Welcome Guest Active Topics | Log In


4 Pages «<234
Match Engine Tweaks released - 2015-07-28 Options
AoG90
#61 Posted : Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:49:40 PM





Rank: Professional
Joined: 4/14/2010
Posts: 1,159
Points: 6,228
Location: Eksjö
FIDAdmin wrote:
AoG90 wrote:

The thing is I never see that number. I have no clue how close it was. All I see is this one star. One star means you were better, you should have won but well unlucky.


The stars are not the randomness itself it is only indicators. You write it yourself - "I have no clue how close it was". Without star indicators - no. With the star indicators you get a picture of it at least. 1 red star - REALLY unlucky. 1 silver star - Unlucky - not sure exactly how unlucky but you were the favourite at least and you were not REALLY unlucky at least. 2 stars - pretty much as expected - you had the better odds at least. 3 silver stars - You were lucky here - at least you were not the one with the better odds. 3 golden stars - you were REALLY lucky here!

These indicators is not the randomness itself and does not show the "dice". It shows a little bit of how your odds were and lets you know a bit about how likely the outcome of the situation was.

That quote from me isn't wrong at all. I know very well that they are only indicators. But I don't know how close it was even with the stars. You keep using this 49% - 51% argument to justify the one/three stars. But I don't see that number. I don't know how close the odds was against each others. All I know is that I got a one star which ALWAYS means I should have won regardless of how close it was.

FIDAdmin wrote:

AoG90 wrote:

Randomness will always punish the good player and reward the bad player. That isn't fair towards the players. We should reward the good players and punish the bad players. It's like we are winning a case but the prisoner escapes prison due to him hitting a six on a die, good riddance.


I do not agree with you. Players with better odds wins more often than those with lesser odds - at least over time. The randomness may punish good players sometimes but it sure do punish bad players more - especially if it is a big difference. I can for sure tell that I can see a big difference between good and bad fighters for the ball in their chance of winning fights. Same thing with bad and good tacklers/dribblers. Same with great and bad passers. If you are superior enough then you seldom lose. That is a fact. That means randomness are punishing the worse footballers/users more than the good footballers/users.

I mean... What you say is that even if you have let say 70% chance of succeeding, you come out as winner 4 out of 5 times (80%) then you see the better footballer as punished by the randomness - always - even though he actually won 5% more than he should? The odds that are on FID and which is showed a bit with the star indicators have been decided by us in the admin team. "How big chance should this super fighter of the ball have to win this fight against this mediocre footballer? How much should the chance differe depending on positioning and momentum? Should Fearlessness have a bigger impact? What happens if we make Jumping more important?" These questions are possible questions we probably have asked ourself at some time when we have tested and tweaked fights for the ball. All in all it results in numbers that we believe simulates how we think the balance between new footballers and old super footballers should be - and all the possible combinations between those. Sure it can most likely be even better and can for sure be more advanced if we feel like that.

Randomness never punishes the bad player, it always rewards the bad player. The bad player can NEVER get a one star. When the bad player gets a two star he loses because he did bad.

If you have 70% chance of winning in five fights you should win 5 out of 5. Because you obviously did something right to get those odds. You were clearly the better player and deserved to win. If I only win 4 out of 5 I don't win 5% I lose 20%.

FIDAdmin wrote:

AoG90 wrote:

I'm positive that this game will survive without randomness. Perhaps not in it's current state, that is fair and ok. The problem here is that it isn't a surprise. It's an irritation and frustration since you got punished for being good. The element of surprise should never come from randomness. The element of surprise should come from the players. We are creating the surprise by how we play. Take the game of chess. It's not random at all. It only shows the skill of the players. The element of surprise comes from the players themself. A good player will take that surprise and handle it. That is how this game should work aswell. Different tactics and different situation that the players needs to adapt and learn from. The skill of the players should determine the outcome not the face of a die.



What seems to be discussed here is that the better footballer ALWAYS should win. I do not agree here since even IRL the better footballer does not win every time and it is not always about bad decision making. You think we should let it be all decided by the users, but please let me know how you think the game should be designed, played and look like? To get a game like that we must basicly capture all the details, or at least lots of them, that we now have simulated in randomness. In order to get in that micromanagement state the users should probably be able to decide every move of every limb of the footballer, feel the strength and direction of the wind, measure the length of the grass on all parts of the pitch in order to decide whether the ball will bounce as you think or where it may bounce off a bit due to uneven pitch, maybe calculate the exact physical and mentalt status of the involved footballers at that very moment, decide whether the sun is up, which direction and if it may shine in the eyes of someone involved in the fight for the ball, see if someone lose the balance and slips, see if the spectators boost the energy or lowers the confidence for someone... I can go on and on what maybe could be added in theory. I do not think it is a good idea to get into that many details though - it would not be football like any more. So in order to simulate all these variables that are more or less unknown and seemingly random even in RL matches, we use randomness. That said we does not say we do not want to have higher user influence on the expence of the randomness - that we want. Get rid of it totally...? Don't believe in that idea personally.

What can be seen already is that teams who play well together can beat better skilled teams by setting each other up in positions where they have good odds of succeeding their actions. A bit like chess. To go all the way to chess and remove the randomness... Well, then it would not be football anymore in my eyes.

The better player always wins in real life. Because randomness doesn't exist in the real world, it's just a concept because we can't see the physics behind it. A team in real life wins because that day they had the skill to win it. They won because they were better. When I say better I combine attributes with decisions which together forms a player. Just like it should be in FID. In order to be the better player you can't lack one of those things. You don't need to go in to tiny details because the only differences between players are the attributes. Everything else is equal for every player. Momentum works the same for a 18 year old and a 35 year old. So you can decide what should influence a good decision since regardless it will be the same for everyone. If you think the sun should be an influence then fine. Because we know it can have a factor so we should adapt to that and play by that rule. It's also dangerous to compare the real world with a computer game. You can get shot by multiple bullets in a game because that makes the game more enjoyable, but in the real world you are most likely dead. Randomness is a factor we can't influence. Sure we can get better odds but we can have 99% chance of winning the ball and still lose every time. That is why it's not surprising to get an one star, it's frustration. And randomness will ALWAYS reward the bad player.

