Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: New match engine discussion
One is % of matches,
Impossible to say exactly, but in almost all, if not all leagues the best teams will finish on top and the best of best become champion. This has nothing to do with random results at all. If it was random the weakest teams could become champion and that simply won't happen!
and other is how much in a match random can influence.
Is something random when you know that the higher the skills the more chance of successful actions during the whole match (all passes, all shots on goal, all keeper saves, etc)? And is something still random if you know that having a better team with better players means that in almost all matches you will beat the weaker opponents? And is something still random, knowing that the ME is build in a way to make sure the best and strongest teams will almost always win matches (because of big differences in low and high skilled players, the high number of goals per match and increased match time when the ME was tweaked to make sure stronger and better teams have more match time to beat weaker teams?)
That is not random at all. But hee, I'm just a crazy guy who is stubborn and knows nothing about it .......
(edited)
Impossible to say exactly, but in almost all, if not all leagues the best teams will finish on top and the best of best become champion. This has nothing to do with random results at all. If it was random the weakest teams could become champion and that simply won't happen!
and other is how much in a match random can influence.
Is something random when you know that the higher the skills the more chance of successful actions during the whole match (all passes, all shots on goal, all keeper saves, etc)? And is something still random if you know that having a better team with better players means that in almost all matches you will beat the weaker opponents? And is something still random, knowing that the ME is build in a way to make sure the best and strongest teams will almost always win matches (because of big differences in low and high skilled players, the high number of goals per match and increased match time when the ME was tweaked to make sure stronger and better teams have more match time to beat weaker teams?)
That is not random at all. But hee, I'm just a crazy guy who is stubborn and knows nothing about it .......
(edited)
Sorry, i can see that you are writing to me from the bar, but i will not read.
There is two effects that you can separate. One is % of matches, and other is how much in a match random can influence.
I agree.
The problem of unfair results are only a little part of the big problem of the excessive weight of the random part of random in the creation of actions.
I think devs are afraid to produce games where results are "unrealistic" (20-1 or 30-4.. etc), I think that it is a really minor problem. People would like more control, rather than a useless "realism".
There is another thing to be said here. There are a lot of results in real life that people think is random when in fact is not. But they are hard to simulate or not good for a game. In reality there is some ways to beat stronger teams in tactic choices, players changing, marking position and many other ways. Real soccer has many variables influencing that many times people think it was luck, but the team's manager and players know it was not. So this statement, real soccer has more random than sokker is partialy true.
I agree, but the thing we need in sokker is to enjoy it..
How to?
With "realism" or with a better control and meritocracy over our choices?
Do we need a perfect simulation where we can only pray to have the right dice rolls..
or do we need a game where our choices are more important?
I think every time someone compare sokker to real football is making an error.. Think at this game as a game. Make it playable and funny. End.
(edited)
Do we need a perfect simulation where we can only pray to have the right dice rolls..
The dices are rolled hundreds of times during 1 match, and in the case of Sokker the dices are tweaked (fixed: better skills = better results), that will make sure almost all matches end as expected. This has absolutely nothing to do with praying, it is nonsense to even mention that.
(edited)
The dices are rolled hundreds of times during 1 match, and in the case of Sokker the dices are tweaked (fixed: better skills = better results), that will make sure almost all matches end as expected. This has absolutely nothing to do with praying, it is nonsense to even mention that.
(edited)
the point is not about ramdom, surely the engine makes sense itself but we aren't allowed to wonder the variables. That's a game and that's it, if you want to have more variables to wonder you have a wide range of another games to start to play. Anyway yes I think maybe devs have to fix a few details but not so many
That's a game and that's it, if you want to have more variables to wonder you have a wide range of another games to start to play
I can't understand why to answer like that.
I'm criticizing this game becasue I like it, and I think some improvements (better: some tuning) could make it better than what it is now.
I can't understand what a post like your add to the discussion.
I can understand who says random is ok as it is.. It's an opinion. I disagree, but devs can read different opinions and make up their own idea..
Your post add nothing..
you answer we don't know every variables.. That's not the point.
the point is this game playable with fun? Are results in the control of managers? Can it be done better?
(NB: very often in this kind of discussion I see 2 parties:
-those who see everything black and wrong
-those who see everything fine and happy..
but it happens sometimes.. that.. maybe.. there is somenone that has some critics and still love the game..
the fact this game is diyng.. maybe should take us to rethink something? no?)
(edited)
I can't understand why to answer like that.
