'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Talk about EVERYTHING related to Kick Off 1 + 2.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tripod
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Tripod » Thu May 28, 2009 10:53 am

Obviously, Spyros' point is valid and I agree, I never thought a "rubber band" was much fun in other types of game. If I'm playing a difficult racing game without this feature I'll be nervous enough as it is to not make a mistake to lose my lead. Plus, as I wrote based on my experience here at home, to some extend we all have a mental rubber band anyway. I remember a couple of games from Luton where I thought I already had the game in the bag and probably didn't play as well, definitely not as efficiently, as I can, maybe trying to save some energy for the next opponent and suddenly the score is level again. So it could be argued we don't need a rubber band coded into the game. Of course, maybe things are different for you goal scoring robots and monsters. :)

This is true if you design the rubber band in a poor way. In the extreme, you could give a player leading with one goal a 50% pace handicap. Nevertheless, as also mentioned earlier, bad consequences like this can be avoided by designing the rubber band with more care.


Of course for now we are just theorizing and the question is which parameters would be the best to influence. Mr. Bishop said, I believe, it should include (or use solely) the ability of the keeper. Or the quality of the shots maybe. But possibly, only affecting the pace won't help much (except forcing more lobs from the player ahead?).

As I argued before, the combination of a buffer and rubber band won't help anybody to upset a stronger player. Depending on the implementation it would just reduce the scores slightly. So it brings me to the point: What exactly should the purpose of this be? In your first post, Dagh, you said it is to help the weaker players. And it's a nice idea. The problem is that it might be impossible to find an implementation which could also be used for all other matches without negative side effects. Maybe we would have to open up the can of worms you'd like to keep sealed.

Yes, you bring up a good point, that some tournaments are more suited for this than others. I think I would like to adjust my statement. Yes, you can have one pre-tournament measurement: Should we use this handicap feature or not? Since some tournaments are more suited for this than others, and this depends on a pre-tournament measurement.


This would be the easiest solution. I can totally see that for some tournaments this would be very useful. The idea came to you when you where thinking of the next Scandinavian Championships which could end up with you and John winning many games by a huge margin and not be much fun, especially for the poor guys on the losing end. Any variation of your idea might make the tournament a lot more fun. Nonetheless - will you turn it off when facing John? And what if two weaker players of roughly the same level meet?

If you use a buffer and rubber band it just won't help the weaker players enough and the games will remain one-sided for most of the match. If you leave out the buffer then you'd be keeping games between similarly strong opponents artificially close. So I cannot - for now - see it being used in general, it would actually need to be decided based on individual players. In this example, maybe you and John could agree beforehand on which players both of you turn on the handicap feature for.
WC Performances 2003: 28/31 - 2004: 14/43 - 2005: 17/63 - 2006: 31/50 - 2008: 12/41 - 2009: 14/34 - 2010: 24/46
Torchiador
3000+ poster!
3000+ poster!
Posts: 3487
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 3:34 pm
Location: Kick Off House - Milano - Italy
Contact:

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Torchiador » Fri May 29, 2009 8:32 am

:yikes:
Dagh, that isn't a post, it is a three-volume encyclopedia!
thanks mate, you are improving my English! and you know, my English and my ko2 skills are proportional dimensions and they walk arm in arm! :P
just give me a bit of time to read and reply and the next time I'll play ko2 I'll move my players without joystick!
Image
User avatar
gdh82
6000+ Poster!
6000+ Poster!
Posts: 6197
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby gdh82 » Fri May 29, 2009 11:44 am

Torchiador wrote:Dagh, that isn't a post, it is a three-volume encyclopedia!


:lol: What Gianni said!

No one puts the great game under the microscope quite like Dagh - and the KOA is a better place for it! 8) I just need longer lunchbreaks to read them!! :)
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: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Bounty Bob » Fri May 29, 2009 10:36 pm

dnielsen wrote:Likewise, I actually wouldn't say that removing cpu-slides is introducing something new, since we already are firmly used to situations without cpu-slides. As I see it, it is just an adjustment of the cpu-slide frequency (to zero), but not something completely new. On the other hand, if we radically changed keeper deflection frequencies, then yes, it would feel like a fundamental change of gameplay, so there is still some grey zone.
Another great post Dagh, but I can't help but feel that something is wrong with this section.

