KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

[Davetoast]

There is no reason for a forced home team advantage in every KO2 match.

Indeed.

It's a complete screw up, an oversight, a bug.

It screws up the cup mode, including World Cup 90. What a joke!

Or any kind of neutral match. But it ratifies itself in league mode, 1 leg domestic cup or any 2 leg affair.

Logically, it's one thing to say that it's an oversight with regard to neutral cup matches, and by extension, any neutral matches (however there are no other types of neutral matches available within the game except for neutral cup matches. A desired facility for a 1 leg neutral match under any other circumstances is a contrivance). But it is incorrect to think that it follows to suggest that this 'oversight with regard to neutral cup matches' is a bug with regard to any other kind of match available within the game, both in single and two player mode; or indeed the game over all.

In short, it does not follow that, because of an oversight with regard to neutral games in cup mode, therefore the default mode should be neutral.

Imagine if there were no cup mode. Where would this theory stand then? That's all it's predicated on.

Then of course we have two player mode - it was only recently that the first ever fair game of KO2 was played. How many thousands (millions?) of KO2 games have been played over the years by kids who didn't know it wasn't a fair fight?

Sorry Steve, this is just an appeal to emotion. You have provided no further reasoning as to why, when it comes to the case of 2 player games, this oversight applies to anything but neutral cup games. What you should be saying here is that we can now play fair neutral cup games. To suggest that the first fair game has only been played since A=B is to assume too much, and then to paint the world with that assumption

It's a shocking bug to leave in the game, and I'm SO glad it has been fixed.

If you say an oversight, (which we can't really be sure that it is, but for the sake of argument) is a bug, then how could I disagree with a developer on such a point. With that in mind, you have done a fine job in addressing this bug, no doubt. But the applicable domain of that bug is only neutral cup matches, logically.

What is basically being proposed here is that the game was meant to be played in what we'll call neutral mode and that, therefore, default mode should be neutral and it is a bug that this is not the case. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. The game was obviously designed for its default mode to be home advantage, as evidenced by the assumed oversight when it comes to the neutral cup games, which must have been tagged on at a later date. Thus we can know for certain that neutral mode is the exception and home advantage mode is the default, the way the game was designed to be played, in both 1 and 2 player modes.

Of course, now you've sorted a facility for neutral matches, if neutral matches are desired then there is no reason to not use neutral mode whatsoever. But equally, there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the lack of team equality in anything other than neutral cup mode is a bug.


Finally, unrelated to the logic of the matter above but related nonetheless, in real life football i.e. all league and cup football at both international and club levels, add all matches together and I'll bet at least 98% of games of football are played on non-neutral territory. Football itself would seem to be HADM as opposed to NDM.

[Tripod]

In today's game development world, games are tested mercilessly and a large chunk of my job is spent dealing with the neverending flow of incoming bug reports. They are categorised into A bugs (severe problem), B bugs (problem), C bugs (minor problem) and wishlist (it would be nice if...)
It's down to the tester categorise each issue they locate, then check that the fix has been made before clearing the bug from the list. The programmer's job is to fix bugs in order of priority, always with an eye on the approaching deadline. It's common for some C bugs to remain in released code, and maybe even a few B bugs. A bugs should all be cleared though, unless it's a highly hard to reproduce issue.

Throwing KO2 at a modern QA department would produce a huge buglist, and I imagine many bugs would be highlighted including both autoslides and unintended slides. Whether it's a coding problem or a design flaw, the tester does not care, it's a problem that must be dealt with in order to improve the game.

Sorry to butt into your argument with Davetoast. But throwing (possible/perceived) design flaws together with proper "bugs" is simplifying things, surely. Take the console-ish inventory of Elder Scrolls Oblivion - that bugs me alright, but I cannot call it a real bug, just a bad design decision. And thus I question once more whether AI autoslides are a bug.

After all, we can be happy at times when games have not been through a major QA department. Though it's an arguable example: Bioshock. For me, it's been playtested and streamlined far too much and is inferior in just about every aspect to System Shock 2, despite all the minor and major problems SS2 has. Oh, I'm sure Bioshock is easier to get into for newbies, but people like me have to suffer because of it. The same can be said for movies: Summer blockbusters get test screened and recut to death to appeal to the largest variety of viewers. But they don't dare to experiment, they never become cult movies, that only goes for smaller productions which appear flawed upon release (like Blade Runner).

