KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Talk about EVERYTHING related to Kick Off 1 + 2.

Moderator: Moderators

Torchiador
3000+ poster!
3000+ poster!
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 3:34 pm
Location: Kick Off House - Milano - Italy
Contact:

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Torchiador » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:28 am

Davetoast wrote:
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?



About A=B
In original KO2 there is no documentation on original box or original game manual about the advantage of team A.
So no one could know that Team A was advantaged.
Unsually I have got a good memory and I think that Gianluca might confirm me: at Italian Championship 2003 Dino said (in a good italian, since he worked in Italy for a lot of time) that he used that trick of A>B to simplify his programming of the game(avoiding problem with collisions).Of course, this one it could be interpreted also as the home advantage.
Probably, when he used that trick, he thought that no one was able to notice that slight advantage of Team A, and probably he was right if his game had a normal life of a pair of years, nobody would have noticed it.
But the story of KO2 is slight different.
Image
User avatar
Steve Camber
Mad! 7000+ poster!
Mad! 7000+ poster!
Posts: 7527
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sheffield, England
Contact:

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Steve Camber » Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:10 am

Davetoast wrote: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.

Please clarify - You are saying that it's a fair game of football when Rangers and Celtic play with Rangers having a home advantage?

I would say this was unfair, just as if Rangers started with 11 men while Celtic started with 10. You would not?

It would be fair to me if the reverse then followed, with Rangers and Celtic playing at the Celtic ground. Just as it would be a fair game if Rangers and Celtic played a single game at Wembley.
--
SteveC - Kick Off engineer - Ranked somewhere waaaay down the list
18 Dec 2003 - "One day I'm going to disassemble the 68000 code, and find out exactly what's going on in there!! "

Ask me about online KO2 :)
User avatar
Tripod
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2728
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Tripod » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:53 pm

Steve[quote] Camber wrote:Please clarify - You are saying that it's a fair game of football when Rangers and Celtic play with Rangers having a home advantage?


If I understand Davetoast correctly it is fair IF Celtic knows they have to play away at Ibrox Park - and thus Rangers will have a home advantage. If instead Celtic was led to believe beforehand the match will be played at Wembley and suddenly at the last second it turns out it's at Ibrox, then it would be unfair.

But, @Davetoast:

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.


Nice argument, i see your point, but: Can things be changed around (in the KO2 setup menu) so that team B plays "at home"? No. That together with the identical squads really makes you think both teams must be identical. And after all, I never heard that anybody even had the idea that A>B until they finally realised it from playing the game.

Call it a case of Wikiality: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... eoId=72347
We have all agreed that KO2 led us to believe team A and B should be equal - and that's why they now are (by default).
WC Performances 2003: 28/31 - 2004: 14/43 - 2005: 17/63 - 2006: 31/50 - 2008: 12/41 - 2009: 14/34 - 2010: 24/46
User avatar
Davetoast
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6568
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Cheshire, GB

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Davetoast » Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:45 pm

Torchiador wrote:About A=B
In original KO2 there is no documentation on original box or original game manual about the advantage of team A.
So no one could know that Team A was advantaged.

Hi Torch,

I'm only guessing but, similar to the above, I'm sure there are all sorts of aspects of the game that are omitted from the instructions. For example, it was not made clear that a second player playing in position within the same team would not be able to use aftertouch. As such, this player would have expected to be able to use aftertouch but it would become immediately obvious that this wasn't the case when they started playing. Now I'm not suggesting that A>B is just as immediately obvious but at least in my experience, we knew for certain almost immediately that team B were always weaker than team A and, as such, always swapped joystick ports for successive games.

And, again, the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument applies here. As there was no evidence as to whether teams are supposed to be equal or not, as much as someone therefore couldn't know from the outset that teams weren't supposed to be equal, so too they couldn't know that teams were supposed to be equal.

Unsually I have got a good memory and I think that Gianluca might confirm me: at Italian Championship 2003 Dino said (in a good italian, since he worked in Italy for a lot of time) that he used that trick of A>B to simplify his programming of the game(avoiding problem with collisions).Of course, this one it could be interpreted also as the home advantage.

Interesting and it makes sense. It would seem that there was no need for this as Steve's removing it has caused no problems in that regard. I'm no developer though so maybe there are considerations involved earlier in the process I can't consider.

Probably, when he used that trick, he thought that no one was able to notice that slight advantage of Team A, and probably he was right if his game had a normal life of a pair of years, nobody would have noticed it.
But the story of KO2 is slight different.

Isn't it just!

It's funny that Dino knew next to nothing about football and yet created the closest thing to a simulation, when it comes to certain aspects of the game, that's ever been done. Perhaps a simplified view of the basics and how to approximate them was just the approach that was needed, as opposed to a fan overcomplicating things.
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.
User avatar
Davetoast
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6568
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Cheshire, GB

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Davetoast » Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:50 pm

DT: 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: Please clarify - You are saying that it's a fair game of football when Rangers and Celtic play with Rangers having a home advantage?

Not exactly, although that is a direct corollary of what I am saying. I'm saying that as near as damn it to all football games are played on non-neutral territory and, therefore, to suggest that only neutral territory games are 'fair' games is to suggest that virtually all games of football are not fair games.

