Welcome Guest Active Topics | Log In


4 Pages <1234>
Match Engine Tweaks released - 2015-07-28 Options
AoG90
#41 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:40:23 PM





Rank: Professional
Joined: 4/14/2010
Posts: 1,159
Points: 6,228
Location: Eksjö
Wickerbasket wrote:
I don't think they've changed it, just that it now shows you when you actually perform worse than you were meant to - that's what is off. It is far too common for your player to suck.

Ahh, that sounds about right. That would explain why there is more one stars showing than last season. It's good it's showing more correct, because last season there were a couple of odd 2* stars. Doesn't got the feeling those happened yet at least. Randomness needs to be "fixed". It will always encourage bad play and help bad players rather than helping weak players.


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
AoG90
#42 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:59:36 PM





Rank: Professional
Joined: 4/14/2010
Posts: 1,159
Points: 6,228
Location: Eksjö
Simodium wrote:
FIDAdmin1 wrote:

5. Curving
Curving will now be considerably more important when it comes to deciding the quality of passes.

Turn #90: 4 bars pass by #70, less than 20 curving.
I would expect 2 bars in normal circumstances, 3 bars with exceptional luck.

This player got a 5 bar 2* Hard shot against us and scored due to the punch going backwards into goal. WHY THE F*CK? That player trains no shooting accuracy, no shooting strength and no curving. He should never ever get a 5 bar (or a 4 bar or a 3 bar). Why do we even train? game turn #116. There should be a cap of how much bars you can get.

Posting the rest of Simodiums post so it doesn't get lost due to new page. I like the idea of missed recieves.
Simodium wrote:

I also got an idea on how to make one touch more worthwhile too.
By watching real football, one may realize that sometimes footballers can only one touch in order to interact with the ball, often due to ball travelling too fast or difficult to interact in general.

Hence my idea to make pass quality affect reception in a way that it becomes harder to stop the ball, especially in the early part of reception, while is less likely to slip when interacting through one touch. All of this depending on quality of the pass and receving attributes of course.

To sum up:
- shorter (less powerful) passes, better quality expected. Longer (powerful) passes, worse quality expected
- curving heavily affects quality (I would reduce random to minimum)
- quality passes easy to receive (stop), poor quality passes hard to receive
- any pass easier to interact through one touch, especially in the early part of long trajectories (the later one interacts, the higher chance of succeeding receive).
It can be a good way to determine whether a player has proper receiving skills, since a missing reception (instead of a rebound) means that it was really hard for the target to stop the ball, in those conditions.

On top of this, I would also add the eventuality of a rebound instead of a missed reception: in few words, if a player attempts to receive (stop) a pass, and the reception fails, either he misses the ball completely (like it happens nowadays) or a rebound happens, that is the ball bounces from the point of interaction and can be interacted again right away by any player.
The rebound should also be consistent with the lenght of trajectory: if the pass trajectory was 10 meters long, the rebound should not be longer than 5 meters (50%).

Another idea, but this is only cosmetic, is to show the bars depending on teams point of view.
Let's say my team is in possession of the ball, a player in my team performs a pass. For all the users in my team, 2 bars are displayed in each own match window, while 4 bars get shown in opponents match window.
This is to reflect the easiness of interaction from teams point of view. But I understand it can be confusing.



Characterlinks in the Spoiler
-GGib-
#43 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:42:26 PM



Moderator: Medal received for taking part in Footballidentity's Moderator team

Rank: Global Moderator
Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 5,520
Points: 22,369
Location: Pärnu
They haven't changed the ME in dribbling/tackling and fighting. They changed how the stars are displayed meaning that if you aren't the favourite for the 1v1 (or more) action, you need 3 stars to succeed. The chances could be that you have 49% chance to succeed and 51% chance to fail, therefore the ME shows 3 stars if you win the ball.

