Problem: Bowling Experience in the Next Version

[angryangy]

Another big factor that will improve the bowling experience is an increase in edges. This statement, as everyone knows is nothing new.

Now speaking as someone who only really watches Test matches it's not unusual for there to be 10+ edges in an innings. Some won't carry (softer wickets), some will fly over the slips to the boundary (harder wickets), a couple will be just wide of or go between the slips, 1 or 2 may be dropped or just clip the fingers of the slip catcher or keeper diving to his side, and generally 4/5 will be taken, sometimes more.

So the game really needs to represent this. Edges are currently there but they just need increasing and more variance. If feel there is currently a very subtle difference between the new ball and bowling with an older ball, but it needs to be made more noticeable.

Top edges need to be added, In the thousands of overs I have bowled, I have never seen a genuine top edge from a pull shot or a sweep go straight up in the air.

Added to this, better physics in regards to the ball hitting or clipping the batsman, either on the body, pad or gloves, it would be great if the game could be at a level where you would hear a sound but not be entirely sure whether it was an edge, or it had clipped the pad or the batman's arm on the way past.

Hopefully the improved physics in this regards would lead to more bat-pad chances from spin bowling.

Yeah edges and mishits need a bit of work. The edges are also weird because in the event you do see an edge, 1st slip isn't nearly as handy as 3rd or maybe 5th slip. The game perhaps thinks the middle of the bat is bigger than it is,. And the main purpose of bat-pad or silly point is to get a catch when the batsman reaches for a bad ball and flicks it into his own leg. Part of that I think is that there's just not enough turn to have batsmen playing nervy bat-pad forward defences. The game is clearly wired for limited overs and generally even 50 over games aren't practical, but the fact is that a lot of the game elements are pretty superficial. In a limited overs game, there should definitely be more edges going into vacant areas.

I really think more streaky shots would help giving feedback to players to make them more selective and wary, but you'd have to also make sure the AI can recognise when they nearly got out. Confidence doesn't seem to be important for batsmen of a high enough skill. I wonder if confidence should have more of an effect the longer the game is. In a long game, one good bowler might be terrifying and the innings revolves around the fact that he'll definitely come back to bowl. That guy might press the batsmen to even block half volleys, lest they be destroyed. On the other hand, for a short game, spraying the ball around might even help. So confidence in limited overs is kinda outweighed by the structure of the game and the need for players to just do their roles.

The concession to that is that it's actually too easy to bowl, just that bowling properly doesn't work like you expect. The game will basically bowl it at the top of off stump by default. A lot of the nuance of the game is bowling 'green' and sneaking it full or short. If line and length were harder to achieve, that would probably balance the increased difficulty of hitting a good ball. Part of the trouble with yorkers is that you can never really spot a full toss. The balls on that length should probably come with a greater risk of not landing at all. So to that end, controls could probably use some revising. It's hard to use some of the trigger/bumper combinations and in some cases, this simply outweighs their value.

 

[blockerdave]

I think the game would be transformed if instead of the AI batsman knowing exactly the trajectory of the ball they had a zone of doubt varying on ability.

Suddenly they may be caught on the wrong foot, play at ones they should leave, leave ones they should play, mistime and edge.

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

I think the game would be transformed if instead of the AI batsman knowing exactly the trajectory of the ball they had a zone of doubt varying on ability.

Suddenly they may be caught on the wrong foot, play at ones they should leave, leave ones they should play, mistime and edge.

My only concern on this is whether they will make it realistic visually, it shouldnt be predictable miss,leave kind of stuff...Even some batsman go aggressive when they are not able to score, this should also be there [maybe for brute kind of batsman]...It should a mix...There should always be an element of surprise when bowling ,not always but sometimes..Even an advance down the wicket dab to rotate strike...

I hope I am making sense...

 

[cooks1st100]

I think the game would be transformed if instead of the AI batsman knowing exactly the trajectory of the ball they had a zone of doubt varying on ability.

Suddenly they may be caught on the wrong foot, play at ones they should leave, leave ones they should play, mistime and edge.

This is how I reckon this can be achieved.

This would be the the "Zone of Doubt" for a World class seamer for example. For bowlers of a lesser ability the zone would be more narrow and shorter and therefore harder to hit.

 

[cooks1st100]

The concession to that is that it's actually too easy to bowl, just that bowling properly doesn't work like you expect. The game will basically bowl it at the top of off stump by default.\

This is a complaint of mine, currently the default ball is the perfect line.

 

[blockerdave]

This is how I reckon this can be achieved.

This would be the the "Zone of Doubt" for a World class seamer for example. For bowlers of a lesser ability the zone would be more narrow and shorter and therefore harder to hit.

to be honest, the zone of doubt should be for the AI batsman - Ricky Ponting can probably guess where the ball will land quickly, and accurately: Phil Tufnell, less so.

though equally, yes with bowlers the line/length calculation should be an area of probability: glenn mcgrath's area of probability would be fairly small, with concentration in the middle. Devon Malcolm's would be wider, with wider concentration.

each, for batsmen and bowlers, would vary according to form, rhythm etc.