How can you say that reducing the slide frequency to zero is not completely new, yet meddling with keeper deflection frequencies is a fundamental change? You argue that we already have situations without CPU slides, so it can be considered normal to have them removed. But don't we also have situations with keeper deflections? Therefore having more of them is just more of something we are used to. Whatever way you look at this quoted paragraph, one argument negates or counters the other.
User avatar
dnielsen
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby dnielsen » Sat May 30, 2009 12:48 pm

Tripod wrote:As I argued before, the combination of a buffer and rubber band won't help anybody to upset a stronger player. Depending on the implementation it would just reduce the scores slightly. So it brings me to the point: What exactly should the purpose of this be? In your first post, Dagh, you said it is to help the weaker players. And it's a nice idea. The problem is that it might be impossible to find an implementation which could also be used for all other matches without negative side effects. Maybe we would have to open up the can of worms you'd like to keep sealed.

[...]

If you use a buffer and rubber band it just won't help the weaker players enough and the games will remain one-sided for most of the match. If you leave out the buffer then you'd be keeping games between similarly strong opponents artificially close. So I cannot - for now - see it being used in general, it would actually need to be decided based on individual players. In this example, maybe you and John could agree beforehand on which players both of you turn on the handicap feature for.


Thanks for you post, Tripod, I think you really clarified some key issues to think about. Obviously, my hope would be that it is possible to find a balance where you make the "strong vs. weak" games more enjoyable while still preserving all the good qualities that we already have in games between roughly equally strong players. Perhaps this would be difficult, and then indeed, one can begin to think about being more pragmatic and just target use of a handicap feature like this more on a case-to-case basis. I'm not really sure what I think is the best course. At the same time, there are many people expressing a general sense of dislike towards the entire concept (and for perfectly reasonable reasons), so it's not like it seems worth it to "preach" the idea much. At any rate, it has been good thinking about it and discussing it. Indeed, the idea originated from speculations about how to possibly make tournaments like a Nordic championship (or, for instance, Oliver vs. newbies in Germany) more exciting and maybe more attractive for newbies. On the other hand, these tournaments are already exciting enough! Once you meet up, you just plug in the joystick and play anyway and all discussions about rules seem to pale in importance to just the fun available to you right in front of you. I mean, this is also something to take into consideration. The idea is not worth wars or concerns that may arise when people see this and that idea thrown around. I think my point is that the idea was just meant as a possible gradual improvement, not as a revolutionary concept. A little new option, not an attempt to rethink everything. The idea would be no good if you get a feeling of playing an entirely different game with it.
Last edited by dnielsen on Sat May 30, 2009 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dnielsen
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby dnielsen » Sat May 30, 2009 1:14 pm

Bounty Bob wrote:How can you say that reducing the slide frequency to zero is not completely new, yet meddling with keeper deflection frequencies is a fundamental change? You argue that we already have situations without CPU slides, so it can be considered normal to have them removed. But don't we also have situations with keeper deflections? Therefore having more of them is just more of something we are used to. Whatever way you look at this quoted paragraph, one argument negates or counters the other.


Indeed, there is no logical consistency here. I agree that it all comes down to subjective feelings about how the adjustment of a parameter affects the whole experience. For instance, if a significant part of your KO2 experience is noticing the referee and adjust your play (and diving!) to the referee, then removing cpu-slides affects your experience quite a bit. For other people, they may not adjust their play at all to whether cpu-slides are on or off, so they would play in the same way, make the same decisions etc. regardless.

If I were to attempt to explain why I personally feel that removing cpu-slides is more harmless than changing keeper deflection frequencies, it would indeed be by way of such an analysis of the impact of the change. Removing cpu-slides to me doesn't change the way I play. While playing with "game of shame" keepers would obviously change the way we play the game. But again, this is a conclusion you can only make subjectively by considering "the way particular players play". You can imagine a type of player that would play the same way regardless of keeper attributes and who would just like to see his shots go through the keeper more often. To him, changing that keeper attribute would seem harmless but beneficial.