Personally though, I'd like them to "manipulate" the randomness. If randomness is from 1 - 100, I'd like to increase the range from 45 - 55 (like 43, 44, 45, 45.5, 46, 46.5 ... 53.5, 54, 54.5, 55, 56 --- add more number results to the middle), so actions would go more "as expected" from the character(s).

I haven't paid that much attention to passing and shooting bars, but I do say that everybody deserves the chance to get from 1 bar to 5 bars. It's just that better characters will get more higher bars while weaker characters will get more lower bars. It's the same thing as with dribbling/tackling and fighting. You can win the action even if you have 95% chance of losing it (5% chance of winning), but you will have to get 3 gold stars to do so. But like I said, I haven't paid that much attention to the bars, so don't really know if something's wrong with them.

Global Moderator
Please send me messages via PM rather than chat, as I may not see them.

Help/Support Procedure & Reporting Cheaters

Uute Mängijate Juhendamiskeskus

spiker
#44 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:04:44 PM




Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/22/2010
Posts: 606
Points: 3,561
Location: Aberdeen
AoG90 wrote:

This player got a 5 bar 2* Hard shot against us and scored due to the punch going backwards into goal. WHY THE F*CK? That player trains no shooting accuracy, no shooting strength and no curving. He should never ever get a 5 bar (or a 4 bar or a 3 bar). Why do we even train? game turn #116. There should be a cap of how much bars you can get.





The example you have provided was a shot from my CM but what you need to take into account is the fact is he was all alone in the box with no-one pressuring him and just the keeper in front of him.

It probably shouldn't have been 5 bars with the shooting skills I have and I was as surprised as anyone to get them but I really do wonder if the circumstances of the chance helped it being a 5 bar. Would it have been a different outcome if I had a defender pressuring me?


Simodium
#45 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:07:54 PM





Rank: Global Moderator
Joined: 11/9/2009
Posts: 5,503
Points: 28,523
-GGib- wrote:
They haven't changed the ME in dribbling/tackling and fighting. They changed how the stars are displayed meaning that if you aren't the favourite for the 1v1 (or more) action, you need 3 stars to succeed. The chances could be that you have 49% chance to succeed and 51% chance to fail, therefore the ME shows 3 stars if you win the ball.

Personally though, I'd like them to "manipulate" the randomness. If randomness is from 1 - 100, I'd like to increase the range from 45 - 55 (like 43, 44, 45, 45.5, 46, 46.5 ... 53.5, 54, 54.5, 55, 56 --- add more number results to the middle), so actions would go more "as expected" from the character(s).

I haven't paid that much attention to passing and shooting bars, but I do say that everybody deserves the chance to get from 1 bar to 5 bars. It's just that better characters will get more higher bars while weaker characters will get more lower bars. It's the same thing as with dribbling/tackling and fighting. You can win the action even if you have 95% chance of losing it (5% chance of winning), but you will have to get 3 gold stars to do so. But like I said, I haven't paid that much attention to the bars, so don't really know if something's wrong with them.

But as long as bars keep being TOO random, there would be no point in training curving, never.
Unfortunately the chances of getting 2 bars more or less than expected are not comparable to the chance of getting red star or 3 stars.
I see it more as comparable to speed/acceleration: if that's the longest distance a player can cover with those skills, then he is not supposed to run longer.
Similarly, one either has got good feet or bad feet. He can improve them though, just as much as he can improve physical skills.

Characters in Spoiler

ITALIAN MODERATOR

Please don't try to contact me via in-game chat, I might be afk. Send me a PM instead.
For spam or abuse reports use the proper links at the bottom-right of the incriminated post. Thank you.

Per domande legate alla moderazione non cercatemi nella chat del gioco, piuttosto mandatemi un PM.
Per segnalare spam o post offensivi usate i link appositi in basso a destra del post incriminato. Grazie.