FIDAdmin wrote:

AoG90 wrote:

With all that said I do agree that some randomness could be applied. But it shouldn't be part of the formula. It should be an extra help. For instance in these 49% vs 51% situations you like to bring up. That is very close and I wouldn't mind a coin flip due to the fact that you will never get the formulas 100% accurate (sad truth of the designer Flapper ). But you don't need to show any stars for it, because we don't need to know or want to know. A small interval is acceptable but otherwise the decisions of the players is enough to determine the outcome. Otherwise this game will not be a game of skill which it clearly are. It's not like Poker where luck is the main factor.

What you basicly say is that we go back a bit to how it was with the stars then. Maybe let both footballers get two stars no matter if the winner had 40% chance of winning or 60% chance of winning. This do mean that we are brought back to your first part of your last post. You will have no clue why you won or lost except that you were somewhat close. We did get reports when we had it like that though since the more extreme examples (60-40) looked odd. And we could not agree more. So. Question is if we should go somewhere between. May be discussed. What is clear though is that how we have it now tells the most accurate and maybe most interesting facts - was I really the favourite or not?

That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that when there is a clear winner that players should always win Let's say 55%-100% is a clear winner. Then there is this small interval between 45%-55% which you would say it's not a clear winner. Because there isn't a guarantee that your formulas is 100% accurate. Then you could apply randomness because you simply are out of options. You don't need to show any stars, because if we don't know that it was decided by luck we will not complain about being unlucky. But if we know that if we do good enough we will win the ball. Then players will look at the game and rather than saying well unlucky. They will say ohh I guess he was better fair enough. Instead of keep doing the same thing because he got unlucky he will try new ways to improve his odds.

FIDAdmin wrote:

AoG90 wrote:

Yes, I do understand that finding that balance between decision making and attributes is difficult. But what scares me is that you design the game with randomness. Users wants to understand the game, they want to learn how to play and they want to be rewarded by doing so. We don't want to be punished by doing good things. Which is the case now.

I don't think any users here thinks randomness is an exciting surprise. It's a frustrating event that discourage good play.


The odds are only a way to decide the outcome together with the randomness. The odds are created by the user decisions such as positioning, momentum and the footballer attributes. If you have good enough attributes to be clearly superior and make as good decisions as possible to get bonuses from momentum etc then you are VERY likely to succeed. If you are only just a tiny bit better then you may of course get beaten quite often though. The star indicators help you to give information about how your odds were like. If you get a lot of one stars when fighting another footballer then maybe you can draw the conclusion that you probably have pretty much the same chance of winning but that you have been slightly more likely to win but been a bit unlucky. And if you believe your attributes are better then maybe the opponent have better positioning and/or momentum and you can then increase your odds by improving that.

Without randomness it would not be like football. Football is full of mistakes and failed actions - all the time. Sometimes even great passers can miss the pass. Sometimes even the worst passer can get the pass right. Getting rid of the randomness means that football will be WAY too predictable. Randomness adds excitement just as RL football. You can never be 100% sure exactly what will happen. Something can always go wrong. All you can do is to play as good as you can to make the odds as good as you can to minimize the risk of failures.

So. To sum up. The stars are INDICATORS of how lucky or unlucky you have been - not the randomness itself. In my eyes randomness is needed.

The outcome is not decided with randomness. Randomness is the decider. You can do everything right and always lose. Meaning your actions and decisions isn't what decides the outcome. As I said earlier by comparing real world and a game. In real world randomness doesn't exist. If a "great" passer misses a pass it's because his decision wasn't right or his skills in that moment or that situation wasn't good enough. Shouldn't that be the same in FID? Influences of momentum, directions, attributes and what else should determine if that is a pass you should be able to pull off or not. If you are running forward and wants to make the longest backwards pass you can, then your momentum is probably wrong in order to pull off that pass and even that your attributes are good enough that is a pass that is just too difficult. So your decision to try that pass wasn't good enough because your attributes isn't good enough to fix that, so you get punished even thou you are the best passer in FID attribute-wise.

This game can survive without randomness without doubt. But in order for it to do that. The engine needs to be advanced enough for players to use different type of tactics and build different types of players. To open a lot of variations in how we can play this game. It's up to the players to make the game unpredictable because that is how humans behaves. Every game will have different situations by the way we play. Forcing the players to adapt and learn and improve by playing. Instead of having a poker game where the odds might be in your favor but you still lose because the wrong card in the wrong order showed up. We will have a chess game with a lot of different scenarios where the decisions and skills of the players determines the winner.


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
FIDAdmin
#62 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 11:02:01 AM



Head Staff Medal: Medal rewarded for being part of the Head Staff at Footballidentity

Rank: Administration
Joined: 3/10/2009
Posts: 5,070
Points: 14,885
Ok. Will try to explain my view as good as I can.

You say the better footballer always should win. This would mean that it would not be any point to have anything but max in all FFB attributes for example. Because... If you have lower then you MUST position yourself better or have lower momentum as it is now. If not, then you will lose EVERY time - even if the difference in momentum etc is very small. So get max or the attributes are more or less wasted. We would soon have a few types of footballers only. This is if we adapt your thoughts to the current ME.

You say the ME needs to be more advanced to get your view work well. To quote you:
"...advanced enough for players to use different type of tactics and build different types of players." And you resemble the current ME with a Poker game and want the game to be turned into a Chess game instead. As I see it football is a mix of seemingly random events and tactics that are more or less followed. What we want is that this game should feel like football and not chess. And football is a lot more chaotic than chess. Chaos is created from lack of skills but also a LOT of other factors that may be small if looking at it one by one but together it may be huge. Not to mention even the best footballer in the world with perfect conditions may fail. Noone is skilled enough to succeed EVERY time. When should it be decided when failing and succeeding if randomness is not used? You say user decision should decide. But what kind of user decision would that be??? You mentioned momentum, direction etc.

Momentum could be used a lot and we hope we can develop that part further for sure as we would like it to be like in momentum v 2.0 you can say. But even then I must say that randomness is needed. Just look at the following three examples for example:

1. A footballer with max Free kick taking attributes gets a free kick just outside the penalty area. In your view he would NEVER miss that shot. He would ALWAYS hit where he aims and the quality of the shot would ALWAYS be max.

2. Also. Let say it is a corner kick. The best corner kick taker in the world takes the corner. He also has the best targetplayer forward in the world - three of them actually. They are spread out. Max attributes. The defenders around him also have max FFB attributes.The corner is hit and lands on the forwards head since the corner take never miss. The quality is of course max and since the tower striker does not need to move he can score easily.