So if you took KO2 to a modern QA department, everything we love about the game would get thrown out. Far too difficult to get into, we can't have the ball not sticking to the player's feet. Depending upon time and money it would first be changed into something resembling Sensible Soccer or even end up as EA's FIFA 94.

[Steve Camber]

Even with TeamA=TeamB stats are pro TeamA, i mean we don't yet reached the 50% winning ratio. Maybe there are still few diferences between teams?

I would quite happily play all fair games as TeamB. A recent example of me choosing TeamA was during the last UKC against Robert. He pointed out that he preferred TeamA so naturally I was glad to follow the layout dictated by the fixture generator and play as TeamA, denying him his pshychological advantage. That psychological factor amongst players will scar the statistics for a while.

however there are no other types of neutral matches available within the game except for neutral cup matches

Error. Single game.

But it is incorrect to think that it follows to suggest that this 'oversight with regard to neutral cup matches' is a bug with regard to any other kind of match available within the game, both in single and two player mode; or indeed the game over all.

Error. Single game.

In short, it does not follow that, because of an oversight with regard to neutral games in cup mode, therefore the default mode should be neutral.

Error. If teams to be be uneven, it should be made clear, and optional.

To suggest that the first fair game has only been played since A=B is to assume too much

No, really, it's true.

The game was obviously designed for its default mode to be home advantage, as evidenced by the assumed oversight when it comes to the neutral cup games, which must have been tagged on at a later date. Thus we can know for certain that neutral mode is the exception and home advantage mode is the default, the way the game was designed to be played, in both 1 and 2 player modes.

Error. Player manager was designed to have home advantage. In KO2 it was obvious that a single game should have no advantage for either team. Thus we can know for certain that home advantage is the exception and neutral mode is the default.

there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the lack of team equality in anything other than neutral cup mode is a bug.

Error. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the lack of team equality in anything other than neutral cup mode is intended.

But throwing (possible/perceived) design flaws together with proper "bugs" is simplifying things, surely. Take the console-ish inventory of Elder Scrolls Oblivion - that bugs me alright, but I cannot call it a real bug, just a bad design decision. And thus I question once more whether AI autoslides are a bug.

Bad design decisions can be bugs. I doubt that AI autoslides were intentionally planned, just something which was never pointed out by a QA department on a buglist and so never addressed.

Good point about modern QA dept turning KO2 into Sensible or FIFA, considering the limits of the ST/Amiga. They are not the ones that actually change the game, only point out bugs and make improvement suggestions (which usually get binned )

[Torchiador]

Please Robert, do you mind to change my tactic? I'm far from the keyboard!

FUCK YOU GIANNI I WOKE UP MY WIFE!!!!

Please, make my excuses to your wife!

[gdh82]

Some people grew up playing PBD, some grew up playing NOPBD. It's therefore fair that everyone should be able to choose. Nobody grew up playing with either of these slide issues removed.

Thought I'd pick up on this quote as I feel its very relevant to the issue of moving the debate forward. At face value this point seems entirely reasonable but on close inspection this argument has its flaws too imo. For players who didn't grow up with PBD, they now have to defend against those players who do. (And vice versa too) Surely this is a significant change in gameplay, and therefore no different in principle to introducing any other change, however minor ? Please, remember this thread is not about me promoting any particular change, its about promoting that idea of debating change. I worry that arguments are sometimes used to close the debate down.

[gdh82]

We should not be considering changing things that fundamentally alter the gameplay. For people who have been playing without slide tackles to say that the game seems so different and weird with them back in, proves conclusively that the game has been fundamentally changed.

Likewise here. I have frequently heard people saying going back to A>B is so different and wierd after appreciating the benefits of the A=B change in gameplay. Difference in itself is neither good nor bad. So again I suggest moving the debate forward by at least discussing the pros and cons of any difference.

[JamesHBeard]

I think its pretty obvious to any logical thinking human being, that if a person clicks on "TWO PLAYER GAME", where squad selections are identical, they would be right in thinking they had equal teams.. so Steves comment is correct where he states;

Then of course we have two player mode - it was only recently that the first ever fair game of KO2 was played. How many thousands (millions?) of KO2 games have been played over the years by kids who didn't know it wasn't a fair fight?

[Bounty Bob]

For players who didn't grow up with PBD, they now have to defend against those players who do. (And vice versa too) Surely this is a significant change in gameplay, and therefore no different in principle to introducing any other change, however minor ?