FORUM RULES/GUIDELINES

Simodium
#46 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:09:20 PM





Rank: Global Moderator
Joined: 11/9/2009
Posts: 5,503
Points: 28,523
spiker wrote:
AoG90 wrote:

This player got a 5 bar 2* Hard shot against us and scored due to the punch going backwards into goal. WHY THE F*CK? That player trains no shooting accuracy, no shooting strength and no curving. He should never ever get a 5 bar (or a 4 bar or a 3 bar). Why do we even train? game turn #116. There should be a cap of how much bars you can get.





The example you have provided was a shot from my CM but what you need to take into account is the fact is he was all alone in the box with no-one pressuring him and just the keeper in front of him.

It probably shouldn't have been 5 bars with the shooting skills I have and I was as surprised as anyone to get them but I really do wonder if the circumstances of the chance helped it being a 5 bar. Would it have been a different outcome if I had a defender pressuring me?

Probably, but I also think it might be affected by the distance from which you shot.

Characters in Spoiler

ITALIAN MODERATOR

Please don't try to contact me via in-game chat, I might be afk. Send me a PM instead.
For spam or abuse reports use the proper links at the bottom-right of the incriminated post. Thank you.

Per domande legate alla moderazione non cercatemi nella chat del gioco, piuttosto mandatemi un PM.
Per segnalare spam o post offensivi usate i link appositi in basso a destra del post incriminato. Grazie.

FORUM RULES/GUIDELINES

AoG90
#47 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 6:03:31 PM





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

This player got a 5 bar 2* Hard shot against us and scored due to the punch going backwards into goal. WHY THE F*CK? That player trains no shooting accuracy, no shooting strength and no curving. He should never ever get a 5 bar (or a 4 bar or a 3 bar). Why do we even train? game turn #116. There should be a cap of how much bars you can get.





The example you have provided was a shot from my CM but what you need to take into account is the fact is he was all alone in the box with no-one pressuring him and just the keeper in front of him.

It probably shouldn't have been 5 bars with the shooting skills I have and I was as surprised as anyone to get them but I really do wonder if the circumstances of the chance helped it being a 5 bar. Would it have been a different outcome if I had a defender pressuring me?

No, you actually was in a great position to shoot. You were close to goal (main factor I believe) and not under pressure (not enough of a factor). But the only reason you actually tried it was because you had no one better to pass. But if our goalkeeper had useless in his keeping attributes and saved that shot with 2* because he was in a great position. You wouldn't accept that would you? And yes a bit too extreme of an example but still you didn't have the attributes at all to pull of a 5 bar, do you then deserve 5 bars?


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
Wickerbasket
#48 Posted : Saturday, August 08, 2015 6:19:54 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
AoG90 wrote:

This player got a 5 bar 2* Hard shot against us and scored due to the punch going backwards into goal. WHY THE F*CK? That player trains no shooting accuracy, no shooting strength and no curving. He should never ever get a 5 bar (or a 4 bar or a 3 bar). Why do we even train? game turn #116. There should be a cap of how much bars you can get.


I actually disagree after watching the 10 turns leading up to it. Biscuits has made a smart run, and you've let him shoot unmarked with next to zero momentum from 6 yards out. Any player in the world would score from there, and goalkeeper punching it into his own net because of the sheer power on the shot - again, if you really think about it, that's pretty much what would happen.

He's obviously gotten lucky he got 5 bars from there, but he's also had to smash it down the middle like any player in that situation would do. If it was impossible to get 5 bars from there, there would be no point in marking defenders ever. You invited the shot from there, and well, that's kinda deserved.
#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
#49 Posted : Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:27:54 PM





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


No it's not me spamming. I'm just repeating what the match engine keeps telling me.


