Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: NT ranking points (seniors)
They create this game but evet they dont know how it really works ;p
Even if that is true, then it's still not random. If I play 10 times against the same team, a team with an average mark of 10 points less then I have, I know for sure I will almost always win, and I also know for sure that I will almost always have more possession, more play on his half and more shots on his goal. If it was random, it wouldn't be possible for me to know this for sure.
Even if that is true, then it's still not random. If I play 10 times against the same team, a team with an average mark of 10 points less then I have, I know for sure I will almost always win, and I also know for sure that I will almost always have more possession, more play on his half and more shots on his goal. If it was random, it wouldn't be possible for me to know this for sure.
Nothing random about that, most of the times the best players will succeed and most of the times the best team will win, but not always, just as real life.
What a covenient explanation. Did we play in real life or in web browser, where 1 and 0 rules the world? At least they should be.
Yes, 1 of 100 matches San Marino can win against Brasil in real life (unlikely but theorethically possible). Here was only two matches, it's most of the times for you? For me it's 50% and if we have this kind of "reality" level, San Marino should win 50 of 100 matches against Brasil. I'm looking forward to see that:)
What a covenient explanation. Did we play in real life or in web browser, where 1 and 0 rules the world? At least they should be.
Yes, 1 of 100 matches San Marino can win against Brasil in real life (unlikely but theorethically possible). Here was only two matches, it's most of the times for you? For me it's 50% and if we have this kind of "reality" level, San Marino should win 50 of 100 matches against Brasil. I'm looking forward to see that:)
with current engine san marino will win arround 15-20% matches with good tactics, for me is decent number. 2 seasons ago could be the 50-50% you say with any tactic
But it was not like San Marino vs Brasil, it was more like argentina vs brasil.....
You're right. Teams are more equal in this case.
Here is the moment when 1 and 0 must take the lead over "reality". Better tactic or/and better players (even just a little bid better players) should be rewarded. Otherwise we can appoint monkeys as managers and nothing will change:)
Here is the moment when 1 and 0 must take the lead over "reality". Better tactic or/and better players (even just a little bid better players) should be rewarded. Otherwise we can appoint monkeys as managers and nothing will change:)
Here is the moment when 1 and 0 must take the lead over "reality". Better tactic or/and better players (even just a little bid better players) should be rewarded. Otherwise we can appoint monkeys as managers and nothing will change:)
This doesn't make sense. If a team is just a little bit better as the opponent, the better team should be rewarded, as in always win? If this is what you mean, then all is just as predictable as it was with the old boring ping-pong ME.
And tactics do make the difference, managers who say they don't, don't know what they are talking about or aren't speaking the truth .... For example, a team with better players + Default tactic vs a team with weaker players + good User tactic, I know for sure the team with weaker players + good User tactic will win many more matches as he would have done by using a Default tactic or bad User tactic.
Besides, if tactics wouldn't make any difference, you could become champion of your country with crappy default tactics. But I'm 100% sure that's impossible.
EDIT: and please don't say these things if you want a serious discussion, or you really need to go back to school: Here was only two matches, it's most of the times for you? For me it's 50% .
(edited)
This doesn't make sense. If a team is just a little bit better as the opponent, the better team should be rewarded, as in always win? If this is what you mean, then all is just as predictable as it was with the old boring ping-pong ME.
And tactics do make the difference, managers who say they don't, don't know what they are talking about or aren't speaking the truth .... For example, a team with better players + Default tactic vs a team with weaker players + good User tactic, I know for sure the team with weaker players + good User tactic will win many more matches as he would have done by using a Default tactic or bad User tactic.
Besides, if tactics wouldn't make any difference, you could become champion of your country with crappy default tactics. But I'm 100% sure that's impossible.
EDIT: and please don't say these things if you want a serious discussion, or you really need to go back to school: Here was only two matches, it's most of the times for you? For me it's 50% .