I'm criticizing this game becasue I like it, and I think some improvements (better: some tuning) could make it better than what it is now.
I can't understand what a post like your add to the discussion.
I can understand who says random is ok as it is.. It's an opinion. I disagree, but devs can read different opinions and make up their own idea..
Your post add nothing..
you answer we don't know every variables.. That's not the point.
the point is this game playable with fun? Are results in the control of managers? Can it be done better?
(NB: very often in this kind of discussion I see 2 parties:
-those who see everything black and wrong
-those who see everything fine and happy..
but it happens sometimes.. that.. maybe.. there is somenone that has some critics and still love the game..
the fact this game is diyng.. maybe should take us to rethink something? no?)
(edited)
That's a game and that's it, if you want to have more variables to wonder you have a wide range of another games to start to play
I agree with you, that kind of answer, if you don't like, leave it, although very arrogant, could make sense in a sucessfull game. In a dying game, is more like dennying something obvious.
I agree with you, that kind of answer, if you don't like, leave it, although very arrogant, could make sense in a sucessfull game. In a dying game, is more like dennying something obvious.
The problem of unfair results are only a little part of the big problem of the excessive weight of the random part of random in the creation of actions.
I think devs are afraid to produce games where results are "unrealistic" (20-1 or 30-4.. etc), I think that it is a really minor problem. People would like more control, rather than a useless "realism".
I understand this "too weird results" are not the only problem. But i don't think is that hard to simulate more realistic results and avoid 25-1,30-2.
I think devs are afraid to produce games where results are "unrealistic" (20-1 or 30-4.. etc), I think that it is a really minor problem. People would like more control, rather than a useless "realism".
I understand this "too weird results" are not the only problem. But i don't think is that hard to simulate more realistic results and avoid 25-1,30-2.
I think in this game a lot has been done to reduce the variability observed in real life football. Just think about the huge gap between skill 0 and 18.
Being too deterministic in actions would render tactics to the point of irrelevance. For example if you know bad strikers always make bad shots that good keepers can always save, then why would teams with good keepers bother to set up a good defense against teams with bad strikers?
Sometimes variability is required to keep certain things work. You would understand it well if you look at certain fields of science or social science.
Being too deterministic in actions would render tactics to the point of irrelevance. For example if you know bad strikers always make bad shots that good keepers can always save, then why would teams with good keepers bother to set up a good defense against teams with bad strikers?
Sometimes variability is required to keep certain things work. You would understand it well if you look at certain fields of science or social science.
I tried to explain into our national forum, but people who hasn't a logical/mathematical brain, or has a past as coder, can't really understand how a game (and this one too) works.
It's not their fault but they're ignorant in this type of things.
They know what there should be solved theoretically, but they can't even imagine how many things work together practically. So they will continue to claim something better, without knowing that maybe this settings are the best.
There's nothing to add to this concept.
It's not their fault but they're ignorant in this type of things.
They know what there should be solved theoretically, but they can't even imagine how many things work together practically. So they will continue to claim something better, without knowing that maybe this settings are the best.
There's nothing to add to this concept.
Being too deterministic in actions would render tactics to the point of irrelevance. For example if you know bad strikers always make bad shots that good keepers can always save, then why would teams with good keepers bother to set up a good defense against teams with bad strikers?
that's not what I'm asking for.
I'm asking for a little less.
If a 18 attack striker shoot 10 times it is not acceptable he never hits the goal as is it unacceptable that he scores everytime..
What's the right regulation?
I can't understand why tatcis should be less important. on the contrary, the more you shoot and the less you suffer.. the more chance you have.. right as now..
that's not what I'm asking for.
I'm asking for a little less.
If a 18 attack striker shoot 10 times it is not acceptable he never hits the goal as is it unacceptable that he scores everytime..
What's the right regulation?
I can't understand why tatcis should be less important. on the contrary, the more you shoot and the less you suffer.. the more chance you have.. right as now..
I tried to explain into our national forum, but people who hasn't a logical/mathematical brain, or has a past as coder, can't really understand how a game (and this one too) works.
LOL.
LOL.
It's not their fault but they're ignorant in this type of things.
without knowing that maybe this settings are the best.
Your statement is perfect. It lacks a lot of logical sense, but that's not my point, and i don't get how can you not see something so simple.
