Problem: Bowling Experience in the Next Version

[blockerdave]

Good thoughts there...Will these have the same effect in online gameplay as well?? Because most of the discussions are majorly focused on offline part but online which is a slog fest now needs a complete revamp to make it more realistic and competing..We have to discuss on that part of game as well..Mainly due to the fact that players are still playing this game only because of the online gameplay...

What I've said re bowlers applies to human and AI bowlers vs any opponent in any format/mode.

What I've said re batting applies only to AI vs any opponent in any format/mode. It replicates the doubt of the human player.

 

[cooks1st100]

For me, I'd like to see for a given input that, with a metronome would give the ball a landing position of x, around point x you've a small area representing 0.5 probability of landing there, a slightly larger area representing 0.75 probability and a larger area representing probability of 1.

The actual size of those areas vary to bowler's ability.

This to me is pretty much what I suggested in regards to the need for an accuracy attribute for bowlers. I've always pictured it quite simply as a circle, dare I say it, just the same as a pitch marker apart from it would not be visible. Small for accurate bowlers, larger for not so accurate.

Either way though there needs to be distinction between what is a good ball and a bad one. This currently, appears not to exist.

We've talked quite often about edge probability, but this shouldn't even be a factor, as it should be in relation to playing the line. Play the wrong line and you'll either miss the ball or edge it.

 

[Ajh1977]

We also must understand that bad balls and bad bowlers also get good batsman out, its not a complete science that can be set by algorithms. As I mentioned in a previous post luck also comes into it. Generally I agree the ideas put forward do offer more realistic outcomes in regard to input, but if its too scientific then it becomes exploitable.

 

[cooks1st100]

We also must understand that bad balls and bad bowlers also get good batsman out, its not a complete science that can be set by algorithms. As I mentioned in a previous post luck also comes into it. Generally I agree the ideas put forward do offer more realistic outcomes in regard to input, but if its too scientific then it becomes exploitable.

I agree and I would say the game in it's current state allows you to get batsmen out with bad balls and low rated bowlers but it doesn't seem to reward you for good bowling or have any feeling of building up pressure. I don't feel this either when I'm batting.

The corridor should be made a bigger feature of the game, as well as that nagging length on which you are not sure whether to play on the front or back foot. These would improve both the batting and bowling experience imo.

 

[Ajh1977]

Certainly when you watch cricket, the probability of seeing a wicket goes up when a good bowler is bowling well, especially to poorer batsman, and the game should reflect that.

I think having a corridor of uncertainty is plausible/useful as long as things like pitch conditions, ball condition, weather conditions etc are implemented properly, and taken into account, otherwise you could just hit the same spot/area and take wickets regardless of the above parameters or batsman/bowler skill.

The other worry is if there is a system in place that says good bowling in the right area gets you wickets every time, then majority of dismissals will be to type, possibly taking away some realism, or negating totally those freakish or lucky dismissals that make cricket (especially test cricket) so special.

 

[cooks1st100]

Certainly when you watch cricket, the probability of seeing a wicket goes up when a good bowler is bowling well, especially to poorer batsman, and the game should reflect that.

I think having a corridor of uncertainty is plausible/useful as long as things like pitch conditions, ball condition, weather conditions etc are implemented properly, and taken into account, otherwise you could just hit the same spot/area and take wickets regardless of the above parameters or batsman/bowler skill.

The other worry is if there is a system in place that says good bowling in the right area gets you wickets every time, then majority of dismissals will be to type, possibly taking away some realism, or negating totally those freakish or lucky dismissals that make cricket (especially test cricket) so special.

Completely. This is why having an accuracy attribute is so important, so you won't be able to hit the same spot time after time unless you have a bowler with a really high accuracy rating.

If judgement can be introduced as an attribute for AI batsmen along the lines of what Blocker has mentioned, along with a leave/ defence system as I have mentioned in the batting thread it should balance out.

Factors such as wind having an effect, pitch physics and confidence/form should mean that bowling will always feel a bit a different from one game to the next.

Attributes such as accuracy, optimum length, natural line should make bowling a different challenge from one bowler to another.

We currently have height, which makes a difference between bowlers and it's great fun bowling with tall bowlers, just as I find it a slightly different challenge facing them while batting. Besides that though, there isn't much else that makes them seem any different.

 

[blockerdave]

We also must understand that bad balls and bad bowlers also get good batsman out, its not a complete science that can be set by algorithms. As I mentioned in a previous post luck also comes into it. Generally I agree the ideas put forward do offer more realistic outcomes in regard to input, but if its too scientific then it becomes exploitable.

I could be way off on this, but my hunch is giving the batsman a zone of doubt should still allow bad balls to take wickets.

My only concern about my suggestions here is that whereas most of what I've talked about previously shouldn't (I believe) have an on the fly processing overhead, this definitely would... So the question is whether the overhead would be too much or not

 

[cooks1st100]

I've had a thought as to how rhythm can be incorporated into the current system. That is to have it linked to getting the needle in the green zone when pulling back the RHS. Bowlers with a low rhythm attribute would have a smaller green zone to begin with than a bowler with a high rhythm attribute. Having a smaller green zone would make it more difficult to hit it consistently and put you at a higher risk of bowling no balls. Hitting the green zone consistently would see it increase. While not hitting it would see it decrease. As well as the benefits of hitting the green zone, better pace, movement etc, having a larger green zone would allow you to use more of the crease.

This would only work in relation to the current seam system.

I was also wondering if something could be done with utilising the position of the RHS when pulled back?