Subject: Two Tactics

With the ability to change tactics it becomes much harder to guess right. It's more likely that at some point in the game your opponent will be doing something you didn't plan for.

This is precisely where I disagree. I have already given several reasons why I think this is wrong (which, apparently, only have serve you to presume on your English vocabulary) and won't go back to the point.

I could understand if you told me that, in spite of all my arguments, you still think that that it's a valid point. But I certainly consider almost pedantic to say that you don't see how what I say doesn't "contradict" what you say.

Fair enough, it's all said already.
(edited)

No need to worry about the 2 o 3 people whinning about it. There are like 200-300 (probably more) users who read this forum, so thats only 1% of the people complainning.

I like this new change, although it hasnt been implemented yet.

I find ridiculous and laughable complaints such as: "but now the people with more and better tactics will have more chance to win the game" or "those with more time to invest in their tactics will be better"... so, these whinners want to win without any effort? OF COURSE someone whose more dedicated and invest more time editing his/her tactics will definitively have more chances to win. This is like in college, if you study hard its obvious you will have better grades than those who dont dedicate themselves to study.

"Oh no its unfair!!!, why is John getting A´s, its not fair, he studies too much, and im a lazy idiot, its not fair that he is getting A´s and im getting F´s... not fair not fair!!" Thats how you people sound.

People have the right to disagree and complain, but when the excuses are stupid and ridiculous like these, then thats not an excuse.
(edited)

Are there going to be introduced new brands of conditional orders?

I am wondering if there are going to be some kind of timeless conditional orders that could be triggered several times in a match

For example:

"Winning by N goals change to tactic X". But if the opponent scores a goal and reduces it to N-1, then the team would switch back to the original tactic. Then if your team again wins by N goals, then switch again to tactic X.

Some other conditional orders might be based on % of possesion, % of time played on each field.

Some thoughts
(edited)

I don't see how any of your protracted post contradicts what I said.

wow, you actually made me look it up in the dictionary xD (showoff :P)

back to the point, I must agree with Catenaccio on this one (I can't believe I just said that). Guessing the tactic of someone who doesn't change is easy, and it doesn't really matter much concerning someone that makes unpredictable changes all the time.

Furthermore, while it's true that sometimes a change in opponent's tactic will render your effective tactic useless, it is also possible that your opponent's second tactic is still vulnerable to your tactic, and sometimes it will be even worse. The reason is that you can't set a conditional order such as "if opponent predicted perfectly my movements, then switch to whatever I need to turn the tide" :P
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if many conditions take the form "when losing, switch to offensive tactic", secially by better teams facing weak opponents that "should" be defeated. Therefore, if you have a tactic exploiting the spaces he leaves to counterattack, and if his plan B leaves even more spaces behind in search of more offensive power, then you may be even better after he makes the change. Or maybe you lose in defense as much as you win in attack, who knows.

Imagine you find a strong team playing 3 defeders and leaving the wings somewhat unprotected. You may then play with high wings to take advantage of this. What will he do? Assume that if things go wrong he must change to something protecting the wings more? How can he know in advance that whatever condition he sets will be verified because of this, or because you fielded a lot of defenders, or just because of temporary bad luck that won't last 90 minutes...?
One possibility is that he makes such a change, of course. Just one among many. And, additionaly, small teams have also the chance to make a change that leads to better (or worse) respond to opponent's tactic...
That's why the "harder for weaker players' teams" argument is not clear at all.
(edited)

"if opponent predicted perfectly my movements, then switch to whatever I need to turn the tide" :P

LoL, very funny. :P

On first goal : change tactic to 10-0-0.
First manager to score wins. -thumbsup-

Are you crazy?, How long have you been playing sokker?. A 10-0-0 tactic is suicide. Whoever plays with 10 defenders eventually gets raped. Ask any expert around here.

Yup. When you play with 10 defenders your opponents will be able to create millions of chances.

640 is great though :)

Are there going to be introduced new brands of conditional orders?

I am wondering if there are going to be some kind of timeless conditional orders that could be triggered several times in a match

Just brought that up to greg about a week ago actually.

His response:

There will be additional, special slots for swapping tactics.

Were discussing it with damian when orders were implemented (orders from minute, and at minute), but agreed that it would be too easy [NOTE: i think he meant would NOT be too easy here]. Anyway - haven't thought about it lately, will see when orders for tactics will be implemented.
(edited)

No, your players won't play the ball forwards. You need to line-up at least one forward to be able to keep your opponent away from your side.

I meant 5 defs, 1 defmid 3 central mids and 1 offensive mid.

btw, dont think they will test it tomorrow, I dont see it yet ...

Yes, they are going to test it and no, you're not supposed to notice anything.

"If everything goes according to plan, no changes will be noticable. The changes made are going to be internal changes with the future in mind, which will allow more match engine improvements to be made in the future."

but, goes without saying, at least 10 ppl will blame their loss on it.

Definitely.