3. Penalty kicks. Best shooters in the world. Max attributes. Never possible to miss with your view. Goal every time. A perfect shot cannot be saved even with the best goalkeeper after all on penalties and as the user have maxed shooter then he should hit a perfect shot every time, right?

These are just three examples. How do you see that these situations should be solved without randomness? Do you really think it should be like that?

I see SO many problems with skipping randomness entirely that I barely know where to start and where to end actually... I mean. Even if we add momentum 2.0. How to decide how off a pass should be when failing because of bad momentum etc? Should not randomness be used in order to see where a failed pass is moving for example?

To end this post I want to discuss the sentence "Randomness will ALWAYS reward the bad player". That is just plain wrong. If a good player have 95% chance of succeeding against an opponent and he/she get in that stuation let say four times that match then he/she will most likely win ALL those four situations. So how can that reward the bad player? He/she lost all four situations while he should have won 5% of the situations!

If you mean that the star indicators never will give 3 stars to the better footballer, then you are correct. But that only means that he/she wins because he/she is better in that situation and not because of luck.

All in all you seem to be the most irritated over the star indicators. We did not have any star indicators in the beginning of FID because we wanted the users to experience the game themself. The result was A LOT of frustated users who wondered how they could lose when they had better attributes. And noone knew if their trainings helped or not. Even now when we increased the span of 2 stars to 40-60 this was concerns that were voiced. "Why did I lose 2 stars when I had better attributes?" Removed the stars will mean the users will be blind of why they lost. That will also make it harder for everyone to see if any balance is wrong in the game and if tweakings are needed etc. So even if the stars may be frustrating sometimes I sincerely believe that no stars will be even more frustrating since you will not know if you did something wrong or if you just we unlucky.
FAQ: http://footballidentity.com/Help/Content/

Read our FAQ to find out more about:
- Getting Started
- My User
- Life of a Footballer
- Playing the Matches
- Life of a Manager
- Teams and Competitions
- Life of a Journalist
- Newspapers and Articles
- Communicating within Footballidentity
- General Navigation
- Having more than one Character


Match Engine Tutorial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEj0mQV2e-M

Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Footballidentitycom/177223154315?ref=nf
bosko2602
#63 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 11:23:30 AM



Game Master Icon: Medal received for taking part in Footballidentity's Game Master team

Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 3/10/2011
Posts: 6,523
Points: 21,132
Location: Banja Luka
I think that you just need tweak random that he have less impact on user decisions. If character is older, he will handle some situations without need for luck.
Mini Miudo
#64 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 11:35:40 AM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 9,814
Points: 34,202
Location: Porto
I'll just quote myself, all that needs to be done is increase the odds of the player that has the advantage.

Mini Miudo wrote:
The "normal" outcome should happen more often than it does now. Yes, I may have a "60% chance of winning". That means I'm better so instead of considering that the footballer had a 60% chance of winning (i.e. just using pure statistics or whatever), I'd just consider that the footballer is good enough to beat his opponent most of the time. I did well and should get rewarded for it almost always, otherwise this is nothing but a game of luck, which isn't right. People who play games wanna be rewarded for being good at it. So the 60% (in theory) could just be made an 85% (practically) for example, so the "normal" outcome would happen more often.


To add on that, 60 v 40 (for example) means I did considerably better than my opponent... however, that is almost a coin flip. What is the point of being good if you're just gonna need luck to be on your side regardless?
Silent Assassins FC
1x England Champions (S30)
10. Mini Cristiano Ronaldo - CF // 7. Mini Ricardo Quaresma - SM // 21. Mini Mauro Zárate - CF


Northern Assassins FC
7x Italy/Ireland Champions (S21, S23, S25, S26, S27, S28, S31), 1x UFCL Winners (S23)
1. Mini Rui Patrício - GK // 7. Mini Dries Mertens - SM // 24. Mini Alessandro Florenzi - SD



Titles: 7x Italy/Ireland Champion, 5x Sweden/Serbia Champion, 4x England Champion, 3x WC Winner, 2x France Champion, 2x UFCL Winner
World Awards: 4x Forward of the Year, 4x Golden Assist, 3x Golden Boot, 3x Golden Technique, 2x Golden Pass, 1x Midfielder of the Year, 1x Defender of the Year, 1x Keeper of the Year



Wickerbasket
#65 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 12:38:20 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
Mini Miudo wrote:
And how are tower tacklers gonna win everything, and how exactly are dribblers gonna die? lol You can just pass around them (i.e. no fights) and the amount of tacklers would be almost exactly the same (since all the top teams have tacklers in almost every position already anyway) so dribblers can still get momentum advantages the same way and do their thing. Not to mention how useless a team full of towers is for attacking purposes... You have to pass it into fights all the time and if the defending team is playing offside trap then you can't do anything unless they screw up their momentum and you can play a deep pass. So no, towers wouldn't rule the game.


I wish you had been there for the Westwood game against Team Basket. You might have a different opinion on towers then. And if you're passing it into fights all the time, but there is no random, what's the problem? You think my SQ jumping won't beat your 20 jumping every single time?
#3 James Frost - Side Defender of Team Ten
Proud to be Goalkeeper, Left Side Defender, Right Side Defender, Central Defender, Left Central Defender, Right Central Defender, Left Central Midfielder, Central Midfielder, Right Central Midfielder, Left Forward, Right Forward and Manager of Team Basket Academy


thegreenwoods wrote:
I agree with the points made by James.
Mini Miudo
#66 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 1:48:09 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 9,814
Points: 34,202
Location: Porto
Wickerbasket wrote:
Mini Miudo wrote:
And how are tower tacklers gonna win everything, and how exactly are dribblers gonna die? lol You can just pass around them (i.e. no fights) and the amount of tacklers would be almost exactly the same (since all the top teams have tacklers in almost every position already anyway) so dribblers can still get momentum advantages the same way and do their thing. Not to mention how useless a team full of towers is for attacking purposes... You have to pass it into fights all the time and if the defending team is playing offside trap then you can't do anything unless they screw up their momentum and you can play a deep pass. So no, towers wouldn't rule the game.


I wish you had been there for the Westwood game against Team Basket. You might have a different opinion on towers then. And if you're passing it into fights all the time, but there is no random, what's the problem? You think my SQ jumping won't beat your 20 jumping every single time?