Obviously, allowing line-up changes would influence the way we play. I can imagine that some people are now "emotionally tied" to playing with the default line-up. It could feel more authentic because we already played all WCs with it. So, ok, you can oviously say that it would be a "legal" change, but still some people could feel it is a change away from the authentic KO2 experience. Point being that even when a change is "legal" it can be unwelcome. While other people may welcome an "illegal" change (like removing cpu-slides). So legality is not everything and cannot automatically be used as guideline. Subjectivity seems to be everything in a sense. But then I think we end up being better guided by a concern for preserving unity and a "common denominator" (at least in a WC connection), instead of trying to make "logical" and subjective arguments about why one change is good and/or legal and why another would not be. But even then, we should not automatically be against any change. Obviously playing with yellow vs. blue is better than the old default kits, for instance.

Anyway, just babbling on.
User avatar
dnielsen
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby dnielsen » Sat May 30, 2009 1:16 pm

Torchiador wrote::yikes:
Dagh, that isn't a post, it is a three-volume encyclopedia!
thanks mate, you are improving my English! and you know, my English and my ko2 skills are proportional dimensions and they walk arm in arm! :P
just give me a bit of time to read and reply and the next time I'll play ko2 I'll move my players without joystick!


You have to learn Danish first before you can learn that old Sith trick 8)
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Bounty Bob » Sat May 30, 2009 5:02 pm

dnielsen wrote:Obviously, allowing line-up changes would influence the way we play. I can imagine that some people are now "emotionally tied" to playing with the default line-up.
The game allows you to change line ups, so this is would be a completely valid option in a tournament. The only problem was them not resetting after a match but that's now no longer an issue.

Just because you do or don't notice something, or don't change your gameplay due to a change, doesn't make it any more or less of a change. Changing the logic of how the code makes decisions during a match, is a fundamental change, regardless of what it's changing.
User avatar
dnielsen
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby dnielsen » Sat May 30, 2009 5:51 pm

Well, I guess my point is that it is all very subjective. And I am not sure that I agree with your definition of "fundamental change". If you take A=B, then this is an "illegal" or "fundamental" change, yet I feel its impact is rather small. It's just a slight improvement of the competitive setting. Of course, it's a huge improvement from a fair-play point of view, but the feeling of the game does not change much with it. In your definition, it is a "fundamental change", but I see it as just a minor change.

Now let's take a "legal" change, playing on soggy pitch instead of normal. This will have a huge impact on how the game will feel. It's not a fundamental change to you, but it is to me. So I guess I am more interested in the subjective impact of a change on how you feel about the KO2 experience than I am about whether a change is "fundamental" according to your definition. I tried to explain this in the previous post -- how "legality" of a change is not a perfect guideline (noting that A=B is illegal).

In some sense, the original package had some arbitrary boundaries. We got 4 pitches with different physics, but we could as well have had 8, or just 1. We did get some choice. In other instances, we didn't get a lot of choice where we could have had it. For instance with regard to cpu-slide frequency or with regard to A>B.

My point is that you can't just write off a change because it is "fundamental" or "illegal". A=B was an illegal change, but people accept it. In the same way, some people could accept "no cpu-slides" even though it is an illegal change. So my conclusion is that you can't argue against a change only by pointing out that it is "illegal" or "fundamental". You have to say instead "this change disrupts the way I experience the game, and to the worse". This must be your key argument. And this subjective feeling is something you then just can't argue logically for or against. We can try to describe the feeling (similar to how I try to describe how my feeling of the game is disrupted by removing unintended slides), but we can't really argue for or against the feeling. On the other hand, we can try to gauge how a change will impact people's experience of the game and then decide whether it would be wise to implement said change.

I guess these thoughts go well in hand with the way I try to discuss the problems with the handicap idea. I am not entertaining arguments like "this change is bad/not bad since it is/is not illegal/changes gameplay/changes the game engine/changes the physics" etc. Instead, I try to find out how the change would possibly disrupt people's KO2 experience. Personally, I would not expect to have my experience disrupted, similarly to how A=B doesn't disrupt my experience. But once people go on record and say "this just does not feel like the game I love", then I have to accept that subjective argument.

