the goal that never was..(how did he save that?)

[Steve Camber]

What Bob said!

[gdh82]

Thanks Steve and Bounty Bob - I appreciate the further explanation, even if my head is starting to spin !! Its easy to forget, I guess, that what the KO2 game is trying to create is a complicated 3-d business.

Going back to my original post, can you tell me about how the program checks the ball's position in 3-d space in relation to the goalie ? In asking about the goal-detection code (which I now realise is goal-post-detection code), this was where I was coming from. Re-reading this thread, you did point out that you hadn't looked at the goalkeeper code, so maybe I should shut up!

Thanks for any further advice though !!

[Bounty Bob]

I haven't looked at the KO2 code but considering when it was written and the technology base used, I'd expect something like:

The game knows the position of the keeper and the ball.
Each of these will have a virtual cube around them .
The keeper might have two collision areas, one for the upper and one for the lower parts of the body.
If either of these virtual spaces overlap with the balls space, then a collision between the two has been made.
If the ball has intersected with the bulk of the keepers upper box then make it a catch. If it's only just in there, then make it a fingertip save.
Keeping in mind what happens in fast moving instances with the ball and the goal posts, then you can begin to see where innaccuracies with the shot saving might come into it.
There will also most likely be an element of randomness to the keepers ability to catch, allowing for fumbles etc.

Like I say, I haven't looked at the code but I'd be surprised if it's a million miles away from what I describe. I've hope I've kept it understandable.

[gdh82]

Thanks again Bounty Bob - that's very understandable and very helpful!

I imagine the size of the collision area will largely determine if the keeper 'saves' a shot even if the shot appears to his side. Added to that, I've got to take into account the collision areas are constantly on the move at varying speeds and directions. As you say, there's got to be some degree of inaccuracies which I just have to accept.

I guess in an ideal world I'd like what looks like a goal (i.e beats the keeper by, say, a body's width) to be a goal. In theory I imagine this would involve reducing the keeper's collision area - do you think that's realistically achieveable ? I recognise that is might not even be desireable to some and Steve has already made the valid point that this is just one of the game's charms (even if it still drives me barmy).

And I'm sure others would say I just want it to be easier to score goals so I should just polish up on my shooting skills!!! I'd still say I just want a goal to be a goal and a save to be a save!

[Bounty Bob]

Don't forget that there is a flip side to the impossible saves and they are the soft goals that should always be saved. Just look at the easy lob goals as example. It's swings and roundabouts.

[Semtex]

Something that I'd like answered is:
Do the the keepers get affected by opposition players?
It seems a striker heading the ball will almost always cause the keeper to parry the ball straight back to the striker, whose forward motion carries the ball forward, into the goal...
Also, in the world cup I lost a game because when I ran the ball back to the keeper he parried the ball away, rather than, as I expected, simply picking it up (that's what normally happens) the oppostion striker was right on my defenders back. would that have affected the keeper? Did he 'panic'?

[Robert]

Steve that diagram of the goal....is it the same from the right hand side? I suspect not.

[Steve Camber]

Steve that diagram of the goal....is it the same from the right hand side? I suspect not.

Yes, the same theory hold for left and right.

Of course there may be deeper issues which mean squeezing the ball through the side netting may differ from left or right. Or maybe not

[Bounty Bob]

The diagram might be the same but maybe the code is different.

[Robert]

Let me start by saying that I am an expert practitioner of the 45 degree angle diagonal nearpost goal. Some of the Milan players can confirm this - when everything else is not working it absoutely is my get-me-out-of-trouble goal. For me, they are like the lob is to Steve Camber.

Now, right from the very earliest days of the game I have felt stronger attacking on the left post. In the end, this becomes a self-fulfilling propechy as you pick the straight shooting player on the left and tend to go for the shot more there.

Having said this, my belief is that either the keeper is weaker on that side, or the side netting hole is somewhat bigger, or both.

Steve, any light you could shed on this would be fascinating.

[Abyss]

And what about a probable difference between the up and down goal?

Isn't it easier to score from the top left side with the 45 deg shot Robert talked about than from the other three sides?

[Steve Camber]

And what about a probable difference between the up and down goal?

Isn't it easier to score from the top left side with the 45 deg shot Robert talked about than from the other three sides?

Possibly.
But no evidence has been found as yet, and I can't imagine what the cause might be. Could just be all in the mind!

[Steve Camber]

Every player knows how far he is away from the ball, it's used all over the place.

When the goalie is in the air, jumping to catch the ball, the distance from the ball is checked. Then, if the ball height is between 10 and 32 units, and the distance is less than about 9 units then the keeper is given a chance to intercept the ball. This is based on the keeper's goalkeeping skills and a random factor.

Either
1. He catches it
2. He blocks it (Y velocity negated and halved, X and Z velocities given random adjustment)
3. He fumbles it (X and Z velocities given random adjustment)

So, when it comes to collisions, players are treated like (always upright) cylinders, and the ball is treated as a point in space.