You can't do it from one side of the pitch to the other unless your opponents are crap, because of the scenarios I explained. You can't always just put it to fights and hope. Otherwise, why would that not be a valid tactic already? Yes, you can get 1* fights, but you can also get 1* dribbles and people just use dribblers.
Silent Assassins FC
1x England Champions (S30)
10. Mini Cristiano Ronaldo - CF // 7. Mini Ricardo Quaresma - SM // 21. Mini Mauro Zárate - CF


Northern Assassins FC
7x Italy/Ireland Champions (S21, S23, S25, S26, S27, S28, S31), 1x UFCL Winners (S23)
1. Mini Rui Patrício - GK // 7. Mini Dries Mertens - SM // 24. Mini Alessandro Florenzi - SD



Titles: 7x Italy/Ireland Champion, 5x Sweden/Serbia Champion, 4x England Champion, 3x WC Winner, 2x France Champion, 2x UFCL Winner
World Awards: 4x Forward of the Year, 4x Golden Assist, 3x Golden Boot, 3x Golden Technique, 2x Golden Pass, 1x Midfielder of the Year, 1x Defender of the Year, 1x Keeper of the Year



Wickerbasket
#67 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 2:44:48 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
Mini Miudo wrote:

You can't do it from one side of the pitch to the other unless your opponents are crap, because of the scenarios I explained. You can't always just put it to fights and hope. Otherwise, why would that not be a valid tactic already? Yes, you can get 1* fights, but you can also get 1* dribbles and people just use dribblers.


Like I said, watch Team Basket vs. Westwood. Had it not been for the one stars, then I would never had lost the ball and could've progressed up your pitch as I liked. This is why randomness is needed, it's a pretty easy point I'm making really.
#3 James Frost - Side Defender of Team Ten
Proud to be Goalkeeper, Left Side Defender, Right Side Defender, Central Defender, Left Central Defender, Right Central Defender, Left Central Midfielder, Central Midfielder, Right Central Midfielder, Left Forward, Right Forward and Manager of Team Basket Academy


thegreenwoods wrote:
I agree with the points made by James.
Mini Miudo
#68 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 3:45:53 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 9,814
Points: 34,202
Location: Porto
Wickerbasket wrote:
Mini Miudo wrote:

You can't do it from one side of the pitch to the other unless your opponents are crap, because of the scenarios I explained. You can't always just put it to fights and hope. Otherwise, why would that not be a valid tactic already? Yes, you can get 1* fights, but you can also get 1* dribbles and people just use dribblers.


Like I said, watch Team Basket vs. Westwood. Had it not been for the one stars, then I would never had lost the ball and could've progressed up your pitch as I liked. This is why randomness is needed, it's a pretty easy point I'm making really.


If you had no dribblers though (which you did) it's far easier to stop. They can't just position themselves to avoid fights/stop those plays if they have to watch out for dribblers as well.
Silent Assassins FC
1x England Champions (S30)
10. Mini Cristiano Ronaldo - CF // 7. Mini Ricardo Quaresma - SM // 21. Mini Mauro Zárate - CF


Northern Assassins FC
7x Italy/Ireland Champions (S21, S23, S25, S26, S27, S28, S31), 1x UFCL Winners (S23)
1. Mini Rui Patrício - GK // 7. Mini Dries Mertens - SM // 24. Mini Alessandro Florenzi - SD



Titles: 7x Italy/Ireland Champion, 5x Sweden/Serbia Champion, 4x England Champion, 3x WC Winner, 2x France Champion, 2x UFCL Winner
World Awards: 4x Forward of the Year, 4x Golden Assist, 3x Golden Boot, 3x Golden Technique, 2x Golden Pass, 1x Midfielder of the Year, 1x Defender of the Year, 1x Keeper of the Year



Wickerbasket
#69 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 4:39:48 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
Mini Miudo wrote:
Wickerbasket wrote:
Mini Miudo wrote:

You can't do it from one side of the pitch to the other unless your opponents are crap, because of the scenarios I explained. You can't always just put it to fights and hope. Otherwise, why would that not be a valid tactic already? Yes, you can get 1* fights, but you can also get 1* dribbles and people just use dribblers.


Like I said, watch Team Basket vs. Westwood. Had it not been for the one stars, then I would never had lost the ball and could've progressed up your pitch as I liked. This is why randomness is needed, it's a pretty easy point I'm making really.


If you had no dribblers though (which you did) it's far easier to stop. They can't just position themselves to avoid fights/stop those plays if they have to watch out for dribblers as well.


Well, give me a couple more seasons and we will see. But with smart running from deep players until I isolate one of your forwards with no tackling, as usual, I can keep the ball indefinitely if there is no randomness. I don't get how you can deny that.
#3 James Frost - Side Defender of Team Ten
Proud to be Goalkeeper, Left Side Defender, Right Side Defender, Central Defender, Left Central Defender, Right Central Defender, Left Central Midfielder, Central Midfielder, Right Central Midfielder, Left Forward, Right Forward and Manager of Team Basket Academy


thegreenwoods wrote:
I agree with the points made by James.
AoG90
#70 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 5:57:05 PM





Rank: Professional
Joined: 4/14/2010
Posts: 1,159
Points: 6,228
Location: Eksjö
FIDAdmin wrote:
Ok. Will try to explain my view as good as I can.

You say the better footballer always should win. This would mean that it would not be any point to have anything but max in all FFB attributes for example. Because... If you have lower then you MUST position yourself better or have lower momentum as it is now. If not, then you will lose EVERY time - even if the difference in momentum etc is very small. So get max or the attributes are more or less wasted. We would soon have a few types of footballers only. This is if we adapt your thoughts to the current ME.

The better player doesn't mean the strongest player. The combination of attributes and decisions should determine who as the better player. That is what I'm saying. Those two are the factors that we as user can influence the game with. I understand that its a difficult act to balance. The types of footballers are determined by the complexity of the match engine. Different actions and attributes is important in different situations. Every type of build has a role in one way of playing the game. Every build has it's weaknesses and it's strengths. It's up to the teams to asses the situations and adapt in order to win.

FIDAdmin wrote:

You say the ME needs to be more advanced to get your view work well. To quote you:
"...advanced enough for players to use different type of tactics and build different types of players." And you resemble the current ME with a Poker game and want the game to be turned into a Chess game instead. As I see it football is a mix of seemingly random events and tactics that are more or less followed. What we want is that this game should feel like football and not chess. And football is a lot more chaotic than chess. Chaos is created from lack of skills but also a LOT of other factors that may be small if looking at it one by one but together it may be huge. Not to mention even the best footballer in the world with perfect conditions may fail. Noone is skilled enough to succeed EVERY time.

