Discussion BBL|09 SuperCoach BBL In Game Discussion

Joined
25 Jul 2012
Messages
18,377
Likes
17,614
AFL Club
Collingwood
Think you might be able to wait another round on Lynn, but waiting too long in my experience usually means we miss a big score. Have to trust your gut on who you think goes well next round.
Exactly right , I am still counting on at least 1 surprise being available in Round 12/13 so might just do 2 Sixers this week and bring in a Striker/Heat/Hurricanes/Renegade early , need to look at the 4 teams , Ave , projected score , BE and schedule and see which way to go.

Lynn is one of the few batsmen who could suddenly score a actual 75+
 

Darkie

Leadership Group
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
7,634
Likes
7,459
AFL Club
Collingwood
This happens in NBL DT as well with doubles. I think it’s as simple as the computer can’t do two price changes in one round for some players and not others.

It’s good and bad. It can smooth out the negative impact of a low score in one game of a double as much as it negates some of the upside of a single huge score.
These are both good points. Personally I find the latter annoying net net, given I'm targeting (sometimes correctly!) high scoring DGR players, but it it does help when you get it wrong. Seems pretty arbitrary though ... I’m not sure the “rounds” even exist for anyone who doesn’t play SuperCoach?!

As for the technical issue, I think you’re probably right. This seems pretty basic and not difficult to fix, but they seem to (1) encounter technical problems more often than they probably should, and (2) hide behind other explanations (eg “the pricing system is quite complicated”) to cover them up. The pricing system is not all that complicated in the grand scheme of things, especially if they ironed out some of the quirks and kinks that don’t seem to have a logical reason behind them.
 
Last edited:

Rowsus

Statistician
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
18,940
Likes
9,182
AFL Club
Melbourne
Joined
13 Mar 2012
Messages
2,146
Likes
1,087
AFL Club
Adelaide
I hate that a bowler can potentially earn 61 points from 1 particular ball, but a batsman is limited to 13 as a maximum.
While they don't have to be equal, there should be a better parity.
It’s definitely a game skewed towards bowlers. It’s common now to run 2-3 pure batters max. It seems so much harder for a bat to score 60 than a bowler.
 

Darkie

Leadership Group
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
7,634
Likes
7,459
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm hoping for equality in the price of wickets

Current value
Wicket 25

But also
Catch 10
Stumping 15
Run out 20

Which means a different value for each type of wicket taken.

What if every wicket were the same value? Each priced at 30.

So if a catch is worth 10, the bowler get 20
A stumping worth 20, the bowler 10
A run out 25, bowler 5

And perhaps no bonuses for 3 wickets (I think this creates a bigger difference than necessary - this player has already performed well)

I think this could level the bowling/batter playing field.

Anyway, just my 2c worth
I like it, I’ve thought something similar.

As a bowler, my preferred way to take a wicket was always bowled ... definitely not caught and bowled.

But bowling a batsman gets you 25, and caught and bowled is worth 35?!
 

THCLT

Leadership Group
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
12,671
Likes
16,572
AFL Club
North Melb.
I hate that a bowler can potentially earn 61 points from 1 particular ball, but a batsman is limited to 13 as a maximum.
While they don't have to be equal, there should be a better parity.
I couldn't agree more as I've says many times already (even emailed them about some of my thoughts and proposal) that the current scoring system is too heavily weighted towards bowlers, particularly the points allocation for wickets. I once put forward the following to them...
  • Any 'unassisted' wickets should be scored 20 points, that is, bowled or LBW
  • Any 'assisted' wickets should be scored 15 points, that is, stumped, caught or hit wicket.
  • Any wickets from overs 7 to 14 attracts a +5 Bonus. Why...? This is the low period of the game for wickets and helps to even the ledger between the bowlers who normally bowls during this 'dry' period versus those who bowls at the start/end of an innings where wickets are more likely to fall.
The above is just to highlight one example which I put forward to them amongst many others, like increasing the points for 6s from 2 to 3.

Probably too hard for them in the end to implement and we all know too well that they can't even get their pricing coding correct in their system for Strikers players, not to mention those 'random' prices for certain player which doesn't follow any logic or reason.:rolleyes:
 
Joined
16 May 2019
Messages
75
Likes
226
AFL Club
Sydney
I'm hoping for equality in the price of wickets

Current value
Wicket 25

But also
Catch 10
Stumping 15
Run out 20

Which means a different value for each type of wicket taken.

What if every wicket were the same value? Each priced at 30.

So if a catch is worth 10, the bowler get 20
A stumping worth 20, the bowler 10
A run out 25, bowler 5

And perhaps no bonuses for 3 wickets (I think this creates a bigger difference than necessary - this player has already performed well)

I think this could level the bowling/batter playing field.

Anyway, just my 2c worth
Wish they would give the bowler extra points for clean bowled.
 
Joined
16 Dec 2018
Messages
513
Likes
921
AFL Club
GWS Giants
I couldn't agree more as I've says many times already (even emailed them about some of my thoughts and proposal) that the current scoring system is too heavily weighted towards bowlers, particularly the points allocation for wickets. I once put forward the following to them...
  • Any 'unassisted' wickets should be scored 20 points, that is, bowled or LBW
  • Any 'assisted' wickets should be scored 15 points, that is, stumped, caught or hit wicket.
  • Any wickets from overs 7 to 14 attracts a +5 Bonus. Why...? This is the low period of the game for wickets and helps to even the ledger between the bowlers who normally bowls during this 'dry' period versus those who bowls at the start/end of an innings where wickets are more likely to fall.
The above is just to highlight one example which I put forward to them amongst many others, like increasing the points for 6s from 2 to 3.

Probably too hard for them in the end to implement and we all know too well that they can't even get their pricing coding correct in their system for Strikers players, not to mention those 'random' prices for certain player which doesn't follow any logic or reason.:rolleyes:
Please no stumping points. We're already talking about unfair advantages so why bring another one that only advantages one type of bowler!
 
Top