Even if you consider you are right, those who like actual ME are inteligent, knows about maths, statistics, variable correlation, incredible brain and those who doesn't like are ignorant stupid. Even considering you are right, a lot of people says that they don't like the ME. You can't change that. Many leave the game and say nothing. Those who say something like other things in the game and that's why we complain
Many posts pró-actual ME states that it is the best possible and people should like, if they don't like they are ignorants. They don't know how it works. They don't know maths, and so on. There is plenty of explanation to criticize those who doesn't like ME. But even if we, including me, don't complain anymore, it does not change the fact that most don't like. Even if no one criticize anymore ME, people will still not like it and the number will keep falling.
Forum is for people to say what they think. I can be called ignorant, people can say i don't know how ME works, i don't know maths, statictics, small brain, anything you want. It doesn't bother me because is not true. I probably know many things better than you and i don't like ME. Forum should be for people to say that. I might doesn't go back here because of way people here think (small minds), but nothing will be changed. ME will not be wonderfull if people stop complain.
(edited)
without knowing that maybe this settings are the best.
Your statement is perfect. It lacks a lot of logical sense, but that's not my point, and i don't get how can you not see something so simple.
Even if you consider you are right, those who like actual ME are inteligent, knows about maths, statistics, variable correlation, incredible brain and those who doesn't like are ignorant stupid. Even considering you are right, a lot of people says that they don't like the ME. You can't change that. Many leave the game and say nothing. Those who say something like other things in the game and that's why we complain
Many posts pró-actual ME states that it is the best possible and people should like, if they don't like they are ignorants. They don't know how it works. They don't know maths, and so on. There is plenty of explanation to criticize those who doesn't like ME. But even if we, including me, don't complain anymore, it does not change the fact that most don't like. Even if no one criticize anymore ME, people will still not like it and the number will keep falling.
Forum is for people to say what they think. I can be called ignorant, people can say i don't know how ME works, i don't know maths, statictics, small brain, anything you want. It doesn't bother me because is not true. I probably know many things better than you and i don't like ME. Forum should be for people to say that. I might doesn't go back here because of way people here think (small minds), but nothing will be changed. ME will not be wonderfull if people stop complain.
(edited)
I think this randomless is fine for leagues, instead the performance in cups. In one match everything can happen
" excessive weight of the random part of random in the creation of actions. " I was replying to this. So maybe we should focus on the shot count versus resulted which seems to bring concern to most people.
First we must agree that failing to score in 10 attempt out of 10 is NATURAL. For example, let's assume a striker score once in an average of 4 shots (Actually no player in real life can be that efficient), the chance of that strikers failing all 10 shots is 5.6%, which means naturally you would expect to see a match which have shot count 10-0 ending up in 0-0 in every 15-20 matches.
Whether it is FUN is another question and is entirely personal. I personally find it weird to elinminate the situation you described as 'not acceptable' since it's so unnatural.
If we really were to change this, maybe first we would build a database of expected goals based on shot types and locations for different skills combination of keepers and strikers. Then in a match if the expected goal deviates from the actual goal by too much, the next shot would be generated until a goal is resulted (maybe through a do-until loop). Parameters would be tweaked so game balance is not destroyed.
The procedures for all these are likely to be very tedious that I cannot imagine anyone would do it unless he/she has a lot of time and gets paid really handsomely. Anyway, I strongly believe that developers have a lot of better things to do instead of messing with this.
This is based on my knowledge in scientific computing, real game coders may find a lot of inaccurate descriptions above.
First we must agree that failing to score in 10 attempt out of 10 is NATURAL. For example, let's assume a striker score once in an average of 4 shots (Actually no player in real life can be that efficient), the chance of that strikers failing all 10 shots is 5.6%, which means naturally you would expect to see a match which have shot count 10-0 ending up in 0-0 in every 15-20 matches.
Whether it is FUN is another question and is entirely personal. I personally find it weird to elinminate the situation you described as 'not acceptable' since it's so unnatural.
If we really were to change this, maybe first we would build a database of expected goals based on shot types and locations for different skills combination of keepers and strikers. Then in a match if the expected goal deviates from the actual goal by too much, the next shot would be generated until a goal is resulted (maybe through a do-until loop). Parameters would be tweaked so game balance is not destroyed.
The procedures for all these are likely to be very tedious that I cannot imagine anyone would do it unless he/she has a lot of time and gets paid really handsomely. Anyway, I strongly believe that developers have a lot of better things to do instead of messing with this.
This is based on my knowledge in scientific computing, real game coders may find a lot of inaccurate descriptions above.