Patch#2 Notes - Patch is Live

[Kiko_97]

AI extras are needed. As are byes and leg byes needing to be a thing

 

[Deleted member 9102]

The way the physics works kind of makes leg byes almost impossible at the minute. The ball seems to lose nearly all of its momentum when it hits something, whether that be the player or the stumps...

When you bowl a batsman, the ball often ends up coming to a stop only a couple of feet from the stumps and there are no overthrows from ricochets from direct hit throws, this is pretty unrealistic, and when a batsman gets hit on the pads/body then the ball also seems to almost stop dead as well. If you bowl a really wide ball, deliberately out of the keeper's reach with a pace bowler then the ball will often roll and come to a stop before it reaches the boundary which is a bit silly.

Seems like the physics need a rework for these things to be fixed so I wouldn't expect a patch to sort it.

 

[Biggs]

I've had the ball ricochet off the stumps plenty? When you throw it in and get a direct hit, make sure you're holding down the throw-button for a fraction of a second to "wind up" that little accuracy meter... as long as there's not a guy behind the stumps to stop the ball, it'll often ricochet away. I've also had a few leg byes in career mode, but not all that much. The ball definitely tends to "thunk" to a stop when it hits the players pads... that momentum thing would be worth looking into but again, wouldn't be much fun for a player to clonk a batsman in the helmet then it bounces away for four... which yes, happens in reality, but again it's about the playability of the game. Ross has mentioned this in previous posts and he's mentioned that extras as well as overthrows while being a part of cricket aren't terribly much fun to have happening all the time in a game. I tend to agree.

 

[geniusfool88]

Why?

Seriously, what value does it add to the game if a spinner can bowl a no ball?

I don't think I've ever seen a front-foot no ball from a spinner in the whole time I've watched people play cricket, and I can only remember one back foot no-ball in all that time either.

Seriously?? Have you seen IPL this year?? Do you remember how often Maxwell got his wicket back from getting out on a front foot no ball ? I remember Amit Mishra bowling a front foot noball. How often do you see dilscoop shot in cricket ? I am very much sure number of no balls bowled by a spinner is more than dilscop shot played. When that shot is included(not exactly the same shot) , Noball from a spinner is very much essential.

May be you haven't seen much of cricket. I am not offending you , I mean see bowling from spinner is some what easy compared to pace and medium pace bowler, same way there must just be a option if spinner doesnt release correctly.

 

[inertSpark]

May be you haven't seen much of cricket. I am not offending you

On the contrary, that's a logical fallacy. To suggest that someone has lesser experience is a poor way to present an argument. It's basically akin to suggesting that 'no true cricket fan can say that spinners don't get no-balls'.

I mean see bowling from spinner is some what easy compared to pace and medium pace bowler, same way there must just be a option if spinner doesnt release correctly.

It doesn't make sense for it in this game. And there's a good reason too. For pace bowlers, they have to time the jump input (the first meter), and that determines whether there will be a no-ball. It doesn't matter about the release timing at all, you can time the release perfectly but if the jump is late its a no-ball! For a spinner, that meter is taken by the rotation meter instead. If spinners had jump timing, it would make spin bowling far too complex.

 

[ellgieff]

Seriously?? Have you seen IPL this year?? Do you remember how often Maxwell got his wicket back from getting out on a front foot no ball ? I remember Amit Mishra bowling a front foot noball. How often do you see dilscoop shot in cricket ? I am very much sure number of no balls bowled by a spinner is more than dilscop shot played. When that shot is included(not exactly the same shot) , Noball from a spinner is very much essential.

May be you haven't seen much of cricket. I am not offending you , I mean see bowling from spinner is some what easy compared to pace and medium pace bowler, same way there must just be a option if spinner doesnt release correctly.

Ah, good old ad hominems, coupled with "I'm not trying to be offensive". Nice job, well done.

You're right, I haven't watched a lot of recent cricket. I'm not even slightly interested in the IPL, because it's a worse form of baseball/softball and not really cricket (note: I'm aware that this is fundamentally a no true scotsman fallacy. What I really mean is that it's not the kind of cricket that I'm interested in). If there's a spinner who's doing a lot of front foot no balls, they need to sack him and pronto - because there is _never_ a need for a spinner to get close to failing to have some part of his foot behind the popping crease.