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
Champ78
#50 Posted : Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:40:55 PM





Rank: Master
Joined: 10/8/2011
Posts: 3,688
Points: 11,823
Location: Lier
Nah, every time you lost the ball today Kalle (in holland) it was 2* tackles from me Flapper
Quote:
We're the hero FID deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, you'll hunt us, because we can take it. We're not your hero. We are Norway
AoG90
#51 Posted : Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:45:30 PM





Rank: Professional
Joined: 4/14/2010
Posts: 1,159
Points: 6,228
Location: Eksjö
Champ78 wrote:
Nah, every time you lost the ball today Kalle (in holland) it was 2* tackles from me Flapper

Not talking about that game Flapper


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
FIDAdmin
#52 Posted : Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:05:12 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
Wickerbasket wrote:

How random SHOULD work is this:

Two fighters, one has the necessary stats to give him a 70% chance of winning the fight. So, before a die is rolled, anything from 0-70 is a win for the stronger character.

Any roll from 0-70 is shown as a 2 star for the stronger fighter. 70-90 should be a 3* win for the weaker fighter, and then 91-100 is gold stars. This is only an example, so obviously the numbers might be different.

You just described pretty much exactly how it works now. For fights for the ball and tackles vs dribbles at least. But we also have added a normalised randomness which means that more dice rolls will end up closer to 50 in order to make more "normal" results.

Wickerbasket wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems to be exactly like a coin flip atm. If a goalkeeper has a 90% chance of saving a shot, he shouldn't then have a 25% chance of getting a 1*/red star is the point I'm trying to make.

And this is how it is not working. Look at your own suggestion above instead and you will get the picture of how it works. But instead of two fighters compared to each other we have quality of the shot/pass compared to the keeper.

AoG90 wrote:

I see what you are saying. But your way of doing it needs to make sure that those 90% is calculated in a fair way between decision making and attributes. If the Admins found that then there is no point in randomness at all. But you as a designer might still want that bit of surprise, then your way of doing it is a good/better way. Otherwise the way it is now is the most fair system, because now everyone gets screwed in the ass Flapper Me personally want randomness gone from everything that isn't accuracy based.

Just get rid of all the randomness is something I doubt would be a nice solution. But our goal is to increase the weight of the user decision making and get rid of some more of the randomness. That requires "tools" for the user to actually be able to make more decisions though of course. But get rid of the randomness totally... I personally do not believe that would make FID better in any way. Needs an element of randomness to make it really exciting as I see it. A surprise element so to say.

AoG90 wrote:

1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star


No it's not me spamming. I'm just repeating what the match engine keeps telling me. Seriously something is off with the randomness. It's way worse than it was last season and last season wasn't good enough either.

Most likely you have been up against many opponents with more or less equal odds to win the fights/Tackles/dribbles as you. Maybe you have had many actions where you have had the odds of 51% to win and lost. Then it will show 1 star just as it would show 2 stars if you had won it.


Simodium wrote:

To sum up:
- shorter (less powerful) passes, better quality expected. Longer (powerful) passes, worse quality expected
- curving heavily affects quality (I would reduce random to minimum)
- quality passes easy to receive (stop), poor quality passes hard to receive
- any pass easier to interact through one touch, especially in the early part of long trajectories (the later one interacts, the higher chance of succeeding receive).
It can be a good way to determine whether a player has proper receiving skills, since a missing reception (instead of a rebound) means that it was really hard for the target to stop the ball, in those conditions.

All you mention here is added already. You can for example see that the quality of the passes at kick offs are normally high for example. BUT. We have discussed to lower the randomness for sure. The randomness is too big. Not possible just by tweaking though hence nothing has been done about this yet.

Simodium wrote:

On top of this, I would also add the eventuality of a rebound instead of a missed reception: in few words, if a player attempts to receive (stop) a pass, and the reception fails, either he misses the ball completely (like it happens nowadays) or a rebound happens, that is the ball bounces from the point of interaction and can be interacted again right away by any player.
The rebound should also be consistent with the lenght of trajectory: if the pass trajectory was 10 meters long, the rebound should not be longer than 5 meters (50%).

This has been discussed a bit as well - just as we have discussed that maybe some of the most successful blocks would be turned into a receive (only been discussed - nothing has been decided about this). The problem with this is that it will mean more rebounds that needs to be caught etc. More time will be wasted to run after the ball. Maybe it would not be a big difference from the case when the ball just runs through as it is now but still. It is something we probably will continue to discuss for sure.