(edited)
If a team is just a little bit better as the opponent, the better team should be rewarded, as in always win?
In this game - yes. In real life - no.
Bunuses for better tactic and better players must reward better thinker/buyer in all cases.
If this is what you mean, then all is just as predictable as it was with the old boring ME
Not necessarily. You must think better than your rival, to make better tactic. I'm not saying which team should win that double-match, I'm saying that it should be the same team in all cases.
e:brackets
(edited)
In this game - yes. In real life - no.
Bunuses for better tactic and better players must reward better thinker/buyer in all cases.
If this is what you mean, then all is just as predictable as it was with the old boring ME
Not necessarily. You must think better than your rival, to make better tactic. I'm not saying which team should win that double-match, I'm saying that it should be the same team in all cases.
e:brackets
(edited)
In this game - yes. In real life - no.
Bunuses for better tactic and better players must reward better thinker/buyer in all cases.
As far as I know it was the intention to make the game more realistic. If you don't like it, then maybe Sokker isn't really your kind of game (anymore). I'm glad it's not that predictable, it would be really boring if it was like that.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to explain/discuss it all over again why match results are always different eventhough the opponents are exactly the same (even with the '2 matches at the same time' bug as both are a different match for the ME).
Bunuses for better tactic and better players must reward better thinker/buyer in all cases.
As far as I know it was the intention to make the game more realistic. If you don't like it, then maybe Sokker isn't really your kind of game (anymore). I'm glad it's not that predictable, it would be really boring if it was like that.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to explain/discuss it all over again why match results are always different eventhough the opponents are exactly the same (even with the '2 matches at the same time' bug as both are a different match for the ME).
Oh, c'mon, you missing the point.
I'll try in short:
One ot those two coaches made an andvantage in some way, and should win the game. We don't know which one of them. They don't know either before the match.
The point is that it should be still the same winner in both matches played in identical conditions. If not, we have a simply random machine, nothing more.
You cannot force me to abandon Sokker, so you must prepare for me for a while:) Maybe you should consider more randomized games like slot machines or something like that?:P
I'll try in short:
One ot those two coaches made an andvantage in some way, and should win the game. We don't know which one of them. They don't know either before the match.
The point is that it should be still the same winner in both matches played in identical conditions. If not, we have a simply random machine, nothing more.
You cannot force me to abandon Sokker, so you must prepare for me for a while:) Maybe you should consider more randomized games like slot machines or something like that?:P
I know for sure I will almost always win, and I also know for sure that I will almost always have more possession, more play on his half and more shots on his goal. If it was random, it wouldn't be possible for me to know this for sure.
You can only be sure that death comes someday :p
There is nothing certain in this game ;)
You can only be sure that death comes someday :p
There is nothing certain in this game ;)
One ot those two coaches made an andvantage in some way - correct
and should win the game - not necessary. It's more appropriate (and also more realistic, compare to rl) to say: "and it's mostly probable to win the game"
we have a simply random machine, nothing more - nope, we've got a complex stochastic machine
(edited)
and should win the game - not necessary. It's more appropriate (and also more realistic, compare to rl) to say: "and it's mostly probable to win the game"
we have a simply random machine, nothing more - nope, we've got a complex stochastic machine
(edited)
One ot those two coaches made an andvantage in some way, and should win the game. We don't know which one of them. They don't know either before the match.
In most cases the best team will win. Play the same match 10 times in a row and the one who is best will win most matches. If you want to call this random, fine, but you are completely wrong.
The point is that it should be still the same winner in both matches played in identical conditions. If not, we have a simply random machine, nothing more.
You don't want to understand it, so it's useless to keep discussing this with you.
You cannot force me to abandon Sokker, so you must prepare for me for a while:)
No I can't and I won't. But if you don't like random games and really think Sokker is a random game, why would you keep on playing? Apparently you still like it enough to keep coming back every day.