It just about makes sense to have the occasional no-ball for being outside the return crease, because changing the angle by moving wider (or shallower) on the crease actually makes sense for a spinner - and if we had the ability to move around the crease as a spinner, I'd fully be down for there to be a (small) chance to mess that up enough to bowl a no-ball.

FWIW, it makes me sad every time the AI plays a dilscoop and I wouldn't miss that shot if it wasn't in the game. So I'd be suggesting that we lose the dilscoop rather than add something as ridiculous as a spinner that can't keep his front foot behind the line.

 

[inertSpark]

I'm aware that this is fundamentally a no true scotsman fallacy.

We both spotted the same fallacy then! Except I called it a 'no true cricket fan' fallacy!

To those who aren't aware of this:

 

[Deleted member 9102]

I've had the ball ricochet off the stumps plenty? When you throw it in and get a direct hit, make sure you're holding down the throw-button for a fraction of a second to "wind up" that little accuracy meter... as long as there's not a guy behind the stumps to stop the ball, it'll often ricochet away. I've also had a few leg byes in career mode, but not all that much. The ball definitely tends to "thunk" to a stop when it hits the players pads... that momentum thing would be worth looking into but again, wouldn't be much fun for a player to clonk a batsman in the helmet then it bounces away for four... which yes, happens in reality, but again it's about the playability of the game. Ross has mentioned this in previous posts and he's mentioned that extras as well as overthrows while being a part of cricket aren't terribly much fun to have happening all the time in a game. I tend to agree.

It does ricochet, but nearly all of the momentum is taken out of the ball. If there is no backup fielder you might get one run but in real life direct hit ricochets often go deep into the outfield or even to the boundary. If the physics were better it would make the option to throw the ball to the keeper/bowler more suitable than always going for the direct hit option - there are currently no downsides to only using the direct hit attempt throw.

I would probably prefer a satisfying smack on the head and realistic rebound for 4 than the current outcome which is quite a tame looking impact with the ball landing at their feet - also some animations to show the batsman being in pain when you hit them would be welcome. Aggressive fast bowling should run the risk of giving away extras, although I agree that for playability it is better on the current side of the spectrum than going too far the other way and having 25+ extras from leg byes/overthrows per innings but perhaps a better balance could be struck.

 

[blockerdave]

It does ricochet, but nearly all of the momentum is taken out of the ball. If there is no backup fielder you might get one run but in real life direct hit ricochets often go deep into the outfield or even to the boundary. If the physics were better it would make the option to throw the ball to the keeper/bowler more suitable than always going for the direct hit option - there are currently no downsides to only using the direct hit attempt throw.

I would probably prefer a satisfying smack on the head and realistic rebound for 4 than the current outcome which is quite a tame looking impact with the ball landing at their feet - also some animations to show the batsman being in pain when you hit them would be welcome. Aggressive fast bowling should run the risk of giving away extras, although I agree that for playability it is better on the current side of the spectrum than going too far the other way and having 25+ extras from leg byes/overthrows per innings but perhaps a better balance could be struck.

lack of pain/injury animations is baffling. when they put on their launch press-release about individual height attributes and "imagine delivering the perfect bouncer with a 2m fast bowler"... well, i bowl often with Vince Van der Bijl who was over 2m... he gets ludicrous bounce and hits the batsman all the time, but there's no satisfaction or anything because as you say, the ball dies and the batsman does nothing. huge, huge miss there and should 100% be rectified for the next iteration.

 

[inertSpark]

I've noticed that occasionally the close fielders will still throw towards the stumps even when the batsmen are in their creases. A few times I've been bowling and given up overthrows because this has happened when nobody was there to back up.

 

[jaraarrow]

Sorry in advace if this question has been asked somewhere else on this forum,but is patch 3 due?

 

[zimrahil]

Sorry in advace if this question has been asked somewhere else on this forum,but is patch 3 due?

Yes it is due sometime early September...

 

[Biggs]

Early September?! Im sorry to say this bt this is pure Discrimination!!!!!!

 

[saferider4969]

Got an update on steam today, what has been changed in this one?

 

[ashidashraf]

A minor bug fix regarding launch issues on Windows Vista