I don't feel at a disadvantage having to defend against PBD. The fact that I can still control the ball at the other end of the pitch more than makes up for it. If I was forced to play PBD 100% of the time, I'd not have enjoyed any of my early KOA matches and would have just faded away. As it was I could play 50%+ in exactly the same manner that I always used to play the game. That's why I was so in favour of PBD choice. It isn't divisive. Any new player that joins the KOA today can play with the same control mechanism that they've always played with. This is progress and this is a perfect example of a good change. This also proves that I'm not stubbornly against having the game changed just because I thikn Dino is Jeses or I like vintage Jaguars.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I'm not against change for the hell of it.

I worry that arguments are sometimes used to close the debate down.

And on the flip side, I worry every time I see a post talking about change as it seems like the discussion wants to be pushed on forever until changes are made.

[gdh82]

I don't feel at a disadvantage having to defend against PBD.

My point is not whether or not anyone feels at at disadvantage. My point is very simple - the fact that NOPBD players now have to defend PBD-based attacks is a significant change in gameplay. I've not got a problem with this at all but to pretend otherwise seems absurd to me ?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I'm not against change for the hell of it.

I've never said you are, Mark. I'm just pointing out that you regularly seem to try to close down a debate by questioning the mere discussion of an idea, as if it shouldn't even be happening, that people shouldn't even be able to vote on things! How many times do I have to keep saying that ?

And on the flip side, I worry every time I see a post talking about change as it seems like the discussion wants to be pushed on forever until changes are made.

This is the crux of the matter, I feel. You seem resistant to the any change in gameplay now - like you've zero tolerance ?
Believe it or not, I don't want to push change forever either, it just seems that we don't even get to first base with some of these discussions. How many times do I have to say what I posted at the top of this thread:

I honestly don't have a hidden agenda to seek major changes to the great game. I too want KO2CV to retain the magic from yesteryear. I sometimes wonder if people wrongly believe I'm hellbent on changing every aspect of KO2. Far from it - the way I see it, its only about making some very minor changes. Any change should enhance the virtues of the game - the simplicity of the control and immediacy of the action. IMHO the game has no less drama nor becomes more robotic as a result of carefully considered changes. The depth of the great game (player attributes, ball and pitch physics, refereeing decisions, goal keeping behaviour and of course, human error) ensure this.

Like I say this thread is not about promoting any particular change, its about promoting debate that too often gets stiffled imo - I hope you can see where I'm coming from?

[Tripod]

Like I say this thread is not about promoting any particular change, its about promoting debate that too often gets stiffled imo - I hope you can see where I'm coming from?

I remember a time before we had the competition version. In the Groningen World Cup we had to play with what was available - 1.4 and Oracle, two disks per Amiga, if the team A player wanted to play the other version, we had to reboot the Amiga. Of course we'd have to set up the kits, aftertouch and the international teams back each time as well. Just look through the old posts in this subforum what we were talking about back then and maybe read this one from the beginning: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9985&p=151807

Basically, my point is we'd still be playing KO2 even if we didn't have the competition version. We'd play the game the way it came out of the box. Despite all the little quibbles we have with it.

Thanks to Steve Camber the situation changed. With the CV we were able to make significant changes:
1. Speeding up the process after loading the game (aftertouch on, kits, etc)
2. Not having to re-load the game by having PBD/No-PBD both available
3. A=B allows plus PBD selectable for each player enables fair formats without a return match.

The first two don't change the game(play) at all. The third one does and it could be argued that if in a WC there's any stage with two legs (knockout stages, for example) we should vote on this every time - only to remind people that is something which affects the gameplay. But all of us are very happy to have selectable PBD and A=B, so it isn't impossible for us, the KOA, to accept a real gameplay change.

But selectable PBD and A=B are very specific. Selectable PBD doesn't really change the game, you can only play your preferred version the whole time - your opponents, too, of course. A=B, apart from allowing single legs, gets rid of the frustration of playing as team B and having your players pushed over the whole time. But that changes the game as well, so the point can be made that AI autoslides are comparable to the B<A frustration. On the other hand, AI autoslides can be useful at times, they add excitement and an element of randomness - is the latter good or bad?

So, the specific discussion (AI autoslides) is difficult and so is a general discussion about gameplay changes. A few argue that any change which adds to the fun should be implemented. But others say KO2 is great as it is, the game they know and love, and just don't want to start changing anything and the rest are somewhere in between.

[Bounty Bob]

This is the crux of the matter, I feel. You seem resistant to the any change in gameplay now - like you've zero tolerance ?

Only for things that I believe are a step too far.