I would say this was unfair, just as if Rangers started with 11 men while Celtic started with 10. You would not?

Well, in a sense you would be right in that everything is not equal and therefore cannot be fair in the sense where fair means complete equality of opportunity. But what I'm saying is that everything being equal is not the sense in which a football match is judged to be a fair game. Players, managers and fans don't set off for an away game thinking 'this is not going to be a fair game' simply by merit of it being an away match. They might well worry about the ref being a homer or the effect the home fans might have on the respective team's mentality, but in football, such factors are all part and parcel of a fair game. Playing a match where one team has home advantage and the other hasn't isn't even just part and parcel, it is completely implicit that such a game is a fair game.

It would be fair to me if the reverse then followed, with Rangers and Celtic playing at the Celtic ground. Just as it would be a fair game if Rangers and Celtic played a single game at Wembley.

And this is exactly the way that it is. Virtually all football matches are played within a league format (where return matches are necessary) or two legged home and away cup affairs. Even with the exceptions, like the FA Cup or friendlies, where all but the final stages are played with home advantage and no return match is necessarily involved, such games aren't seen as unfair by merit of one-off home advantage.

This particular aspect of what I've been saying is basically a point of semantics. I think you would be fully justified to say that the first truly neutral one-off game has only recently been played but I think that to say the first truly fair game has only recently been played is to misunderstand what a fair game of football is, and is therefore incorrect.
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.
User avatar
Davetoast
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6568
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Cheshire, GB

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Davetoast » Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:55 pm

Tripod wrote:Can things be changed around (in the KO2 setup menu) so that team B plays "at home"? No. That together with the identical squads really makes you think both teams must be identical.

Can't argue with that. It's always going to be an assumption though, being that just as there is no definite indication of inequality, there is also no definite indication of equality. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument.

And after all, I never heard that anybody even had the idea that A>B until they finally realised it from playing the game.

Indeed, and why would they. It's not something that someone would put much thought into and, as such, they would probably expect equality at the back of their mind, although they would hardly be thinking 'this had better be equal teams' at the front of their mind. It's an assumption and a weak one at that, being as hardly any thought will have gone into it. In reality, when more thought goes into it, there is no reason for the default mode of a computer football game to be neutral as opposed to home advantage. And in fact, the more thought you put into considering whether real world football matches in general are neutral or non-neutral, the more you see that neutral games are, by a number of orders of magnitude, the exception as opposed to the rule.

Soon enough though, in playing the game it is realised that A>B, no matter what the initial assumptions were, and people can then address that however they wish.

We have all agreed that KO2 led us to believe team A and B should be equal - and that's why they now are (by default).

Yep, and there's nothing wrong with that, nor am I saying that there is.

Again this particular aspect of what I've said is another point of semantics. If we allow that an unintentional oversight on the part of developers can be called a bug, then we cannot deny that the lack of neutrality available in the neutral cup competitions within the game can be said to be a bug. But to then, by dint of this state of affairs, suggest that by extension the default mode for all types of games should be neutral and that it is an oversight on the part of the developers and therefore a bug that this is not the case, is to assume far too much with regard to the logic of the premises involved, and it is also to ignore the fact that virtually all games of football (the real world game this computer game attempts to emulate) are actually non-neutral, with regard to the circumstantial evidence of how we might expect this particular emulation to mirror what it's emulating.

And if we cannot, in full confidence, call it a bug, the debate takes a different shape altogether.
Final Whistle Crusader and President of The FWA.
User avatar
Tripod
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2728
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Tripod » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:58 am

Davetoast, you'd make any debating team proud. And I absolutely agree, A>B might well have been a conscious design decision and probably isn't a bug in the strict sense.

I think I summarised the "real problem" fairly well on the last page. The CV was created with specific competition needs in mind, it doesn't matter if what has been changed are bugs or not, we wanted these changes. We didn't need them, KO2 can be played without, but they certainly make things easier than having, for example, half the Amigas running Oracle and the other half 1.4, which slowed competitions down.

These vital changes have long been implemented and then fine tuned (like the PBD selection on the squad selection screen). Steve has worked on other things which are "gameplay neutral", like the match statistics, which are really cool. But now some itch for more gameplay changes, removing things which annoy them about KO2. And it is a bit like standing at the edge of a cliff - do we want to jump? And that is what we are supposed to be discussing here.

IN SHORT - GET OVER IT, MOVE ON! - Gameplay has already fundamentally changed!


That quote is from Garry's thread openener. As I tried to argue he is right, gameplay has fundamentally changed - but it has changed for a very good and specific reason. Which was not to improve KO2, but improve KO2 tournaments. So this argument cannot be used to promote further gameplay changes. Sorry, I know I'm not actually moving the debate forward. I'm just trying to explain why it's so difficult and why:

Rather than suffocating debate at the outset by rejecting out of hand any change in gameplay, I'd strongly encourage all of us to openly consider the pros or cons of any suggested change.