Simodium wrote:

Another idea, but this is only cosmetic, is to show the bars depending on teams point of view.
Let's say my team is in possession of the ball, a player in my team performs a pass. For all the users in my team, 2 bars are displayed in each own match window, while 4 bars get shown in opponents match window.
This is to reflect the easiness of interaction from teams point of view. But I understand it can be confusing
.
This has been discussed with the admin team as well. It of course would need some programming etc, but it would also mean it could be a bit more flexible system. So yes. Been discussed and I personally like it. We will see what we come up with in the end. smiling

-GGib- wrote:

Personally though, I'd like them to "manipulate" the randomness. If randomness is from 1 - 100, I'd like to increase the range from 45 - 55 (like 43, 44, 45, 45.5, 46, 46.5 ... 53.5, 54, 54.5, 55, 56 --- add more number results to the middle), so actions would go more "as expected" from the character(s).

This has already been done. A version of normalised randomness that is. It is already activated in the ME.

-GGib- wrote:

I haven't paid that much attention to passing and shooting bars, but I do say that everybody deserves the chance to get from 1 bar to 5 bars. It's just that better characters will get more higher bars while weaker characters will get more lower bars. It's the same thing as with dribbling/tackling and fighting. You can win the action even if you have 95% chance of losing it (5% chance of winning), but you will have to get 3 gold stars to do so. But like I said, I haven't paid that much attention to the bars, so don't really know if something's wrong with them.

The admin team also like the fact that everyone should be able to succeed and make more or less perfect actions - only that the odds would be bad for lousy footballers. In some cases we do agree that the randomness is too big though.

Not sure if I have missed anything - but please let me know if I have missed something of importance.
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
vercetti
#53 Posted : Wednesday, August 12, 2015 1:47:30 PM



Moderator: Medal received for taking part in Footballidentity's Moderator team

Rank: Moderation
Joined: 1/22/2012
Posts: 817
Points: 2,700
Location: Tralee
As it is, Randomness will always punish the better users. So trying to justify it is just wrong. Randomness is broken.

If Goalkeeper 1 knows how position his dot, knows when to use specials and knows when a normal save/punch is enough to be successful, then he is the char more likely to 1 star.

Tackler 1 knows how to tackle. He trained 5* Slide, he understands momentum and how to position himself. He does his homework and knows the opposition players. If he feels he won't succeed with a 2*, he will drop deep and cut off the dribblers angles. He knows when to use his specials and will succeed with 90+% of his tackles if he gets all 2*'s. Tackler 1 is the one that will be punished my randomness. Tackler 1 won't put himself in situations where he requires 3* tackles.

Dribbler 1 understands dribbling. He builds up his momentum and doesn't allow the tackler to get too deep. He baits tacklers into making noob tackles. He judges when the tackler is most likely to use his slide tackle and counters it with his own specials. Dribbler 1 will be punished by randomness.

Now some people might make the counter argument that if you remove randomness, it all becomes too predictable and the better chars will come out on top. This is not the case. For example, Tackling and dribbling have quite a good balance. Momentum, positioning and specials contribute more to the success than the attributes of a char. Attributes are still important but not as important as the other contributing factors. Watch Anti play in Italy with his awful CM and CF, watch Mini play in France with his baby CF. Although they control inferior chars to the opposition, due to there understanding of the game, they know how to be successful.

And that's not me saying it should be totally removed but it needs a massive overhaul. That 51% - 49% thing you keep spouting is bull. The majority of the 1*s been seen are in situations where there was one clear winner. Your lack of understanding of all this is embarrassing.

