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.
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.