Football is a chess game in it's simplest form. You have a bunch of pieces/players which can move/do differently. During a game a lot of different scenarios will occur both unknown and known. It's up the the player to figure out the best next move. But what you are doing is put a die in the chess game. When I capture your queen I got a 1 and have to take back my castle. In chess you have 30 seconds to determine your next move and in FID we get 7 seconds. So you see football is like chess just that the pieces are a lot more complex. Noone is skilled enough to succeed every time since he/she isn't skilled enough to succeed every time. If he/she was he/she would win EVERY time.

FIDAdmin wrote:

When should it be decided when failing and succeeding if randomness is not used? You say user decision should decide. But what kind of user decision would that be??? You mentioned momentum, direction etc.

Momentum could be used a lot and we hope we can develop that part further for sure as we would like it to be like in momentum v 2.0 you can say. But even then I must say that randomness is needed. Just look at the following three examples for example:

1. A footballer with max Free kick taking attributes gets a free kick just outside the penalty area. In your view he would NEVER miss that shot. He would ALWAYS hit where he aims and the quality of the shot would ALWAYS be max.

2. Also. Let say it is a corner kick. The best corner kick taker in the world takes the corner. He also has the best targetplayer forward in the world - three of them actually. They are spread out. Max attributes. The defenders around him also have max FFB attributes.The corner is hit and lands on the forwards head since the corner take never miss. The quality is of course max and since the tower striker does not need to move he can score easily.

3. Penalty kicks. Best shooters in the world. Max attributes. Never possible to miss with your view. Goal every time. A perfect shot cannot be saved even with the best goalkeeper after all on penalties and as the user have maxed shooter then he should hit a perfect shot every time, right?

These are just three examples. How do you see that these situations should be solved without randomness? Do you really think it should be like that?

I see SO many problems with skipping randomness entirely that I barely know where to start and where to end actually... I mean. Even if we add momentum 2.0. How to decide how off a pass should be when failing because of bad momentum etc? Should not randomness be used in order to see where a failed pass is moving for example?

As I see it there is quite a lot you can influence a good decision by. You have momentum, direction of the players, direction of the ball, length of the pass/shot, speed on the pass/shot (quality perhaps is the right word for it?), the action of the users, time to get to the collision point, attributes, confidence and condition for instance. You can have factors influence certain attributes more or less, for instance a guy with momentum jumps higher than a guy standing still (if both have the same jumping ability).

1. Honestly this is the hardest one for me to argue for. Since you are taking away a lot of what can influence the free kick taker. As I see it it's confidence and condition left to influence the player with. So that should have a bigger impact to balance things out. Don't forget I put the best goalkeeper in goal and have only the best blockers in the wall (I came prepared, lost the game due to only having blockers thou Flapper ). Or maybe add a new attributes for free kicks since you could argue that is a skill for a footballer.

2. I can't see why it would change anything for corners. Just mark up as a defender and you have already even out the odds, simple as that. If the forward then thinks standing still and head the ball is a good decision he will probably lose if a defender comes towards him jumping trying to head the ball away. As I also said this would probably be an even case, that I would be fine to use randomness to decide the winner. If I don't see a one star I will just think he won fair since I probably already knows it's a close fight for the ball.

3. Well penalties are penalties. The shooter will always be in favor for this. But shouldn't the best keeper be able to save the best shot? Like with freekicks condition and confidence should lessen the accuracy and quality. Same here perhaps another attribute for penalties if that makes it easier to even things out. Just for the records one star saves/punches should be banned from penalties regardless.

It's all comes down to how you balance things. If you do it correctly there is no need for randomness ever. In a 100% perfect engine the better player should always win. But since it's impossible to get an engine that good. You could influence it with some randomness in cases where it's hard to guarantee a winner.

FIDAdmin wrote:

To end this post I want to discuss the sentence "Randomness will ALWAYS reward the bad player". That is just plain wrong. If a good player have 95% chance of succeeding against an opponent and he/she get in that stuation let say four times that match then he/she will most likely win ALL those four situations. So how can that reward the bad player? He/she lost all four situations while he should have won 5% of the situations!

If you mean that the star indicators never will give 3 stars to the better footballer, then you are correct. But that only means that he/she wins because he/she is better in that situation and not because of luck.

All in all you seem to be the most irritated over the star indicators. We did not have any star indicators in the beginning of FID because we wanted the users to experience the game themself. The result was A LOT of frustated users who wondered how they could lose when they had better attributes. And noone knew if their trainings helped or not. Even now when we increased the span of 2 stars to 40-60 this was concerns that were voiced. "Why did I lose 2 stars when I had better attributes?" Removed the stars will mean the users will be blind of why they lost. That will also make it harder for everyone to see if any balance is wrong in the game and if tweakings are needed etc. So even if the stars may be frustrating sometimes I sincerely believe that no stars will be even more frustrating since you will not know if you did something wrong or if you just we unlucky.

No it will always reward the bad player since randomness can never reward the good player, you just said so yourself in the next paragraph. A good player will either get punished or just get the job he was suppose to do done. The odds are only there so you can have your randomness. That is the only function they have. They don't determine who was the better fighter. That you have already calculated before calculating the odds. After you calculated the odds a 100 faced die will actually determine who wins.

I'm not irritated by the indicators. How on earth can you get all my frustration to that conclusion? I'm complaining about the randomness which the stars shows. The stars are doing it's job, they are great because they are probably the only thing in this game that isn't random. The difference between before showing the stars and showing the stars is that now we know that randomness influences the outcome. Before we looked at what we knew which was attributes and said, wait a minute this can't be right. But now we knows why we lost that situation. It's wasn't because of me doing something or the engines calculations. It was due to a die. If you would remove the stars now and say that the winner will be the better player. Players will look at the game just like when they get a two star. I guess he was better than me, fair enough. I know this because I play the game with a lot of users. There is one thing that is always a subject. The one stars. No one thinks they are fair and it's the only thing you hear in the forums and during game people complaining about. I actually once took stats on the stars during a game. The winner was the team with most three stars. The two goals they scored was only made due to they getting a three star. The fun part is that they deserved to win that game. But instead they won because they got lucky, not because they were playing better than us.