So I think subjective arguments should be used and respected. And I think that it can actually be a "tactical mistake" to try and give your arguments a logical foundation. Like, for instance, if you say that removing cpu-slides is bad since it "changes the logic of how the code makes decisions during a match" (that is, it is an illegal or fundamental change), then people can reply "yeah, but you accept A=B, which is also an illegal change, so it seems like your argument is not valid". And then you may be pushed to say stuff like "yeah, but A=B had so huge benefits, but now, no more changes!", but then your opponents will in turn begin to list all the huge benefits of the next change in line to undercut that argument of yours.

Instead, it is ok to just say "this change makes me no longer like the game", and then we all have to take these sentiments into consideration. It doesn't really matter anything if a change is illegal or legal or fundamental or minor. All that matters is whether people will accept it. As a final example, many people would not accept strong wind even though it is a legal change. This once again goes to show that the legality of a change is just not a good guide for your decisions. In this context, only the subjective feelings of the KOA populace are useful guidelines.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Bounty Bob » Sun May 31, 2009 9:58 pm

But what if I say I like A>B?
Torchiador
3000+ poster!
3000+ poster!
Posts: 3487
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 3:34 pm
Location: Kick Off House - Milano - Italy
Contact:

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Torchiador » Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:37 pm

This change is bad since it is illegal change of the gameplay, it changes the game engine and it changes the physics.
I really hope I've been really polite and exhaustive.
Best regards

Gianni.
:D

joking aside, Dagh, thanks to share your view with us, I really like it and I think you use a very polite way to weigh your and someone else's opinion.
I think that the kind thought towards the newbie is welcome.
By my side, I am for a fight in equal terms. I prefer it as I think it is the principle of the duel.
Ok, in a sport like Boxe, boxers are divided by weight so we can't see a match between a 100 kg (200lb) boxer and 60 kg (120lb) boxer.
But we are in a different situation and we have different weights in the same duel, in the same tournament.
So, I think that sometime the hammer must arrive.
Besides this, I'd like to point out a thing that I care.
I played many and many times with a change like unintended slide and more with A=B and PBDMIX.
I think that A=B is a sensible and tangible change in the game, as the PBDMIX.
I accepted this change in the name of what I mean for fight in equal terms.( I wouldn't allow the change of tactic: 424 for all as it has the widest choice of attack and it gives the way to force the defence).
As I said, I accepted the compromise as I think that A=B and PBDMIX allows the fight in equal terms without the f*****g veto rule we had in Cologne. On the other side we lost a piece of the original game as there are different techniques to approach the game as team A or B in an A>B game and there are different dynamics in a full NOPBD game and other dynamics in a full PBD game.
Anyway, in light to have a game between two equal powers, I accepted the compromise I'm still still in my idea that it has been the right choice.
Even if we have this change in the game, I feel it as authentic KO2 as I know that finally I and my opponent are playing without disadvantage/advantage with the favourite PBD control.
I have been glad to play with a finally KO2 auto slide/undesired slide free KO2, trying the feeling to have everything under control. Anyway again, I felt that something in the game has been lost. In the beginning I didn't feel a great difference but with the time, game after game, I felt that the game wasn't authentic, to much easy to do many things in defence, offence, to much easy to trap the ball without risks.
The problem this time is the principle, the purpose.
I can accept a compromise to fight in equal terms but I cannot accept a compromise to make the things easy in KO2 even in the name of fun. Also because the "fun" is a very subjective element.
Besides this, to many things change in the approach to the ball, the approach to the opponent. the approach you have to the ball to reach the opponent box and finally, to defend or to score a goal.
It really make me feel as a unauthentic KO2.
I haven't try the new idea "Weakening the Leading Team According to Score" as I don't think that there is a KO2CV beta version of this :) And usually I don't assume a opinion on principle. But in this case I think that I could have that feeling to have a game "unnatural".
One of the most annoying things when we play KO2 (me and my Milan friends) is to feel that something is going bad in the game.
Sometimes the randomness in the game is so strong that we are used to say :"It has been loaded in the wrong way" It happens sometimes when in the beginning of the match you see your player that runs a bit under speed. it happens when the ball has got the "ground wind" It happens when at the kickoff when the randomness to a still ball is applied.
If something so impercepibile can annoy someone, imagine what can do a mod like the Weakening the Leading Team According to Score.
Anyway we can't say it without to try it
Image
User avatar
hogstrom
1000+ Poster!
1000+ Poster!
Posts: 1435
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:11 pm
Location: Osterund, Sweden
Contact:

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby hogstrom » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:08 am

Very good post, Gianni.

