ICC 2006 Press Release/Screenshots

[andrew_nixon]

Ashley Giles?

Yeah, they list him as a spinner for some reason.

Seriously though, it's the bug where overseas players who are not available for a new contract due to international duty stay as registered with your club, even though they're not in your squad and thus never become avaialble to sign ever again. It's been in the game since at least ICC 2000.

 

[Andy Caddick]

Let's hope those pics are from ICC2005, i don't mind if they leave the graphics the same, i want the database update and the online play.

 

[hassan]

The screenshots suggest that its more or less same as ICC 05 but i want them to have updated and accurate players database and please this time show their attributes so we know how good they are like in all football managing games

 

[Ste]

Let's hope those pics are from ICC2005, i don't mind if they leave the graphics the same, i want the database update and the online play.

I was sent the pictures from Empire/Xplosivs press office so I assume they are screenshots of ICC 2006. Perhaps they are from an earlier version without database updates though or something.

 

[puddleduck]

I was sent the pictures from Empire/Xplosivs press office so I assume they are screenshots of ICC 2006. Perhaps they are from an earlier version without database updates though or something.

As I mentioned on the first page I really hope not, if they are from 2006 then they have failed to correct any of the England bowlers speeds, labelling Hoggard at RFM, and Flintoff and SiJo as RMF. They also have Nantie Hayward opening the bowling for Middlesex, and as far as I was aware he is not their overseas player this year :confused:

 

[andrew_nixon]

As I mentioned on the first page I really hope not, if they are from 2006 then they have failed to correct any of the England bowlers speeds, labelling Hoggard at RFM, and Flintoff and SiJo as RMF.

It should be pointed out that in ICC, MF is faster than FM.

 

[puddleduck]

It should be pointed out that in ICC, MF is faster than FM.

Eh?!? Not on their site they weren't. In the rules I am sure it mentioned using MF bowlers as your swing bowler when the sky gets cloudy. Also there were a lot of bowlers who were FM's that were correctly classed as FM's it was just the England attack, which would have been correct a few years ago for Freddie and Hoggard and just after Jones injury but when it came out is completely wrong :

If your right, that is a very bizarre mistake.

 

[scritty]

Eh?!? Not on their site they weren't. In the rules I am sure it mentioned using MF bowlers as your swing bowler when the sky gets cloudy. Also there were a lot of bowlers who were FM's that were correctly classed as FM's it was just the England attack, which would have been correct a few years ago for Freddie and Hoggard and just after Jones injury but when it came out is completely wrong :

If your right, that is a very bizarre mistake.

No - he is right. In In ICC 2005 MF has become faster than FM - don't ask me why ... (They get more "Beaten by pace" descriptions, take longer run ups etc)

Weird, but which is the adjective, and which is the qualifier for that adjective - it can be looked at both ways eg ..

"As far as FAST bowlers go he's MEDIUM, faster than Jones'y but not as fast as Shoaib -so he's medium fast" meaning FAST but in the middle of a group of players labelled fast, rather than competing to be THE fastest

OR ....

"He's faster than just medium, so we'll call him FAST MEDIUM"

So thinking this way around, the descriptions mean exactly the opposite of what they have been for the last 15 years or so (if I remember rightly, the BBC in the 80's had MEDIUM FAST as faster than FAST MEDIUM as well ...for several years)

But why the change when we'd all got used to the system (and I don't see it changed anywhere else in the cricket world)

Clarker

Oh, and unless there are some pretty major changes..2006 won't be on my shopping list -
I've got ICC2005 but have gone back to 2002 anyway

I have a MASSIVE database of pictures inclusing members of my own club as posted on "play-cricket"

Why on earth would I want a seventh version of the same game ?

I must need looking at to have the 6 I have allready (135 quid so far I think) - I mean ICC2005 is only a short step up from the original ICC - well at least after the 6 patches the original required


C

 

[puddleduck]

Unfortunately I think you are both right. I took the time to watch the MF and FM bowlers and it seemed the MFs are definately quicker in the graphical 3d representation.

To me it should always be medium . mediumfast . fastmedium . fast. So it is saying medium. Medium approaching fast, and as such closer to medium. Fast, but closer to medium than fast, and finally fast.

 

[smssia0112]

Unfortunately I think you are both right. I took the time to watch the MF and FM bowlers and it seemed the MFs are definately quicker in the graphical 3d representation.

To me it should always be medium . mediumfast . fastmedium . fast. So it is saying medium. Medium approaching fast, and as such closer to medium. Fast, but closer to medium than fast, and finally fast.

well its like medium fast is fast but only a bit less fast, medium fast wheras fast medium is medium but a bit faster so its fast medium, I agree with fm should be faster but whatever

 

[banjo6]

Ill still buy this even if it just looks like updated teams this and cricket coach will be mine very soon

 

[athkatla]

This looks like a database update of ICC2005...

Exactly, and they won't be getting my money!

 

[andrew_nixon]

Exactly, and they won't be getting my money!

Except it isn't just a database update. See: http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21095

 

[athkatla]

Except it isn't just a database update. See: http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21095

I had already read that and it doesn't change my opinion, ok they made a few cosmetic changes and included a couple of new competitions, but it's basically still the same game, and not worth 20 quid, or however much they are going to charge this time. They should be revamping the match engine for a start, nothing has been done to that for ages, for example, why can't we move the keeper when editing fields? That's just not on, he should be able to be edited same as any other fielder. There are also very few stumpings and run outs, this needs looking at also. There is a lot could be done to the match engine, but they don't seem to be bothered about that.

 

[Lanceknight]

The classification in Wikipedia