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
Mini Miudo
#71 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 6:34:27 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 9,814
Points: 34,202
Location: Porto
Wickerbasket wrote:
Mini Miudo wrote:
Wickerbasket wrote:
Mini Miudo wrote:

You can't do it from one side of the pitch to the other unless your opponents are crap, because of the scenarios I explained. You can't always just put it to fights and hope. Otherwise, why would that not be a valid tactic already? Yes, you can get 1* fights, but you can also get 1* dribbles and people just use dribblers.


Like I said, watch Team Basket vs. Westwood. Had it not been for the one stars, then I would never had lost the ball and could've progressed up your pitch as I liked. This is why randomness is needed, it's a pretty easy point I'm making really.


If you had no dribblers though (which you did) it's far easier to stop. They can't just position themselves to avoid fights/stop those plays if they have to watch out for dribblers as well.


Well, give me a couple more seasons and we will see. But with smart running from deep players until I isolate one of your forwards with no tackling, as usual, I can keep the ball indefinitely if there is no randomness. I don't get how you can deny that.


Still not impossible to tackle, didn't you see me get a 1* tackle with my CF vs Team Ten? Flapper
Silent Assassins FC
1x England Champions (S30)
10. Mini Cristiano Ronaldo - CF // 7. Mini Ricardo Quaresma - SM // 21. Mini Mauro Zárate - CF


Northern Assassins FC
7x Italy/Ireland Champions (S21, S23, S25, S26, S27, S28, S31), 1x UFCL Winners (S23)
1. Mini Rui Patrício - GK // 7. Mini Dries Mertens - SM // 24. Mini Alessandro Florenzi - SD



Titles: 7x Italy/Ireland Champion, 5x Sweden/Serbia Champion, 4x England Champion, 3x WC Winner, 2x France Champion, 2x UFCL Winner
World Awards: 4x Forward of the Year, 4x Golden Assist, 3x Golden Boot, 3x Golden Technique, 2x Golden Pass, 1x Midfielder of the Year, 1x Defender of the Year, 1x Keeper of the Year



Wickerbasket
#72 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 7:58:56 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
Mini Miudo wrote:
Still not impossible to tackle, didn't you see me get a 1* tackle with my CF vs Team Ten? Flapper


Sure, against Dimis when I told him not to dribble Flapper You had nothing against me the last... however many seasons its been when my CD has been against you.
#3 James Frost - Side Defender of Team Ten
Proud to be Goalkeeper, Left Side Defender, Right Side Defender, Central Defender, Left Central Defender, Right Central Defender, Left Central Midfielder, Central Midfielder, Right Central Midfielder, Left Forward, Right Forward and Manager of Team Basket Academy


thegreenwoods wrote:
I agree with the points made by James.
FIDAdmin
#73 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 8:25:33 PM



Head Staff Medal: Medal rewarded for being part of the Head Staff at Footballidentity

Rank: Administration
Joined: 3/10/2009
Posts: 5,070
Points: 14,885
AoG90 wrote:

The better player doesn't mean the strongest player. The combination of attributes and decisions should determine who as the better player. That is what I'm saying. Those two are the factors that we as user can influence the game with. I understand that its a difficult act to balance. The types of footballers are determined by the complexity of the match engine. Different actions and attributes is important in different situations. Every type of build has a role in one way of playing the game. Every build has it's weaknesses and it's strengths. It's up to the teams to asses the situations and adapt in order to win.


The thing here is - what more can we add to the match engine than we already have without making it too complex to play?

AoG90 wrote:

Football is a chess game in it's simplest form. You have a bunch of pieces/players which can move/do differently. During a game a lot of different scenarios will occur both unknown and known. It's up the the player to figure out the best next move. But what you are doing is put a die in the chess game. When I capture your queen I got a 1 and have to take back my castle. In chess you have 30 seconds to determine your next move and in FID we get 7 seconds. So you see football is like chess just that the pieces are a lot more complex.


The number of possible scenarios will always be limited in a game compared to real life as I see it. And we also have more general attributes than IRL. To make it possible to go with your view we probably should have different passing attributes depending on the length/height/direction of the passes, probably have different attributes depending on which kind of dribble you want to perform and which tackle you want to go for. Probably different strength attributes depending on situation as well and separate different types of saves from each other depending on height of the shots etc... Yeah you can go on forever about this... As I see it this is REALLY neccessary if your view should have a chance to work.

AoG90 wrote:

Noone is skilled enough to succeed every time since he/she isn't skilled enough to succeed every time. If he/she was he/she would win EVERY time.


Still this is what you basicly say. A maxed passer having the perfect momentum etc should never miss you say. A maxed FFB footballer who gets a spot on pass (from the perfect passer perhaps?) should never lose the fight. The maxed shooter with the right momentum etc should never miss which would mean he would score every time. And still you do not seem to have any view about if that shooter does not have perfect momentum etc. Should he miss then or hit every time anyway? Or should it be random then deciding if the shot hits or not? The non maxed footballers - how to decide if they fail or miss? WIth your view you either fail/lose or succeed/wins nothing in between.

AoG90 wrote:

As I see it there is quite a lot you can influence a good decision by. You have momentum, direction of the players, direction of the ball, length of the pass/shot, speed on the pass/shot (quality perhaps is the right word for it?), the action of the users, time to get to the collision point, attributes, confidence and condition for instance. You can have factors influence certain attributes more or less, for instance a guy with momentum jumps higher than a guy standing still (if both have the same jumping ability).


All of the things you point out here are already in the game as far as I can see. Still I see no way that these should be enough factors by far.

AoG90 wrote:

1. Honestly this is the hardest one for me to argue for. Since you are taking away a lot of what can influence the free kick taker. As I see it it's confidence and condition left to influence the player with. So that should have a bigger impact to balance things out. Don't forget I put the best goalkeeper in goal and have only the best blockers in the wall (I came prepared, lost the game due to only having blockers thou Flapper ). Or maybe add a new attributes for free kicks since you could argue that is a skill for a footballer.


Still. A perfect freekick cannot be saved by a keeper as I see it. That should be reflected in the game. IRL noone hits perfect freekicks all the time more or less. In FID it would be if the skills were the right.

AoG90 wrote:

2. I can't see why it would change anything for corners. Just mark up as a defender and you have already even out the odds, simple as that. If the forward then thinks standing still and head the ball is a good decision he will probably lose if a defender comes towards him jumping trying to head the ball away. As I also said this would probably be an even case, that I would be fine to use randomness to decide the winner. If I don't see a one star I will just think he won fair since I probably already knows it's a close fight for the ball.