Like I say this thread is not about promoting any particular change, its about promoting debate that too often gets stiffled imo - I hope you can see where I'm coming from?

I know where you're coming from. If we have a discussion, I'll give my opinion. If you don't like it, or think that I'm trying to close down a discussion, then that's your problem not mine. All I do is give a view and not once try to stop others from doing the same.


If I didn't give my opinion on auto slides, we might only have people who are actively for the change. Where's the discussion in that?

[Davetoast]

Steve: It's a complete screw up, an oversight, a bug.

It screws up the cup mode, including World Cup 90. What a joke!

DT: Or any kind of neutral match. But it ratifies itself in league mode, 1 leg domestic cup or any 2 leg affair.

Logically, it's one thing to say that it's an oversight with regard to neutral cup matches, and by extension, any neutral matches (however there are no other types of neutral matches available within the game except for neutral cup matches. A desired facility for a 1 leg neutral match under any other circumstances is a contrivance).

Steve: Error. Single game.

Evidently you think this is a certainty. As such, you should be able to quite easily explain why it is necessary that a single game should be played on neutral territory, why that's the way the game was designed to be played by default and why it is definitely an oversight on the part of the developers that this is not the case.

Can you intimate the answers to these questions please, in explaining why you're sure that KO2 was meant to be played netural by default?

DT: But it is incorrect to think that it follows to suggest that this 'oversight with regard to neutral cup matches' is a bug with regard to any other kind of match available within the game, both in single and two player mode; or indeed the game over all.

Steve: Error. Single game.

As I say, it does not follow, and I've detailed exactly why it does not follow. Yet you obviously disagree. In that case you should know exactly why it actually does follow, or why my reasoning as to why it does not follow is incorrect.

Can you tell me why it definitely follows that, because the developers neglected to include a neutral facility to be consistent when it comes to the neutral cup matches available within the game, therefore it is necessarily an oversight that single games are not neutral?

Alternatively, can you tell me why I am incorrect to say that it definitely does not follow?

DT: In short, it does not follow that, because of an oversight with regard to neutral games in cup mode, therefore the default mode should be neutral.

Steve: Error. If teams to be be uneven, it should be made clear, and optional.

Ok, please explain why you think it is necessary that neutrality is the default and it should therefore be made clear and optional when this is not the case.

Please also explain why it should not be the other way around, i.e. that home advantage is the default and if teams are to be even, that should be made clear and optional.

Steve: It screws up the cup mode, including World Cup 90. What a joke!

DT: Imagine if there were no cup mode. Where would this theory stand then? That's all it's predicated on.

Given the fact your correct observation - that neutral cup matches are messed up by the lack of neutrality in such games - is the only piece of reasoning you've offered to justify your assertions that neutrality should be default in single games, my question above is an important one, which should be considered and either conceded or answered.

Steve: Then of course we have two player mode - it was only recently that the first ever fair game of KO2 was played. How many thousands (millions?) of KO2 games have been played over the years by kids who didn't know it wasn't a fair fight?

DT: Sorry Steve, this is just an appeal to emotion. You have provided no further reasoning as to why, when it comes to the case of 2 player games, this oversight applies to anything but neutral cup games. What you should be saying here is that we can now play fair neutral cup games. To suggest that the first fair game has only been played since A=B is to assume too much, and then to paint the world with that assumption.

Steve: No, really, it's true.

Well, if you know that it's true then you should be able to explain the reason(s) why it is true, being as the only way to really know that something is true is to know the reasons why that is the case.

Could you therefore explain to me why you think that a fair game of KO2 necessarily has to be neutral and why a non-neutral game is necessarily not a fair game of KO2? Bare in mind that any argument which utilises the definitional similarity between the words 'neutral' and 'fair' as its predicate would also imply that a game of real football between, for example, Rangers and Celtic at Ibrox, would not be a fair game of football, which would obviously be untrue.

Steve: It's a shocking bug to leave in the game, and I'm SO glad it has been fixed.

DT: What is basically being proposed here is that the game was meant to be played in what we'll call neutral mode and that, therefore, default mode should be neutral and it is a bug that this is not the case. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. The game was obviously designed for its default mode to be home advantage, as evidenced by the assumed oversight when it comes to the neutral cup games, which must have been tagged on at a later date. Thus we can know for certain that neutral mode is the exception and home advantage mode is the default, the way the game was designed to be played, in both 1 and 2 player modes.

Steve: Error. Player manager was designed to have home advantage. In KO2 it was obvious that a single game should have no advantage for either team. Thus we can know for certain that home advantage is the exception and neutral mode is the default.