Randomness rewards bad users. Randomness is broken!!
Wickerbasket
#54 Posted : Wednesday, August 12, 2015 6:31:51 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
You remove randomness, I'm making a team of tower tacklers and I'll take the title every season mate. It can't be done.
#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
#55 Posted : Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:26:29 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
vercetti, it seemslike you do not understand how the star system works.

vercetti wrote:
As it is, Randomness will always punish the better users. So trying to justify it is just wrong. Randomness is broken.

If Goalkeeper 1 knows how position his dot, knows when to use specials and knows when a normal save/punch is enough to be successful, then he is the char more likely to 1 star.

Randomness normally favours the better side. If a footballer have 70% chance of succeeding then he should win around 70% of those actions in the long run. But this also means that he should fail 30% of those actions of course. Stars are only indicators - not the randomness itself. A 1 star only shows that in this specific case you were a bit unlucky. You maybe had 70% chance of succeeding but failed. The stars show that you were unlucky instead of you guessing why you failed.

vercetti wrote:

Tackler 1 knows how to tackle. He trained 5* Slide, he understands momentum and how to position himself. He does his homework and knows the opposition players. If he feels he won't succeed with a 2*, he will drop deep and cut off the dribblers angles. He knows when to use his specials and will succeed with 90+% of his tackles if he gets all 2*'s. Tackler 1 is the one that will be punished my randomness. Tackler 1 won't put himself in situations where he requires 3* tackles.

Dribbler 1 understands dribbling. He builds up his momentum and doesn't allow the tackler to get too deep. He baits tacklers into making noob tackles. He judges when the tackler is most likely to use his slide tackle and counters it with his own specials. Dribbler 1 will be punished by randomness.

Yes you are correct that the user that the footballer with better odds will be punished by randomness when failing. BUT, most of the time the footballer will be favoured by the randomness. That is what it is all about. How often should a footballer succeed a specific situation? Every time? 90% of the time? 80% of the time? As long as you do not say EVERY time then randomness is needed.


vercetti wrote:

Now some people might make the counter argument that if you remove randomness, it all becomes too predictable and the better chars will come out on top. This is not the case. For example, Tackling and dribbling have quite a good balance. Momentum, positioning and specials contribute more to the success than the attributes of a char. Attributes are still important but not as important as the other contributing factors. Watch Anti play in Italy with his awful CM and CF, watch Mini play in France with his baby CF. Although they control inferior chars to the opposition, due to there understanding of the game, they know how to be successful.

You complaint about the randomness. You complaint that it is too random. Still you say that users who are good at playing FID can beat better characters by playing smarter? Is that not something that point at the other direction - that user decisions are actually important enough to beat both superior attributes AND the randomness?


vercetti wrote:

And that's not me saying it should be totally removed but it needs a massive overhaul. That 51% - 49% thing you keep spouting is bull. The majority of the 1*s been seen are in situations where there was one clear winner. Your lack of understanding of all this is embarrassing.

Randomness rewards bad users. Randomness is broken!!


I am sorry but I do not understand this fully, but I think it is because you think the stars are the randomness while it actually is nothing but indicators of how lucky or unlucky the footballers are. If a footballer have 99% of succeeding an action and the "ME Dice" hits 100 the stars will show a red star telling the user behind the footballer "OMG, you did everything right this time and still fail - I just want to tell you that you were SO unlucky this time and it was nothing but bad luck that made you fail!"

We can remove the stars or show only two stars but then noone will know if the user decision made, and/or if the trained attributes made was the reason behind the outcome of an action or if it was pure luck/bad luck.

Randomness should favour the better side over time. The better odds you have the more often you should succeed. But maybe I have missed what you try to point out here?
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
#56 Posted : Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:59:32 PM





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

AoG90 wrote:

1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star 1* star


No it's not me spamming. I'm just repeating what the match engine keeps telling me. Seriously something is off with the randomness. It's way worse than it was last season and last season wasn't good enough either.

Most likely you have been up against many opponents with more or less equal odds to win the fights/Tackles/dribbles as you. Maybe you have had many actions where you have had the odds of 51% to win and lost. Then it will show 1 star just as it would show 2 stars if you had won it.