But what does marking matter if you aim straight at the forward while the defender have to move some pixles to get there and probably get a worse position? The forward will win EVERY time. But here you open up for randomness it seems. Flip a coin as you say. If it is ok here, why is it not ok if one of the footballers have let say 95 in all FFB skills while the other have 100 in all FFB skills? Why would a 50-50 case be so much more acceptable than let say 55-45 case? Why is randomness ok in one of the case and not the other one? If we believe that two footballers in a specific situation both should have a shot of winning the fight but that one should have slighly bigger difference - how can that be so much worse than have a 50-50 case?

AoG90 wrote:

3. Well penalties are penalties. The shooter will always be in favor for this. But shouldn't the best keeper be able to save the best shot? Like with freekicks condition and confidence should lessen the accuracy and quality. Same here perhaps another attribute for penalties if that makes it easier to even things out. Just for the records one star saves/punches should be banned from penalties regardless.


Even the best goalkeeper cannot save a perfect penalty... Think lightning fast shot straight at the top corner. The keeper have no chance to even blink basicly.

AoG90 wrote:

It's all comes down to how you balance things. If you do it correctly there is no need for randomness ever. In a 100% perfect engine the better player should always win. But since it's impossible to get an engine that good. You could influence it with some randomness in cases where it's hard to guarantee a winner.


As I see it there is now way to balance things out well enough without randomness. Simply not possible. When it comes to balancing things we could tweak for example FFB to make better FFB footballers better than they are now. It is something that has been discussed within the admin team I can tell. But that is another story. Randomness will still be needed there.


AoG90 wrote:

No it will always reward the bad player since randomness can never reward the good player, you just said so yourself in the next paragraph. A good player will either get punished or just get the job he was suppose to do done. The odds are only there so you can have your randomness. That is the only function they have. They don't determine who was the better fighter. That you have already calculated before calculating the odds. After you calculated the odds a 100 faced die will actually determine who wins.


Ok. See it this way. Attributes shows the strengths of a footballer. If a footballer have great FFB attributes then he have great tools for winning fights for the ball. The user can then make a good decision by position the footballer well, lower the momentum and be up against a weaker footballer for example. If all this is a fact then he maybe will have 90% chance of winning for example while you say it should be 100%. What you do not add to this is things such as:
*The sun may blind the footballer when he goes for the ball - making it impossible to see the ball.
*The weaker opponent maybe pulls the shirt, holds him down and use the stronger guy as a way to reach the ball(sometimes the ref notices and sometimes don't).
*The stronger guy maybe slips on the wet grass and fails miserably in the fight for the because of this.
*The weaker guys biggest problem maybe is his timing to the ball - this time maybe he is lucky and nails the timing this time?

I can continue like this... To add things like this as tools and scenarios in the ME itself would be... A HUGE task and it would probably not be that much of a lift really. Would be just as irritating as 1 stars etc I would say.

What the randomness does is to decide if anything like this may have occured and given the weaker footballer the win - or not. For fact is that things like this do matters in RL football and more things can be added. Pure mistakes can be made by any footballer even if the skills are world class and the footballer normally can do that thing in their sleep.

So. As I see it - the better odds you have the more likely the randomness is to be on your side. And that shows in FID for sure. The better footballers/users are more successful.


AoG90 wrote:

I'm not irritated by the indicators. How on earth can you get all my frustration to that conclusion? I'm complaining about the randomness which the stars shows. The stars are doing it's job, they are great because they are probably the only thing in this game that isn't random. The difference between before showing the stars and showing the stars is that now we know that randomness influences the outcome. Before we looked at what we knew which was attributes and said, wait a minute this can't be right. But now we knows why we lost that situation. It's wasn't because of me doing something or the engines calculations. It was due to a die. If you would remove the stars now and say that the winner will be the better player. Players will look at the game just like when they get a two star. I guess he was better than me, fair enough. I know this because I play the game with a lot of users. There is one thing that is always a subject. The one stars. No one thinks they are fair and it's the only thing you hear in the forums and during game people complaining about. I actually once took stats on the stars during a game. The winner was the team with most three stars. The two goals they scored was only made due to they getting a three star. The fun part is that they deserved to win that game. But instead they won because they got lucky, not because they were playing better than us.


My conlusion of you being irritated on the star indicators is simply because your view is not really in my mindset. I cannot see it work in any way really if we want it to be football like. And you mention those one stars etc a lot so I figured that may be it.

The reason why one stars are always the subject is obvious. You were unlucky - you did not really do anything but right and still you failed/lost. But mistakes/failures/losses/bad luck are parts of football in RL and something that is discussed there as well. A failed penalty shot in an important game can be the result of the footballer hitting the football maybe 1mm wrong. That can be the difference between a perfect penalty kick or a missed penalty kick. How to simulate that unless randomness is used? A keeper fumbling on the ball, due to a slippery ball because of rain, leaving a rebound on an easy shot. How to simulate that if not using randomness? Roberto Carlos making that insane curvy shot a long time ago - how to simulate a perfect shot like that from that distance unless randomness is used?

It is just too much unpredictable things that happens in RL football to be simulated to not use randomness as I see it. Without randomness we will not be able to talk about bad luck and good luck which is an essential part of sports - football in particular. A good team in FID makes sure to not rely in luck. And there are some teams that pull off win after win no matter the opponents. They are good enough to beat bad luck. That if anything tells me that FID is NOT too random.

But we will of course work on tweaks and improvements where we believe it should be changed. I am not saying it is perfect. I am just saying that randomness is well needed. In my opinion.
FAQ: http://footballidentity.com/Help/Content/

Read our FAQ to find out more about:
- Getting Started
- My User
- Life of a Footballer
- Playing the Matches
- Life of a Manager
- Teams and Competitions
- Life of a Journalist
- Newspapers and Articles
- Communicating within Footballidentity
- General Navigation
- Having more than one Character


Match Engine Tutorial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEj0mQV2e-M

Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Footballidentitycom/177223154315?ref=nf
AoG90
#74 Posted : Friday, August 14, 2015 10:59:03 PM





Rank: Professional
Joined: 4/14/2010
Posts: 1,159
Points: 6,228
Location: Eksjö
Well I will not continue to discuss, since it's rather pointless at this moment. None of us will back down and I believe I have already said all I can. At least you are looking into ways to reduce the randomness, which is a start. For what it's worth I would say passes get the most one stars of all actions. Followed by punches/saves. Followed by tackling.