You have provided no reasoning for this. You have simply asserted the premise that "In KO2 it was obvious that a single game should have no advantage for either team", with no reasoning thereon, and then drawn your conclusion based on that unreasoned asserted premise. This is the logical fallacy of Bare Assertion and the argument is therefore necessarily unsound. For an argument to hold any validity, any meaning, it must be reasoned. Simpy asserting something with no reasoning is an invalid, meaningless argument.

Note that I did provide reasoning and evidence for my premise and the conclusion that followed. Either you can show why my premises or reasoning are faulty and therefore the validity of my conclusion is incorrect, or you can't. Alternatively, you can put up a stonger argument as to why your point of view is the more valid.

DT: Of course, now you've sorted a facility for neutral matches, if neutral matches are desired then there is no reason to not use neutral mode whatsoever. But equally, there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the lack of team equality in anything other than neutral cup mode is a bug.

Steve: Error. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the lack of team equality in anything other than neutral cup mode is intended.

I didn't say that there is and what I have said here is not in error because of what you've said, true though what you say is.

This argument is irrelevant as there is equally no evidence that it's not intended. And absence of evidence cannot ever be evidence of absence, specifically here with regard to intentionality or lack thereof.

To be clear, you are asserting that it's a bug. I have reasoned that it is impossible for you to know this with certainty regarding any mode of play within the game but the neutral cup mode (short of getting the answer from the horse's mouth). That there is no evidence either way as to whether the lack of neutrality is intended cannot speak in any way with regard to whether it is a bug (i.e. not intended) in any game, even neutral cup games, being as there is no solid evidence of any intention either way.

The only evidence we have is circumstantial and that evidence is that all games are non-neutral by default. As you imply, we can reasonably presume from this circumstantial evidence that the omission of team neutrality in neutral cup games is likely unintentional and therefore can be seen as a bug, provisionally, with regard to neutral cup games only. We cannot be absolutely sure even that this was unintended though, being as the evidence is merely circumstantial.

This same circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that, by default, games of KO2 are intended to be non-neutral, being as that's the default design for every game, the neutral cup competition - obviously tagged on at a later date - notwithstanding. However, again, we cannot be absolutely sure of that as the evidence is circumstantial. But there can be no doubt that this is the stronger conclusion of the two with regard to the circumstantial evidence.

DT: Finally, unrelated to the logic of the matter above but related nonetheless, in real life football i.e. all league and cup football at both international and club levels, add all matches together and I'll bet at least 98% of games of football are played on non-neutral territory. Football itself would seem to be HADM as opposed to NDM.

I think this is an important point which, while it's unrelated to the logic of the matter, should be considered carefully in light of what we're discussing.

[Davetoast]

I think its pretty obvious to any logical thinking human being, that if a person clicks on "TWO PLAYER GAME", where squad selections are identical, they would be right in thinking they had equal teams.. so Steves comment is correct where he states;

Then of course we have two player mode - it was only recently that the first ever fair game of KO2 was played. How many thousands (millions?) of KO2 games have been played over the years by kids who didn't know it wasn't a fair fight?

Jim, as you can see in my post to Steve, I don't think this is the case and I know for sure that this is definitely not necessarily the case.

If this person clicked on "TWO PLAYER GAME", where squad selections are identical, they would only be right in thinking that they will be playing a two player game and that the players they can select from are the very same players. They would not be right in thinking that those very same players both have selected from will necessarily be equal teams, when it comes to playing the game, being as they don't know whether the game is supposed to be neutral or not.

In the very same way, I would not be right in thinking that Fernando Torres will produce exactly the same level of performance in every game he plays, simply by merit of the fact that he is the very same Fernando Torres that played the last game. Sure enough, 90% of his league goals came at Anfield.

Steve's comment cannot be known to be correct, being as we don't know whether a 'fair' game of KO2 was intended to be neutral or non-neutral. All we can say for sure is that the first neutral game has only recently been played. The question of whether a neutral game is the only fair type of game can only remain unresolved.

Circumstantially, in real football, non-neutral games are fair games, and virtually all games of football are non-neutral. It is therefore somewhat of a stretch to suggest that a computer game, based on the game of football, can only be fair if it's neutral. Add to that the fact that all games in KO2 are non-neutral by default and it's quite simple to make a far stronger case that non-neutral games are in fact fair games of KO2, than it is to make a case that they're not fair games of KO2.