Maybe you should consider more randomized games like slot machines or something like that?:P
A lot of games do use pragramming to make every game less predictable. If just 1 little thing at the beginning is a bit different as you did in the other game, the outcome will also be different.
EDIT: and no, it's not like slot machines. If I knew there was a slot machine in town with an 80% / 90% win for me, I would go to that machine every day and be rich in a few months! :P
(edited)
(edited)
In most cases the best team will win. Play the same match 10 times in a row and the one who is best will win most matches. If you want to call this random, fine, but you are completely wrong.
The point is that it should be still the same winner in both matches played in identical conditions. If not, we have a simply random machine, nothing more.
You don't want to understand it, so it's useless to keep discussing this with you.
You cannot force me to abandon Sokker, so you must prepare for me for a while:)
No I can't and I won't. But if you don't like random games and really think Sokker is a random game, why would you keep on playing? Apparently you still like it enough to keep coming back every day.
Maybe you should consider more randomized games like slot machines or something like that?:P
A lot of games do use pragramming to make every game less predictable. If just 1 little thing at the beginning is a bit different as you did in the other game, the outcome will also be different.
EDIT: and no, it's not like slot machines. If I knew there was a slot machine in town with an 80% / 90% win for me, I would go to that machine every day and be rich in a few months! :P
(edited)
(edited)
There is nothing certain in this game ;)
Yes there is.
As long as both managers are using an ok tactic, you can be sure that the more 2 teams are equal in strenght, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome, and ofcourse also the more 2 teams are different in strenght, the more often the stronger team will win.
If you deny this certainty, then you don't want to discuss Sokker at all but just want to post nonsense.
(edited)
Yes there is.
As long as both managers are using an ok tactic, you can be sure that the more 2 teams are equal in strenght, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome, and ofcourse also the more 2 teams are different in strenght, the more often the stronger team will win.
If you deny this certainty, then you don't want to discuss Sokker at all but just want to post nonsense.
(edited)
But if you don't like random games and really think Sokker is a random game, why would you keep on playing? Apparently you still like it enough to keep coming back every day.
I can tell you why because I dont have players and dont play matches ;)
The only thing that I am here is this forum and people who writes here everyday with me ;) And also a little bit habit because I spent here many years and its hard to just go away and leave it ;]
I can tell you why because I dont have players and dont play matches ;)
The only thing that I am here is this forum and people who writes here everyday with me ;) And also a little bit habit because I spent here many years and its hard to just go away and leave it ;]
Strange :/ There are way better social media sites out there on the internet ;)
And that habit you can't let go of kinda sounds like an addiction (out of your own control behaviour) ... ;P
But I have a question for you (and others) to keep in mind when posting on the forums:
Do you think you would still have played Sokker if you would have come to the forum on 13-5-2005 and you opened a topic like this and read posts of experienced managers about Sokker being a stupid game with random matches and tactics that have no use, and more of this nonsense and lies (which you would not have known are nonsense and lies because you just started this game). I think many would have quit Sokker right away and looked for another football manager game to play.
I think many forget they had a lot of fun for a couple of years with Sokker, but games can become boring after a while and then it's time to move on and let others have their fun with this 'new' Sokker, like you guys did for many years with the 'old' Sokker.
(edited)
And that habit you can't let go of kinda sounds like an addiction (out of your own control behaviour) ... ;P
But I have a question for you (and others) to keep in mind when posting on the forums:
Do you think you would still have played Sokker if you would have come to the forum on 13-5-2005 and you opened a topic like this and read posts of experienced managers about Sokker being a stupid game with random matches and tactics that have no use, and more of this nonsense and lies (which you would not have known are nonsense and lies because you just started this game). I think many would have quit Sokker right away and looked for another football manager game to play.
I think many forget they had a lot of fun for a couple of years with Sokker, but games can become boring after a while and then it's time to move on and let others have their fun with this 'new' Sokker, like you guys did for many years with the 'old' Sokker.
(edited)