I just want to clarify one thing (again).

FIDAdmin wrote:

But what does marking matter if you aim straight at the forward while the defender have to move some pixles to get there and probably get a worse position? The forward will win EVERY time. But here you open up for randomness it seems. Flip a coin as you say. If it is ok here, why is it not ok if one of the footballers have let say 95 in all FFB skills while the other have 100 in all FFB skills? Why would a 50-50 case be so much more acceptable than let say 55-45 case? Why is randomness ok in one of the case and not the other one? If we believe that two footballers in a specific situation both should have a shot of winning the fight but that one should have slighly bigger difference - how can that be so much worse than have a 50-50 case?

If you can guarantee a 100% accurate formula to calculate the winner then there is no need for randomness. But that is impossible. To then have a small gap where you say at this point we can't guarantee that the correct winner won. Then your last option is to flip a coin. For me that is acceptable or maybe even the right thing to do.



Also in my game tonight this guy got a 2* block, which felt wrong considering his attributes. I didn't check the bars, but assuming it was a one bar pass.


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
feelow
#75 Posted : Friday, August 21, 2015 1:17:07 PM





Rank: Amateur
Joined: 9/23/2014
Posts: 491
Points: 1,399
FIDAdmin wrote:
Ok. Will try to explain my view as good as I can.

You say the better footballer always should win. This would mean that it would not be any point to have anything but max in all FFB attributes for example. Because... If you have lower then you MUST position yourself better or have lower momentum as it is now. If not, then you will lose EVERY time - even if the difference in momentum etc is very small. So get max or the attributes are more or less wasted. We would soon have a few types of footballers only. This is if we adapt your thoughts to the current ME.

You say the ME needs to be more advanced to get your view work well. To quote you:
"...advanced enough for players to use different type of tactics and build different types of players." And you resemble the current ME with a Poker game and want the game to be turned into a Chess game instead. As I see it football is a mix of seemingly random events and tactics that are more or less followed. What we want is that this game should feel like football and not chess. And football is a lot more chaotic than chess. Chaos is created from lack of skills but also a LOT of other factors that may be small if looking at it one by one but together it may be huge. Not to mention even the best footballer in the world with perfect conditions may fail. Noone is skilled enough to succeed EVERY time. When should it be decided when failing and succeeding if randomness is not used? You say user decision should decide. But what kind of user decision would that be??? You mentioned momentum, direction etc.

Momentum could be used a lot and we hope we can develop that part further for sure as we would like it to be like in momentum v 2.0 you can say. But even then I must say that randomness is needed. Just look at the following three examples for example:

1. A footballer with max Free kick taking attributes gets a free kick just outside the penalty area. In your view he would NEVER miss that shot. He would ALWAYS hit where he aims and the quality of the shot would ALWAYS be max.

2. Also. Let say it is a corner kick. The best corner kick taker in the world takes the corner. He also has the best targetplayer forward in the world - three of them actually. They are spread out. Max attributes. The defenders around him also have max FFB attributes.The corner is hit and lands on the forwards head since the corner take never miss. The quality is of course max and since the tower striker does not need to move he can score easily.

3. Penalty kicks. Best shooters in the world. Max attributes. Never possible to miss with your view. Goal every time. A perfect shot cannot be saved even with the best goalkeeper after all on penalties and as the user have maxed shooter then he should hit a perfect shot every time, right?

These are just three examples. How do you see that these situations should be solved without randomness? Do you really think it should be like that?

I see SO many problems with skipping randomness entirely that I barely know where to start and where to end actually... I mean. Even if we add momentum 2.0. How to decide how off a pass should be when failing because of bad momentum etc? Should not randomness be used in order to see where a failed pass is moving for example?

To end this post I want to discuss the sentence "Randomness will ALWAYS reward the bad player". That is just plain wrong. If a good player have 95% chance of succeeding against an opponent and he/she get in that stuation let say four times that match then he/she will most likely win ALL those four situations. So how can that reward the bad player? He/she lost all four situations while he should have won 5% of the situations!

If you mean that the star indicators never will give 3 stars to the better footballer, then you are correct. But that only means that he/she wins because he/she is better in that situation and not because of luck.

All in all you seem to be the most irritated over the star indicators. We did not have any star indicators in the beginning of FID because we wanted the users to experience the game themself. The result was A LOT of frustated users who wondered how they could lose when they had better attributes. And noone knew if their trainings helped or not. Even now when we increased the span of 2 stars to 40-60 this was concerns that were voiced. "Why did I lose 2 stars when I had better attributes?" Removed the stars will mean the users will be blind of why they lost. That will also make it harder for everyone to see if any balance is wrong in the game and if tweakings are needed etc. So even if the stars may be frustrating sometimes I sincerely believe that no stars will be even more frustrating since you will not know if you did something wrong or if you just we unlucky.


Biggrin to hear new momentm on paper just worry about time ll be readyFlapper

as for random

every action that involve 1 dot or and has to do with bars (pass-shot-save-punch-block) d have no luck just 2stars and skills+positioning+momtnm(movemnt plus selected) that ll determines its accuration+length+quality+strength

to yor 1+2 examples such as free kicks and na shots-passes just to say that na actions(pass/shots) d be accurate but not such strong or and such long or and fullbars while max lentgth movemnt+momentm ll drive to too strong+length pass/shots but not such accurated depending also on dotskills but that means that all skills involved on those actions will given the right value on the ME more than what now and also means that more skills have to be involved

to yor 3rd example(and may tthat you added and in all free kicks) dot taker should have to make a small run (length selected by user) before hit tha ball and select and it current momntm aka make tha kick turn 3 or even and 4 phase turn than 2 as its now

i like rrandom and do no say remove it tottally from game but at least on 1dotactions there be only or mostly displayed 2stars and on rest actions where more than 1dot involved can be a starlucksystem but better than the current

no random not means every1 should succeed as you say cauze it no means all the way 3gold stars but means skills and movement ll have more a say

what i believe iz that there iz a space in ME(in skills-movement-momentum-condition-confidence-time of the phase the user decide to click for tha action) so as nerf more the randomluck without remove it totally
Users browsing this topic
guest
4 Pages «<234
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Official FID Theme by FIDAdmin1 (the one and only)
Powered by YAF 1.9.3 | YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.214 seconds.

© 2010 CommuniSport AB - User Agreement and Policy

Advertise on Footballidentity