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. 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.

FIDAdmin wrote:

AoG90 wrote:

I see what you are saying. But your way of doing it needs to make sure that those 90% is calculated in a fair way between decision making and attributes. If the Admins found that then there is no point in randomness at all. But you as a designer might still want that bit of surprise, then your way of doing it is a good/better way. Otherwise the way it is now is the most fair system, because now everyone gets screwed in the ass Flapper Me personally want randomness gone from everything that isn't accuracy based.

Just get rid of all the randomness is something I doubt would be a nice solution. But our goal is to increase the weight of the user decision making and get rid of some more of the randomness. That requires "tools" for the user to actually be able to make more decisions though of course. But get rid of the randomness totally... I personally do not believe that would make FID better in any way. Needs an element of randomness to make it really exciting as I see it. A surprise element so to say.

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.

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.

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.


Characterlinks in the Spoiler
FIDAdmin
#57 Posted : Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:53:04 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 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.


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.


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.


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?


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.
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
Mini Miudo
#58 Posted : Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:48:27 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 9,814
Points: 34,202
Location: Porto
Randomness isn't needed, actually. Teams that can succeed with 2* (or teams that always have the better odds, whatever) would be happy and teams who can't would know they just have to improve. Would end all the complaints about losing games due to 1*s and such as well. Flapper

I mean... it probably is a little bit better with randomness but 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.
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
#59 Posted : Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:27:13 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 9,467
Points: 39,883
Location: Grantham
Randomness really is needed. If all players were born at 18 with the same stats as a guy at 28, then I could maybe be swayed a little bit. But what you're suggesting is "older is better", and that's about it. I would like maybe a fraction less one stars, particularly on goalkeepers, but at same time I'm relatively happy with how the game functions with it. Is it frustrating sometimes? Of course it is. And how the human mind works is that we always focus on the one stars against us, not the three stars for us (which is why I've been suggesting a counter forever).

Removing randomness and then having everyone build a tower tackler isn't going to make the game better in any way. For those who think it will, please look at the bigger picture. All the dribbler builds would die, because you would need jumping to win fights, so the game becomes "who has the most, strongest towers" so whoever gets the oldest collection of these players together (more or less) would win the game. Pointless. And I know that the Admins aren't exactly going to change their mind on this, for which I'm actually pretty thankful for.
#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
#60 Posted : Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:06:11 PM





Rank: Senior Master
Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 9,814
Points: 34,202
Location: Porto
Wickerbasket wrote:
Randomness really is needed. If all players were born at 18 with the same stats as a guy at 28, then I could maybe be swayed a little bit. But what you're suggesting is "older is better", and that's about it. I would like maybe a fraction less one stars, particularly on goalkeepers, but at same time I'm relatively happy with how the game functions with it. Is it frustrating sometimes? Of course it is. And how the human mind works is that we always focus on the one stars against us, not the three stars for us (which is why I've been suggesting a counter forever).

Removing randomness and then having everyone build a tower tackler isn't going to make the game better in any way. For those who think it will, please look at the bigger picture. All the dribbler builds would die, because you would need jumping to win fights, so the game becomes "who has the most, strongest towers" so whoever gets the oldest collection of these players together (more or less) would win the game. Pointless. And I know that the Admins aren't exactly going to change their mind on this, for which I'm actually pretty thankful for.


I've got young chars who can beat older chars with 2* so it's not about who has the oldest char at all. Not always, sometimes I need 3*s, but I'd much rather have way more 2* dribbles rather than winning some with 3* (I don't really get a feeling of accomplishment when that happens, it's just luck...) and losing some with 1* (frustrating as hell knowing I did better than my opponent and he got rewarded instead).

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.
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



Users browsing this topic
guest (2)
4 Pages <1234>
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 1.369 seconds.

© 2010 CommuniSport AB - User Agreement and Policy

Advertise on Footballidentity