 

[cooks1st100]

to be honest, the zone of doubt should be for the AI batsman - Ricky Ponting can probably guess where the ball will land quickly, and accurately: Phil Tufnell, less so.

though equally, yes with bowlers the line/length calculation should be an area of probability: glenn mcgrath's area of probability would be fairly small, with concentration in the middle. Devon Malcolm's would be wider, with wider concentration.

each, for batsmen and bowlers, would vary according to form, rhythm etc.

Well yeah it would work either way I guess, smaller for good batsmen and larger for lower rated ones. As a batsman becomes more settled it would shrink.

 

[blockerdave]

Well yeah it would work either way I guess, smaller for good batsmen and larger for lower rated ones. As a batsman becomes more settled it would shrink.

just correct me if i'm wrong, i interpreted what you posted as: good bowler = batsmen less sure where it lands; less good bowler = batsman more sure here it lands.

i envisage more if human bowing to AI:

good bowler: zone of probability of where ball might land for a given input, smaller; less god bowler: bigger.
good batsman: smaller area of probability for where he thinks ball may and plays accordingly; less good batsman: larger area of probability.

 

[cooks1st100]

just correct me if i'm wrong, i interpreted what you posted as: good bowler = batsmen less sure where it lands; less good bowler = batsman more sure here it lands.

i envisage more if human bowing to AI:

good bowler: zone of probability of where ball might land for a given input, smaller; less god bowler: bigger.
good batsman: smaller area of probability for where he thinks ball may and plays accordingly; less good batsman: larger area of probability.

It's more about the zone itself. If the ball hits the zone the AI would only have 2 choices, leave or block.

By making it smaller for lesser bowlers it would be harder to hit the "good zone" and therefore having less margin for error.

The length of the zone could possibly be set depending on a bowlers "optimum length". Which would be designated via the academy.
For some this would be full, for others just short of a length for example. Hitting these zones could also see the ball do a bit more, say extra movement or zip off the pitch.

 

[blockerdave]

It's more about the zone itself. If the ball hits the zone the AI would only have 2 choices, leave or block.

By making it smaller for lesser bowlers it would be harder to hit the "good zone" and therefore having less margin for error.

i must confess i had a bottle of red and a bottle of white at lunch (shared with one other, i'm not an animal), as well as a cheeky guinness on the way back to the office, so i can't pretend to fully understand what you're driving at?

in my scenario, as a human bowler to AI batsman:

• it's easier for you to bowl accurately with a good bowler than a lesser bowler
• a good batsman will judge your bowling better than a lesser batsman, holding bowling skill constant

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

It's more about the zone itself. If the ball hits the zone the AI would only have 2 choices, leave or block.

By making it smaller for lesser bowlers it would be harder to hit the "good zone" and therefore having less margin for error.

This with implementation of bowling mechanism with the length depending on the arm release position??

 

[cooks1st100]

What we are talking about here is "the corridor of uncertainty". By making it narrower for lesser bowlers would mean less margin for error and make it harder to bowl this line ball after ball.

So for a good bowler the corridor could be: top of off-6 inches outside-off, while for a lesser bowler: top of off-1 inch outside-off.

Added to this I feel that a good bowler should have less movement in his line in relation to the RHS position on release.

So if RHS is at 10 o'clock on release, for a good bowler it would see the ball bowled say a foot outside-off whereas for a lesser skilled bowler it would be a wide.

From the batting side of things, smaller timing windows for lesser batsmen would make it harder to leave or defend the ball also.

Does that make sense? I've got a killer headache atm, so my thinking isn't quite on point!!

 

[cooks1st100]

This with implementation of bowling mechanism with the length depending on the arm release position??

Most definitely, as this should in theory make being able to put the ball exactly where you want it each time slightly harder.

Having different optimum lengths for bowlers, would mean that you would have to bowl differently, according to the bowler's strength.

 

[blockerdave]

What we are talking about here is "the corridor of uncertainty". By making it narrower for lesser bowlers would mean less margin for error and make it harder to bowl this line ball after ball.

So for a good bowler the corridor could be: top of off-6 inches outside-off, while for a lesser bowler: top of off-1 inch outside-off.

Added to this I feel that a good bowler should have less movement in his line in relation to the RHS position on release.

So if RHS is at 10 o'clock on release, for a good bowler it would see the ball bowled say a foot outside-off whereas for a lesser skilled bowler it would be a wide.

From the batting side of things, smaller timing windows for lesser batsmen would make it harder to leave or defend the ball also.

Does that make sense? I've got a killer headache atm, so my thinking isn't quite on point!!

So often we have the same idea and a vastly different opinion on its implementation.

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 way, the actual landing spot - point y - will vary according to ability even with identical input, and muscle memory is minimised. The amount of variation though is based on ability - so a good representation of reality.

Exactly for batsmen, given an actual landing spot of point y, they will have 3 zones around point y representing their certainty of the ball landing in that zone. Again the sizes would vary according to ability - the batsman will play according to conception of the ball landing at point z.

The difference between x & y gives you bowling difficulty.

The difference between y & z hopefully gives you an AI that plays & misses, mistimes, and edges; and more importantly, varies according to ability.

The only downside I can see to this is the overhead in on the fly processing may be too high.

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

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...