...It is valid to reject any further gameplay changes without even feeling the need to discuss possible pros and cons. Which of course is frustrating for those who want to promote change. This leads me back to what I felt about this right from the start: How about fixing bugs (or maybe "bugs") we can agree on, which we all would like to get rid of? That might even help the cause of the "pro change" group because a fixed bug could alter the gameplay, too, and suddenly more people might feel confident about making other gameplay changes.
WC Performances 2003: 28/31 - 2004: 14/43 - 2005: 17/63 - 2006: 31/50 - 2008: 12/41 - 2009: 14/34 - 2010: 24/46
User avatar
gdh82
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6197
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby gdh82 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:17 am

Tripod wrote: As I tried to argue he is right, gameplay has fundamentally changed - but it has changed for a very good and specific reason. Which was not to improve KO2, but improve KO2 tournaments. So this argument cannot be used to promote further gameplay changes. Sorry, I know I'm not actually moving the debate forward. I'm just trying to explain why it's so difficult and why.

Thanks Alex, not least for attempting to bring this thread back on topic! :) That's a good distinction between improving KO2 and KO2 tournaments too. I haven't time now but I'll post later about why I think the autoslide issues actually relate to both.

Tripod wrote:It is valid to reject any further gameplay changes without even feeling the need to discuss possible pros and cons. Which of course is frustrating for those who want to promote change.


I agree its perfectly valid to say I am against further gameplay changes. I strongly disagree with the apparent suggestion by some members that discussion/votes on change shouldn't even be taking place. It also seems an absurd position to suggest that KO2CV hasn't already involved significant changes in gameplay. This is what this thread has been about for me.

Tripod wrote:This leads me back to what I felt about this right from the start: How about fixing bugs (or maybe "bugs") we can agree on, which we all would like to get rid of? That might even help the cause of the "pro change" group because a fixed bug could alter the gameplay, too, and suddenly more people might feel confident about making other gameplay changes.


Excellent idea, which I'd support. :) - this could help us all get past the idea that 'change' of any kind is a bad thing. How about, no further gameplay changes beyond the exisiting ones in 0.99, whilst we focus on the bugs (we can agree on) instead ?
All the goals, the stats, the stories & more from the KO2 WC 2011 - please click here

And click here for everything you'll ever need to know about KO2!
User avatar
JamesHBeard
The guru!
The guru!
Posts: 13807
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The Forest Of Dean, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby JamesHBeard » Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:38 am

Davetoast wrote:And this is exactly the way that it is. Virtually all football matches are played within a league format (where return matches are necessary) or two legged home and away cup affairs. Even with the exceptions, like the FA Cup or friendlies, where all but the final stages are played with home advantage and no return match is necessarily involved, such games aren't seen as unfair by merit of one-off home advantage.

This particular aspect of what I've been saying is basically a point of semantics. I think you would be fully justified to say that the first truly neutral one-off game has only recently been played but I think that to say the first truly fair game has only recently been played is to misunderstand what a fair game of football is, and is therefore incorrect.


These comments from Dave are absolutely where I think we would all agree... Steve C included, which basically concludes this interesting argument for me. Good stuff.
WC - QF 2001,2002, SilverCup Winner 2006, Best Defence 2006
UKC - Winner 2005
Newent 2008 Championship Winner

Image
Hi ! My name is James and I have been KO2 free since 8th March 2009.
User avatar
gdh82
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6197
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby gdh82 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:26 am

Given how this thread has gone off in all directions but still in the spirit of moving the debate forward, I'm starting a separate single issue debate thread which is open to all. I acknowledge how my enthusiasm for what I see as a minor change can sometimes be miscontrued as being preachy or offensive, so I sincerely hope this new thread won't be. :)
All the goals, the stats, the stories & more from the KO2 WC 2011 - please click here

And click here for everything you'll ever need to know about KO2!
User avatar
alkis21
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 15014
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby alkis21 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:51 am

I wish you hadn't done that Garry as there are now three different threads discussing the same issue. As a newly appointed mod your job is to keep things in order rather than render them more chaotic (that's right, welcome to the world of "it's all the MOD's fault" :D ).
Remember, remember, the 4th and the 3rd of November
Image
User avatar
gdh82
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6197
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby gdh82 » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:57 am

alkis21 wrote:I wish you hadn't done that Garry as there are now three different threads discussing the same issue. As a newly appointed mod your job is to keep things in order rather than render them more chaotic (that's right, welcome to the world of "it's all the MOD's fault" :D ).


Sorry mate - as a mod, can I delete all the off-topic posts to this thread then!!!!!!! :D I had stated in the top post what this thread was about!

This thread was about getting past the "we can't discuss/change that cause its gameplay" stage for KO2CV purposes
Your thread is about agreeing WC08 rules.
The new single-issue thread is about Autoslides generally, for all tourneys (though 'could' inform your thread?)

I know, still my fault though! :)
All the goals, the stats, the stories & more from the KO2 WC 2011 - please click here

And click here for everything you'll ever need to know about KO2!
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Re: KO2CV Development - Moving the debate forward ?

Postby Bounty Bob » Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:47 pm

Is there anything more to say in a new thread that hasn't already been said?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests