Patch 3 Requests/Wishlist

[chintoo02018]

I might have mentioned it before - but it would be really handy if we could watch a replay from the various built in camera angles. Obviously even better if they could be with sound - but just a way to rewatch the ball as you saw it originally would be a great help when trying to record replays.

Support With LAN , Can be answer[DOUBLEPOST=1434775654][/DOUBLEPOST]

A rather small request. A restart match option would really be handy. Been asking for this from some time. Thanks.

Restart means , Save and exit then Start Match , What will be the difference .

 

[Sourabh007]

If bigant studio add hotspot in bigant review system(separately as like Big Eye or others) that will help to determine edge.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I really hope some way is introduced to globally edit attributes and skills. For example you could take front foot stat and bring it down by 5 across all players and teams, or just one team, or one category of team. Would save a lot of time.


Found something else too. When using match type to create something I've been calling a limited overs test, I've set it for a certain number of overs per day and a limited number of overs per the first two innings that fits that day. So a test can be played out over 2 days.

So if the game is played out neatly and there are no no-balls or wides things will work out with each team having just enough time to complete their innings. Invariably myself or one of my friends will bowl a few no-balls or wides and the game won't have enough time to complete. That's fine by me, because I want to bring in the idea of a 3rd innings declaration sometimes having to happen. Which makes the game more like a test and more interesting.

The problem is, if in the fourth innings, the last team to bat lasts out the overs but doesn't win (lets say Over 46 out of 50, but the day has closed), it's not a draw. The game awards a winner, even when I set up the match type situation with a "no winner is fine" scenario.

I know this is because of the limited over situation, but I'd still like to be able to create a shorter test-like situation for a competition with friends. There are 6 of us and having longer time-based tests would take all year for a home and away series to find a test champ.

 

[blockerdave]

I really hope some way is introduced to globally edit attributes and skills. For example you could take front foot stat and bring it down by 5 across all players and teams, or just one team, or one category of team. Would save a lot of time.


Found something else too. When using match type to create something I've been calling a limited overs test, I've set it for a certain number of overs per day and a limited number of overs per the first two innings that fits that day. So a test can be played out over 2 days.

So if the game is played out neatly and there are no no-balls or wides things will work out with each team having just enough time to complete their innings. Invariably myself or one of my friends will bowl a few no-balls or wides and the game won't have enough time to complete. That's fine by me, because I want to bring in the idea of a 3rd innings declaration sometimes having to happen. Which makes the game more like a test and more interesting.

The problem is, if in the fourth innings, the last team to bat lasts out the overs but doesn't win (lets say Over 46 out of 50, but the day has closed), it's not a draw. The game awards a winner, even when I set up the match type situation with a "no winner is fine" scenario.

I know this is because of the limited over situation, but I'd still like to be able to create a shorter test-like situation for a competition with friends. There are 6 of us and having longer time-based tests would take all year for a home and away series to find a test champ.

You can do this, but you must not force closure in the 4th innings. I had a format like this and there were draws.

If you force closure in the final innings the game rightly treats it as a limited overs match.

 

[Mr Snrub]

You can do this, but you must not force closure in the 4th innings. I had a format like this and there were draws.

If you force closure in the final innings the game rightly treats it as a limited overs match.

Of course, why the heck didn't I think of that?!! Thanks blocker, I just simply didn't think about it that way. Much appreciated.

 

[cricket_online]

You can do this, but you must not force closure in the 4th innings. I had a format like this and there were draws.

If you force closure in the final innings the game rightly treats it as a limited overs match.

This format would be unfair to the team batting first as it doesn't really have the option to draw the game. For it the game's essentially a 2 innings limited overs game but the team batting 2nd has the luxury to bat as it feels, i.e. no pressure to score quickly in its 2nd innings as it knows it can always bat out time and earn a draw.

 

[blockerdave]

This format would be unfair to the team batting first as it doesn't really have the option to draw the game. For it the game's essentially a 2 innings limited overs game but the team batting 2nd has the luxury to bat as it feels, i.e. no pressure to score quickly in its 2nd innings as it knows it can always bat out time and earn a draw.

any team batting 4th in a test has that option.[DOUBLEPOST=1434942683][/DOUBLEPOST]

Of course, why the heck didn't I think of that?!! Thanks blocker, I just simply didn't think about it that way. Much appreciated.

you're welcome! I actually made the same mistake as you initially, and had to change it and restart the tournament I was playing.

 

[Mr Snrub]

This format would be unfair to the team batting first as it doesn't really have the option to draw the game. For it the game's essentially a 2 innings limited overs game but the team batting 2nd has the luxury to bat as it feels, i.e. no pressure to score quickly in its 2nd innings as it knows it can always bat out time and earn a draw.

Now before I could even test blockers method, cricket online counters with a pretty logical point. Although if the amount of overs are strictly limited to the number per day (lets say 80 overs per day and 40 per innings - for a two day game), then with wides and no-balls and what-not it's not like the side batting fourth will even get their full fourty overs to bat as they please. It's complicated for sure.

Just in case anyone wonders why I'm on about this, it may seem trivial to others, but a shorter, limited overs version of tests would be a reasonably important thing to get right, because a lot of people play 10-20 over One Day limited overs cricket in video games, but Test type of play is often overlooked in multiplayer because of the time it takes. An abbreviated version of Tests would be a great thing.

 

[blockerdave]

Now before I could even test blockers method, cricket online counters with a pretty logical point. Although if the amount of overs are strictly limited to the number per day (lets say 80 overs per day and 40 per innings - for a two day game), then with wides and no-balls and what-not it's not like the side batting fourth will even get their full fourty overs to bat as they please. It's complicated for sure.

Just in case anyone wonders why I'm on about this, it may seem trivial to others, but a shorter, limited overs version of tests would be a reasonably important thing to get right, because a lot of people play 10-20 over One Day limited overs cricket in video games, but Test type of play is often overlooked in multiplayer because of the time it takes. An abbreviated version of Tests would be a great thing.

I played a format that was 5 x 70 over days, max 90 overs first 3 innings. so the 4th innings could be 10 overs less anyway (added pressure in run chases) but was typically less due to teams being bowled out. it also put pressure on the 3rd batting side to consider declarations etc.

I didn't consider it unfair at all and it gave some excellent matches.

 

[MattW]

but Test type of play is often overlooked in multiplayer because of the time it takes. An abbreviated version of Tests would be a great thing.

The 'Supertest' format I play against Biggs is something I highly recommend.

Here's the basics:

But I've usually played it with 2 wickets per innings, and test match style wides. The 'over cap' option can be unticked as well.

Because you've got limited wickets, you need to bat in a test match mindset - preservation of your wicket rather than quick run scoring. Obviously some people play the format just like limited overs and try and run the score up really high - but then you can take all day to chase it down, unless they can bowl you out.

The AI seems to be decent at it as well.

 

[Mr Snrub]

The 'Supertest' format I play against Biggs is something I highly recommend.

Here's the basics:

But I've usually played it with 2 wickets per innings, and test match style wides. The 'over cap' option can be unticked as well.

Because you've got limited wickets, you need to bat in a test match mindset - preservation of your wicket rather than quick run scoring. Obviously some people play the format just like limited overs and try and run the score up really high - but then you can take all day to chase it down, unless they can bowl you out.

The AI seems to be decent at it as well.

Thanks Matt and blocker, I'm getting more to consider all the time. Your one looks cool Matt, but highly different, with only 1-2 wickets and a new ball every 5 overs! That'd be a real challenge.

As for the one blocker just said, I like the idea of maybe making both the last two innings non enforceable, as that way if Team 1 gets too greedy, they may just turn their win into a draw.

In any case, this is me leading a thread off-topic a bit, but it'd be good if perhaps some of these ideas were considered for future default game modes in a sequel (without having to create them, as some people don't tinker like we all do and miss out). They're all about compressing a test experience, which is good for gaming.

 

[blockerdave]

For a sequel, I'd love a proper single or double wicket competition format.

 

[cricket_online]

any team batting 4th in a test has that option.

In a Test both teams have the option. Team batting in 3rd innings can take their own sweet time to bat as many overs and bat the other team out of the game. In the suggested format it wasn't possible as all the innings, except 4th, are capped. Thus realistically only the team batting in 4th innings can afford to take the foot of the pedal and do as it pleases. Team batting in 3rd innings will always have the pressure of overs remaining but not the one batting in the 4th.

 

[blockerdave]

In a Test both teams have the option. Team batting in 3rd innings can take their own sweet time to bat as many overs and bat the other team out of the game. In the suggested format it wasn't possible as all the innings, except 4th, are capped. Thus realistically only the team batting in 4th innings can afford to take the foot of the pedal and do as it pleases. Team batting in 3rd innings will always have the pressure of overs remaining but not the one batting in the 4th.

true, and you could not force closure in 3rd innings too as @C A Iversen suggsested. but equally, if the team batting last has a large 1st innings deficit, and any or all of the 1st 3 innings didn't go the distance, the team batting 4th can have extra time to survive. equally, these permutations all need to be considered when deciding whether to bat/bowl if you win the toss, if to enforce a follow-on etc.

@C A Iversen mentioned very truncated formats, 2 days / 40 overs per innings etc. & your point has some merit in that (probably better not to force closure in either of last 2 innings in that case) but my format gave up to 90 overs per innings - generally plenty of time to get a team out or post a decent score.

i had great fun in the format, i played in matches batting first and batting second, and i didn't feel it was unfair in any of them.

 

[Mr Snrub]

true, and you could not force closure in 3rd innings too as @C A Iversen suggsested. but equally, if the team batting last has a large 1st innings deficit, and any or all of the 1st 3 innings didn't go the distance, the team batting 4th can have extra time to survive. equally, these permutations all need to be considered when deciding whether to bat/bowl if you win the toss, if to enforce a follow-on etc.

@C A Iversen mentioned very truncated formats, 2 days / 40 overs per innings etc. & your point has some merit in that (probably better not to force closure in either of last 2 innings in that case) but my format gave up to 90 overs per innings - generally plenty of time to get a team out or post a decent score.

i had great fun in the format, i played in matches batting first and batting second, and i didn't feel it was unfair in any of them.

I can see where cricket_online is coming from, it does need to be fair. Although if the day is set up to only allow/play a set number of overs, then whoever is batting 4th will only have pretty close to the same number of overs as the first 3 innings. Still the "make both the last two innings unenforcable" idea will probably be for the best, but there's always the case that in the very truncated formats (30/40/50) that the team batting third may bat without over pressure and take up a lot more of the available overs. Still that happens in real tests too.

Seems like a try it and see which on you like situation. In any case (to keep this within the Patch Wishlist thread, haha), this is one of the first times there has been a lot of discussion about how to play 2 innings/test games in an abbreviated, but fun/fair way.

If Big Ant are still checking around in here, it might help them think of ways in which they can bring some interesting 2 innings/test style game modes to online in the next installment, where people can play them with a much higher likelyhood of finishing and enjoying them than full length.