats for their speciality. They keep going down until you've non-posted yourself to oblivion.

p.s. I voted go to 2, but really it is a vote for change, not just a knee jerk 2ar rule.

 

[eddiesmith]

Injuries is good, I like the idea of a player getting 'injured' when they whinge about the game not being posted

 

[funkyfreo]

Injuries is good, I like the idea of a player getting 'injured' when they whinge about the game not being posted

You could injure them for being too pro-aussie in the ashes!

 

[eddiesmith]

You could injure them for being too pro-aussie in the ashes!

Problem is there would be no one left