I agree with many of your thoughts in your last post. Great effort have been made (tnx to Camber) in purpose to make the two teams as equal as possible (A=B).

Mind you, we have a friend here (Joakim) that did, repeated times, force us guys in Östersund to reload the game Kickoff2. Numberous of times he was sure his team had been handicaped because of by him suggested "wrong loading". We laughed at him and his suggestions (of cource), but in the end he was indeed correct. It´s simple, when he got this "feeling" he had used team B and was by that fact handicapped by 10%(?).

Two identical teams was a good move to make the two teams as equal as possible.

Looking back, the choise for each player in a game "PBD or no PBD" was the only way to go, in purpose to keep the majority happy. Forced of either option, would likely have damaged the KOA. It is likely not a bad guess that several members might have left us by now, had this (PBD/No PBD) not been implemented.

These two above mentioned points is the two major steps for the KOA. Neither of these two steps have changed the way your team behave during match.

1: If you´re team A, your opponent is now also team A. Opposite applies, if reversed. We play on equal terms when using A=B.
2: A good opponent using PBD will likely cause you a smaller shock, at least if you have never seen it in use before (this was the case for me in Cologne 2005) still your players react as ususal.



Handicaping one of the teams goes against the earlier stream. Gianni describes this very well in his last post (the two boxers). We have for such a long time asked for two identical teams, why doing the opposite? I was hammered 1-14(!) against Gianni in one of our internal friendly matches last year. Did I start crying? No, Im an adult, thus i can handle a defeat, even a heavy one. I expect the same for other players when reciewing an hammering.

Again, Im my opinion, training before a big tournament with the original KO-disk should always be sufficent. If you have trained with the original KO2-disk at home before a world cup in kickoff2 your players should act in the same way when you entrer the tournament.

Lets keep the game Kickoff2 how it was originally made. Maybe the game have already been changed, but let us not change it further.
By car, Kickoff2-record traveller! Ostersund/Dusseldorf +3,750 km during +55 hours
Wcups: 2005 (29:th), 2006 (15:th), 2007 (6:th), 2008 (6:th), --, 2010 (12:th), --, --, --, 2014 (5:th), 2015 (12:th)...
Torchiador
3000+ poster!
3000+ poster!
Posts: 3487
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 3:34 pm
Location: Kick Off House - Milano - Italy
Contact:

Re: 'Weakening the Leading Team According to Score' Suggestion

Postby Torchiador » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:27 am

Thanks John!
I've to add some things about this question.
First of all: I'm really glad to have the possibility to discuss about this kind of things: I think that I haven't said "thank you" to Steve enough times for the time and the work he spent and he spend for us.
I prefer to discuss, having some headache for this rather than to not discuss as we are still playing with the old 1.4 or 1.2 kickoff2 disk without all the great things that Steve and KO2CV allowed us.
I'll be glad to test, try to give my help into tweak the "Weakening the Leading Team According to Score" if Steve will go for it. Maybe that using it, I can find some good reason that I can't see now as I'm speaking "over the paper" without a real test on my faithful amiga1200. I'm quite sure that option would be a very good thing in some tournaments in which the final score isn't the main target.
Even good in friendlies, I mean that if I'm not challenging to be the best but just for fun with friends it would be nice! it could be even good for train someone, and why not, to train yourself. If you are so strong that opponent is blocked in midfield or simply, your opponent is not so good in his attacking skills, you can't train yourself to stop shot on goal.
But using this option, it is quite sure that the opponent has got more chances to get the opponent penalty box and you have more chances to train your defensive skills, giving the opponent the chance to train in his turn. At least it is a possible scenario as I really don't know how the things might go.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest