51
Player Transfer Ads / Mean Machine sale LA7 youths
« on: April 20, 2014, 01:53:34 AM »LA7 youths
Good Experience
4/4/1 MR age 32 very good experiencecheap http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=652404
Server Time (UTC +0000)
News:
Playing more than one account is strictly prohibited.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
LA7 youths
Good Experience
4/4/1 MR age 32 very good experiencecheap http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=652404
52
General Discussion(English Only) / Who will win GKO World Cup
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:10:02 AM »Poll closes in 5 days, on 20 April, near the end of the GKO WC group stage
54
General Discussion(English Only) / MOVED: (Cheaters)Brother Medi? - cheaters in Croatia GKO community!!
« on: April 10, 2014, 11:34:17 PM »55
Suggestions/Bugs / Player activities based on physio level
« on: March 28, 2014, 03:43:33 AM »
Something like this:
Physio level Injury Recovery cost Fitness recovery............cost
0* 50 credits 1% 100 energy/1 credit
1 40 credits 1% 80 energy/1 credit
2 30 credits 2% 100 energy/1 credit
3 20 credits 2% 80 energy/1 credit
4 15 credits 3% 100 energy/1 credit
5 10 credits 3% 80 energy/1 credit
* starter level
Also the success of the Motivational Meeting should not be certain, and should cost less, probably 50 energy. The probability of success could instead depend on physio level and player mental attributes. For example, use a base probability dependent on physio level:
Physio Level "Base" probability of success (increasing player morale)
0* 25%
1 40%
2 50%
3 65%
4 85%
5 110%
*starter level
...and modify it by (up to 30%) the aggregate mental score (AGG + DET + INF) relative to "average" levels (10) or ([Aggregate mental score] - 30). Thus players with low mental scores will be less likely to improve their morale after a Motivational Meeting than players with high mental scores, by up to 60%..
EXAMPLES: Physio Level
AGG DET INF sum modifier Probabilities of success: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Player A 14 11 16 41 +11% 35% 51% 61% 76% 96% >100%
Player B 6 3 7 16 -14% 11% 26% 36% 51% 71% 96%
In general, I think the Physio needs more influence in the game, as do mental stats. This would do both.
Also those "money managers" who buy credits to heal injured players and recover fitness...their strategy will become considerably more expensive without a good (and costly) physio...
P.S. My Physio is level 2; I'm not looking for extra benefits from previous investments....
Physio level Injury Recovery cost Fitness recovery............cost
0* 50 credits 1% 100 energy/1 credit
1 40 credits 1% 80 energy/1 credit
2 30 credits 2% 100 energy/1 credit
3 20 credits 2% 80 energy/1 credit
4 15 credits 3% 100 energy/1 credit
5 10 credits 3% 80 energy/1 credit
* starter level
Also the success of the Motivational Meeting should not be certain, and should cost less, probably 50 energy. The probability of success could instead depend on physio level and player mental attributes. For example, use a base probability dependent on physio level:
Physio Level "Base" probability of success (increasing player morale)
0* 25%
1 40%
2 50%
3 65%
4 85%
5 110%
*starter level
...and modify it by (up to 30%) the aggregate mental score (AGG + DET + INF) relative to "average" levels (10) or ([Aggregate mental score] - 30). Thus players with low mental scores will be less likely to improve their morale after a Motivational Meeting than players with high mental scores, by up to 60%..
EXAMPLES: Physio Level
AGG DET INF sum modifier Probabilities of success: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Player A 14 11 16 41 +11% 35% 51% 61% 76% 96% >100%
Player B 6 3 7 16 -14% 11% 26% 36% 51% 71% 96%
In general, I think the Physio needs more influence in the game, as do mental stats. This would do both.
Also those "money managers" who buy credits to heal injured players and recover fitness...their strategy will become considerably more expensive without a good (and costly) physio...
P.S. My Physio is level 2; I'm not looking for extra benefits from previous investments....
56
Player Transfer Ads / Mean Machine fire sale CA6-8 & LA7-8
« on: March 21, 2014, 05:05:41 AM »
CA6
DR/MR Philip Lang http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=2024011 good exp
MRL Donny Roderick http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6182358 8 adapt
FC Santi Chaowarat http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=2462960 20 finishing 12 adapt okay exp
Youths
2/8/3 DC Seve Durante http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7358315
4/7/2 MR/AMR Lane Fairbairn http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6639590
DR/MR Philip Lang http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=2024011 good exp
MRL Donny Roderick http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6182358 8 adapt
FC Santi Chaowarat http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=2462960 20 finishing 12 adapt okay exp
Youths
2/8/3 DC Seve Durante http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7358315
4/7/2 MR/AMR Lane Fairbairn http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6639590
57
Player Transfer Ads / 7/7/1 FC only 625K
« on: January 15, 2014, 05:05:00 AM »
95 goals in 105 apps in past 3 seasons
very good experience
http://gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=2155648
very good experience
http://gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=2155648
58
General Discussion(English Only) / Needed: Deep-lying Forward position
« on: January 13, 2014, 04:14:07 PM »
With new match engine, there is now a greater need than ever to include this position (AKA inside forward, withdrawn striker, second striker, or support striker) in our team formations.
many managers have commented that the AMC position or "Trequartista" has been significantly weakened by the new game engine. This is because many AMC were trained to be "playmakers" on attack with good shooting skills, but with limited defensive capabilities. The solution is a new position in the centre, lying between the forward line and the AM line. These players would affect tactics in the same way forward wingers (FL/R) do now, with 100% weights on press tactics and counter-tactics. They would also function much like true strikers with more chances in front of goal.
This position is highly influential in the RW game, and many of the greatest attacking players of all time are best described in this position. These include Baggio, Messi, Puskas, Pele, Cruyff, and Bergkamp. Luis Suarez, probably the most in-form player in the world atm, often plays in this position when his strike partner, Daniel Sturridge, is fit. Rooney, Aguero, Tevez, and David Villa are some other contemporary players who often found in this role.
Like AML and AMR players may be played in FL/FR positions without penalty, I would suggest that AMC or FC may be played in this "second striker" (SS) position without penalty. Of course, a good SS would need to be more of a playmaker (needing better passing and ball control skills) than a true FC (no. 9) while a SS should be more specialized in attacking and shooting than a conventional AMC (no. 10). This position would be something of a hybrid of these, or a "no. 9.5".
What do you think?
many managers have commented that the AMC position or "Trequartista" has been significantly weakened by the new game engine. This is because many AMC were trained to be "playmakers" on attack with good shooting skills, but with limited defensive capabilities. The solution is a new position in the centre, lying between the forward line and the AM line. These players would affect tactics in the same way forward wingers (FL/R) do now, with 100% weights on press tactics and counter-tactics. They would also function much like true strikers with more chances in front of goal.
This position is highly influential in the RW game, and many of the greatest attacking players of all time are best described in this position. These include Baggio, Messi, Puskas, Pele, Cruyff, and Bergkamp. Luis Suarez, probably the most in-form player in the world atm, often plays in this position when his strike partner, Daniel Sturridge, is fit. Rooney, Aguero, Tevez, and David Villa are some other contemporary players who often found in this role.
Like AML and AMR players may be played in FL/FR positions without penalty, I would suggest that AMC or FC may be played in this "second striker" (SS) position without penalty. Of course, a good SS would need to be more of a playmaker (needing better passing and ball control skills) than a true FC (no. 9) while a SS should be more specialized in attacking and shooting than a conventional AMC (no. 10). This position would be something of a hybrid of these, or a "no. 9.5".
What do you think?
59
Suggestions/Bugs / Reduce penalty for specific skill training
« on: January 06, 2014, 05:33:21 AM »
With new match engine, highly specialized players have become much less important. Defenders now need some attacking skills and visa versa. As a result, specific training is less attractive.
Therefore I propose that the 25% penalty for specific skill training be reformed. At first I thought, just get rid of the penalty. Then I conceived this system:
Training facility quality effect on training specific skills
Very bad/bad 25% penalty
Okay/Good no effect
Very Good/The Best 10% bonus
what do you think?
Therefore I propose that the 25% penalty for specific skill training be reformed. At first I thought, just get rid of the penalty. Then I conceived this system:
Training facility quality effect on training specific skills
Very bad/bad 25% penalty
Okay/Good no effect
Very Good/The Best 10% bonus
what do you think?
60
Player Transfer Ads / LA6-7 youths also CA8 and CA5 veterans
« on: January 04, 2014, 07:20:24 AM »
Youths
1/7/4 DC 188K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7165484
3/6/4 AMRL 250K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6823975
3/6/4 MC 222K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7028464
Veterans
8/5/1 MR/AMRC very good exp adaptation 19 4M http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=476845
5/5/1 MC/AMC good exp. age 32 adaptation 20 110K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=505411 bid(s) made
5/4/1/ MR very good exp. age 32 adaptation 15 125K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=652404
1/7/4 DC 188K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7165484
3/6/4 AMRL 250K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6823975
3/6/4 MC 222K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7028464
Veterans
8/5/1 MR/AMRC very good exp adaptation 19 4M http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=476845
5/5/1 MC/AMC good exp. age 32 adaptation 20 110K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=505411 bid(s) made
5/4/1/ MR very good exp. age 32 adaptation 15 125K http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=652404
61
Ask Admin / Can we have some information on new game engine PLEASE
« on: January 03, 2014, 05:14:25 AM »Dear admin, first of all, i would like to say that despite my first experiences with this engine (when it was clearly bugged) at first sight i like the new engine, even if it drops managerial level down (people won't need to understand much about tactics to get results) it provides many posibilities to lower teams and also gives a necesary value to the MR/MC/ML players, that was something needed in previous engine, so i would say that the change will be welcome when we get used to it. However league matches starts in 24 hours and there's still no official info about the new engine, so please, if you won't release proper docs before league start, could you please give us some answers?
Premium users are gathering some info based on the tools you provide us, we are trying to share our discoveries with others, but that shouldn't be our job, if your staff is so busy that can't write a few lines in forum explaining how things works, at least reply some questions we have, because there are many things uncertain, even for premium users, so please, at least give us some answers:
1 - First of all, team tactics are not calculated using average positions anymore, the system is now based on cumulative numbers, am i right?
2 - How much does each position affect team tactics? Premium users made some calculations, and we believe things are like this, more or less:
Based on some calculations, we believe that areas highlighted in green provides 100%, those yellow provides 80% and red zones gives 50% to the total team tactic, are those calculations right?
3 - If those calculations are right? Is the AMR/AMC/AML waekened on purpose? I mean, the DMR/DMC/DML line is its opposite but used in defensive duties, as you can see they are fully involved in both "U" closing down tactics, but the "AM" line is partially involved in the "O"s. If that balanced has been created on purpose, why does the FR/FL have full UPM/USM strenght? That literally kills the AMR/AML positions (all AMR/AML players would play better as FR/FL, despite that is not their "original" position), and makes AMCs one of the most useless positions in the game.
4 - Have you done some other rebalance in the engine? Some matches seems to prove that MR/MC/ML performs A LOT better now, they have even higher scoring rates than strikers sometimes, is that only our intuition or something actually changed? What about the "AM" line? They are not performing as well as before...
5 - What can you tell us about teamwork? You announced that teamwork would have an effect in team tactics (around 10%-15% as far as i remember), but people haven't noticed much, i have the feeling that those players with TW lower than 10 dropped their tactical abilities a little bit, and those with TW higher than 10 increased them a little bit. i am not absolutely sure about it because players morale were reset so we can't do a direct comparison, so could you please clarify it?
6 - Does team tactics affect our tactical rates? I mean, if i play a more offensive formation do i get some bonus in OZM/OMM levels (losing UZM/UMM rates), does defensive line affect tactical performances? What about player stances (Blue/Yellow/Red)? Do they make some difference?
7 - What about tacking? Does it have the same bonus/penalties than before? If things are exactly the same, could you consider reducing long injury rates? I understand that selling token to heal players is an income source for the GKO staff, but collecting credits from mini game will be far harder from now on. So please, if you have some intention to keep things balanced between users, consider that request, it's very important for smaller teams (who can't afford physio improvements) and teams playing against teams that spends lots of money buying ball posession through token (playing hard tackling 24/7), please do not damage the playing experience to others!
62
General Discussion(English Only) / How to convert tactics scores in team reports
« on: December 31, 2013, 02:49:01 AM »
To convert team report tactics scores to the scale used in next match reports here is the forumla:
TRtr/n=Lnmr
where
TRtr = team rating score in team report
Lnmr = level score in next match report
n = sum of weight coefficients*
NR = Next match report score
* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores
For example
UZM calculation with a 4-1-1-3-1 formation
UZM in team report = 400
n = (1)5 + (0.8)1 + (0.5)4 = 5.0 + 0.8 + 2.0 = 7.8
thus
400/7.8 = 51.28 or a D grade (D = 47-52)
Anyway I'm 99% sure this is correct...try it out
TRtr/n=Lnmr
where
TRtr = team rating score in team report
Lnmr = level score in next match report
n = sum of weight coefficients*
NR = Next match report score
* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores
For example
UZM calculation with a 4-1-1-3-1 formation
UZM in team report = 400
n = (1)5 + (0.8)1 + (0.5)4 = 5.0 + 0.8 + 2.0 = 7.8
thus
400/7.8 = 51.28 or a D grade (D = 47-52)
Anyway I'm 99% sure this is correct...try it out
63
General Discussion(English Only) / GKO engine 3.0 - Analysis
« on: December 26, 2013, 02:11:25 AM »
Ok check this out, guys. What has actually happened is that the tactical influencesum of tactics is the cumulative sum of weighted tactics. In game engine 2.0 all were either 100% or 0%. New engine uses 100%, 80% and 50%
- specialization factor is the ratio of position's sum of tactics with that of the M line, presumably the most well-rounded players. A given number of skill points can be more effectively distsributed among a smaller number of tactical categores. The assumption is that the M line is the most well-rounded (affecting overall tactics the most) as it was in the previous engine.
-Change in tactical influence represents the factor by which a position's overall tactical influence has changed. 100% means no change, 200% means a player in this position has twice as much impact on ovarall tactics as in previous engine. <100% means the tactical influence of a player in this position has decreased.
Interesting that DC is the biggest; nobody has mentioned it really. The DC was the position most capable of tactical specialization (just marking and opponent roaming) and now its overall tactical influence has doubled!
Also AMLR need to be even more well-rounded players than the M line indicates this was a mistake by programmers. Surely forward wings won't have such a strong effect on press tactics....
Anyway this is a huge change; it's almost as if we have a new game entirely and the biggest losers are inevitably some of the biggest clubs who have been training the first round of high LA players around a game architecture that has been radically changed. Who, then are the winners? The winners are bot teams (their 4-4-2 has become much strengthened) and newly emerging top clubs who now find themsleves on a much more level playing field with even the most powerful teams.
If this system were to be postponed for a season (as some have suggested) it would greatly benefit the biggest, wealthiest clubs, who would be able to use their might to prepare for the change much faster than smaller clubs. So...I say let's keep the new system and see how it plays out. I have no expectations for this season tbh.
Having said that, I still feel very strongly that this system is a great first step but it needs to be more dynamic, with adjustments made to relevant tactical weights based on tactical selections, specifically "strategy" (for all players), "defensive line" (for centre backs and fullbacks), and player setting (more attack/more defend/default). These are tactical calculations, after all, and should depend on them!
Something like this, for example:
Remember, these adjustments are not made to the player tactical scores themselves, but to the amount of weight each receives in the team tactics calculations. Ranges presented express extremes. For example, a DC could have as low as a 0% weight for many attacking tactics (OZM, OPM, etc.) but only when using (a) contain strategy, (b) very deep defensive line, and (c) more defend individual instructions (player setting). Using push up with an attacking strategy would actually increase the existing weight. And yes, it is equally acceptable to use a weight that is >1 (>100%) as it is to use one that is < 1.
- specialization factor is the ratio of position's sum of tactics with that of the M line, presumably the most well-rounded players. A given number of skill points can be more effectively distsributed among a smaller number of tactical categores. The assumption is that the M line is the most well-rounded (affecting overall tactics the most) as it was in the previous engine.
-Change in tactical influence represents the factor by which a position's overall tactical influence has changed. 100% means no change, 200% means a player in this position has twice as much impact on ovarall tactics as in previous engine. <100% means the tactical influence of a player in this position has decreased.
Interesting that DC is the biggest; nobody has mentioned it really. The DC was the position most capable of tactical specialization (just marking and opponent roaming) and now its overall tactical influence has doubled!
Also AMLR need to be even more well-rounded players than the M line indicates this was a mistake by programmers. Surely forward wings won't have such a strong effect on press tactics....
Anyway this is a huge change; it's almost as if we have a new game entirely and the biggest losers are inevitably some of the biggest clubs who have been training the first round of high LA players around a game architecture that has been radically changed. Who, then are the winners? The winners are bot teams (their 4-4-2 has become much strengthened) and newly emerging top clubs who now find themsleves on a much more level playing field with even the most powerful teams.
If this system were to be postponed for a season (as some have suggested) it would greatly benefit the biggest, wealthiest clubs, who would be able to use their might to prepare for the change much faster than smaller clubs. So...I say let's keep the new system and see how it plays out. I have no expectations for this season tbh.
Having said that, I still feel very strongly that this system is a great first step but it needs to be more dynamic, with adjustments made to relevant tactical weights based on tactical selections, specifically "strategy" (for all players), "defensive line" (for centre backs and fullbacks), and player setting (more attack/more defend/default). These are tactical calculations, after all, and should depend on them!
Something like this, for example:
Remember, these adjustments are not made to the player tactical scores themselves, but to the amount of weight each receives in the team tactics calculations. Ranges presented express extremes. For example, a DC could have as low as a 0% weight for many attacking tactics (OZM, OPM, etc.) but only when using (a) contain strategy, (b) very deep defensive line, and (c) more defend individual instructions (player setting). Using push up with an attacking strategy would actually increase the existing weight. And yes, it is equally acceptable to use a weight that is >1 (>100%) as it is to use one that is < 1.
64
Suggestions/Bugs / [sug]standing terraces in GKO stadiums
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:22:54 AM »
I think we should be able to build standing terraces in at least one section of our stadiums. Standing terraces cost less to construct than all-seater sections of the same capacity, which would be great for many clubs.
1) stadium seats cost 100G each; standing terraces would cost considrably less (60G each?) but could constitute a limited amount (no more than 1/3) of the total stadium capacity.
2) standing terraces could be used only for domestic (league and cup) and friendly matches. WCL attendence would be based solely on stadium seats, as if the standing terrace was closed for these matches like they are in UEFA competitions.
3) terrace ticket prices would also be considerably lower (60%?) than seated prices. However, I would propose that the same proportion of the terraces would be filled as the seats using the existing attendance calulation. Thus if an existing stadium of a top level team has 20k seats (all of which are filled for league matches) then 100% of the terraces (up to 6666 capacity with the 1/3 rule I proposed in [1]) would also be filled to capacity, making the total attendence 26666 even for team with a low club rating. This would increase ticket revenues (in domestic and friendly matches) by approximately 20%, something we all would like, I think. And, because these terraces would be closed for WCL matches, this wouldn't help top clubs more than the rest.
What do you think?
1) stadium seats cost 100G each; standing terraces would cost considrably less (60G each?) but could constitute a limited amount (no more than 1/3) of the total stadium capacity.
2) standing terraces could be used only for domestic (league and cup) and friendly matches. WCL attendence would be based solely on stadium seats, as if the standing terrace was closed for these matches like they are in UEFA competitions.
3) terrace ticket prices would also be considerably lower (60%?) than seated prices. However, I would propose that the same proportion of the terraces would be filled as the seats using the existing attendance calulation. Thus if an existing stadium of a top level team has 20k seats (all of which are filled for league matches) then 100% of the terraces (up to 6666 capacity with the 1/3 rule I proposed in [1]) would also be filled to capacity, making the total attendence 26666 even for team with a low club rating. This would increase ticket revenues (in domestic and friendly matches) by approximately 20%, something we all would like, I think. And, because these terraces would be closed for WCL matches, this wouldn't help top clubs more than the rest.
What do you think?
65
General Discussion(English Only) / MOVED: Huge match fixing issues
« on: December 03, 2013, 10:28:25 PM »
This topic has been moved to Ask Admin.
Please direct any inquiries regarding the rules or punishments to [email protected]
http://forum.gokickoff.com/index.php?topic=16479.0
Please direct any inquiries regarding the rules or punishments to [email protected]
http://forum.gokickoff.com/index.php?topic=16479.0
66
Player Transfer Ads / Youths from VG academy: MC 3/6/4, MLR 6-7/6/4
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:22:05 AM »
3/6/4 MC age 18 666K adaptation 20
http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7028464
6/6/4 MLR age 17, 1.25M very close to CA7; he should achieve CA7 within a month.
http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6182358
http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7028464
6/6/4 MLR age 17, 1.25M very close to CA7; he should achieve CA7 within a month.
http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6182358
67
Suggestions/Bugs / Suggestion - offside calculation change
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:14:51 AM »
Currently the defensive line's ability to execute the offside trap is based on the mean, or unweighted average, of all defenders:
But I think this value should be based more on the lowest score than the mean. It only takes one defender to keep a player onsides and a defensive line is only as good as its worst player in this regard imho. Thus I would suggest using either:
- the lowest score of all defenders
OR
- a weighted average where the lowest value is inflated to represent half (50%) of it.
For example take these 4 hypothetical players:
Player Offside score
DL 50
DC 40
DC 55
DR 60
Current result is 51.25
first alternative result is 40 (lowest score)
second alternative result is 47.5 (40/2 + 50/6 + 55/6 + 60/6)
What do you think? Vote for your preference above.
Quote
Defender (Average of dl dr dc) : Positioning, Acceleration, Decisions, Teamwork
But I think this value should be based more on the lowest score than the mean. It only takes one defender to keep a player onsides and a defensive line is only as good as its worst player in this regard imho. Thus I would suggest using either:
- the lowest score of all defenders
OR
- a weighted average where the lowest value is inflated to represent half (50%) of it.
For example take these 4 hypothetical players:
Player Offside score
DL 50
DC 40
DC 55
DR 60
Current result is 51.25
first alternative result is 40 (lowest score)
second alternative result is 47.5 (40/2 + 50/6 + 55/6 + 60/6)
What do you think? Vote for your preference above.
68
United States / Free team reports for nonpremium oppenents
« on: November 30, 2013, 06:09:49 AM »
I wanted to announce that any nonpremium USA opponent of mine may request their team report (a premium feature) and I will send them a screenshot of this report at no cost. I just want each of my opponents to have this basic information about their team, which I feel should be available to all. This includes friendly matches, league matches, and even cup matches.
This report includes all of the tactical and player skills of all starting players in the most recent 5 matches. I will send you any two (2) you wish.
Just be sure to request it at least 24 hrs ahead of time, and contact me via the forum so I can send screenshots easily. Also, be aware that these reports are only available when our match is next. Thus, Wednesday games (that happen on Tuesday night here in the States) won't be available until after custom cup matches end at 15:00 UTC. Saturday (friday night) matches will be available after WCL on Thursday.
Also I strongly encourage others to make the same offer. Just post below if you'll join this great movement!
here is what one looks like
note that reports for your team's previous 5 games will be available
This report includes all of the tactical and player skills of all starting players in the most recent 5 matches. I will send you any two (2) you wish.
Just be sure to request it at least 24 hrs ahead of time, and contact me via the forum so I can send screenshots easily. Also, be aware that these reports are only available when our match is next. Thus, Wednesday games (that happen on Tuesday night here in the States) won't be available until after custom cup matches end at 15:00 UTC. Saturday (friday night) matches will be available after WCL on Thursday.
Also I strongly encourage others to make the same offer. Just post below if you'll join this great movement!
here is what one looks like
note that reports for your team's previous 5 games will be available
69
Suggestions/Bugs / suggestion - position proficiency affects mental attributes only
« on: November 19, 2013, 05:49:35 AM »
Currently, a players' proficiency in a given position has a significant effect on player performance in matches. When a player is played out of his "natural" position each and every one of his skills are reduced. This is absurd imho. A player's physical and technical abilities are not affected when he is positioned unnaturally. It does affect his mental abilities, however. Defensively, players out of position will make mistakes finding the right position, make unusually poor decisions, and find it more challenging to function as a team. Offensively, players out of position will have difficulty with both roaming and stick to position tactics, making poor runs off the ball and creative backfires. Thus I would suggest that
Position proficiency should only affect mental attributes (which in turn do affect some skills/tactics), not final tactics/skill level calculations.
For example:
Zone marking (UZM) uses the average of acceleration, positioning, and tackling. Positioning is a mental attribute. In this example, a player has a 12 in each attribute:
Position Proficiency modifier Acceleration Positioning Tackling Avg Current result*
Natural 0 12 12 12 12.0 12.0
Accomplished 2% 12 11.8 12 11.9 11.8
Unconvincing 5% 12 11.4 12 11.8 11.4
Awkward 8% 12 11.0 12 11.6 11.0
No position 10% 12 10.6 12 11.2 10.6
*The current result is how this is calculated now using skill stats adjusted by the modifiers that were given by admin here. You'll notice these skill scores are higher than current results...and they should be imho. If the player has the skills, anyway. Playing your FC (with ~fives in these attributes) as a defender will still be disastrous.
In addition, other mental skills would be affected, including aggression and determination (we don't really know how they affect the game) and teamwork (it will have a much bigger affect starting next season) which would affect overall player performance almost as much as position proficiency does now! With the introduction of new effects of teamwork on player performance in season 10, I sincerely hope the developers will consider including this change in the match engine.
In the list below, remember that tactics/skills not affected by mental skills would not be directly affected for players playing out of their natural position with my proposed system:
Tactics affected by mental attributes
(opponent) Zone marking
(opponent) Stand off more
(opponent) More Roaming
(opponent) Stick to position
Tactics not affected by mental attributes
(opponent) Man marking
(opponent) Press more
Player skills affected by mental attributes
(opponent) pass ball on floor
(opponent) pass high ball
(opponent) drill cross
(opponent) float cross
(opponent) finding an opportunity to score
(opponent) challenging the defenders at heading
(opponent) beat to drill cross
(opponent) offside
Player skills not affected by mental attributes
(opponent) dribbling
shot with ball
heading on goal
shot (drill cross)
long shot
one on one shot
free kick
penalty kick
Position proficiency should only affect mental attributes (which in turn do affect some skills/tactics), not final tactics/skill level calculations.
For example:
Zone marking (UZM) uses the average of acceleration, positioning, and tackling. Positioning is a mental attribute. In this example, a player has a 12 in each attribute:
Position Proficiency modifier Acceleration Positioning Tackling Avg Current result*
Natural 0 12 12 12 12.0 12.0
Accomplished 2% 12 11.8 12 11.9 11.8
Unconvincing 5% 12 11.4 12 11.8 11.4
Awkward 8% 12 11.0 12 11.6 11.0
No position 10% 12 10.6 12 11.2 10.6
*The current result is how this is calculated now using skill stats adjusted by the modifiers that were given by admin here. You'll notice these skill scores are higher than current results...and they should be imho. If the player has the skills, anyway. Playing your FC (with ~fives in these attributes) as a defender will still be disastrous.
In addition, other mental skills would be affected, including aggression and determination (we don't really know how they affect the game) and teamwork (it will have a much bigger affect starting next season) which would affect overall player performance almost as much as position proficiency does now! With the introduction of new effects of teamwork on player performance in season 10, I sincerely hope the developers will consider including this change in the match engine.
In the list below, remember that tactics/skills not affected by mental skills would not be directly affected for players playing out of their natural position with my proposed system:
Tactics affected by mental attributes
(opponent) Zone marking
(opponent) Stand off more
(opponent) More Roaming
(opponent) Stick to position
Tactics not affected by mental attributes
(opponent) Man marking
(opponent) Press more
Player skills affected by mental attributes
(opponent) pass ball on floor
(opponent) pass high ball
(opponent) drill cross
(opponent) float cross
(opponent) finding an opportunity to score
(opponent) challenging the defenders at heading
(opponent) beat to drill cross
(opponent) offside
Player skills not affected by mental attributes
(opponent) dribbling
shot with ball
heading on goal
shot (drill cross)
long shot
one on one shot
free kick
penalty kick
70
Suggestions/Bugs / MOTS
« on: November 18, 2013, 07:31:55 AM »
IMHO mots are given too freely in the game and, more importantly, there is no incentive to save (or not use) them!
I would suggest this:
1. teams should only get 1 free mots each season
2. an unused mots could be saved for the following season, but it would expire after the 2nd season. Thus, teams could accumulate up to 2 mots but only if they saved theirs from the previous season.
3. an expired mots (unused after 2 full seasons) would proide (A) a significant amount of extra prize money (~500K?) or (B) credits/tokens (25 credits or 10 tokens?)
I would suggest this:
1. teams should only get 1 free mots each season
2. an unused mots could be saved for the following season, but it would expire after the 2nd season. Thus, teams could accumulate up to 2 mots but only if they saved theirs from the previous season.
3. an expired mots (unused after 2 full seasons) would proide (A) a significant amount of extra prize money (~500K?) or (B) credits/tokens (25 credits or 10 tokens?)
71
Suggestions/Bugs / rounding of skill stats
« on: November 04, 2013, 07:34:05 PM »That information is on manual, chapter 22.
The thing is not on manual is that a PR4 could not be the same, I mean, one player caould be 3,84 and the other one 4,17, but the system rounded to the nearest whole number.
does it? I thought it always rounded down (i.e. cut off the decimal).
where 3,84 = 3 and 4,17= 4 (you suggest both would rounded to 4)
am I wrong?
72
Suggestions/Bugs / POLL: costs and error in Team/Next Match Reports
« on: October 20, 2013, 06:52:08 PM »
IMHO team reports and next match reports are given too freely in the game (to premium managers) while next match reports (NMRs) are too accurate and do not rely on team scouts, de-emphasizing the utility of team scouts which already have limited use in the game. Here are my suggestions to alter this. Please vote for any you like (or the "none" option if you don't like any of them)
1) Team Reports and Next Match Reports should not be free, even for premium managers. These should cost some energy and nonpremium members should also have access to Team Reports at a higher cost. For example:
Energy Cost
Report Premium Nonpremium
Team 20 50
Next Match 40-200* NA
*depending on team scout analysis skill level (1=200, 2=160, 3=120, 4=80 and 5=40)
2) Next Match Reports (NMRs) should reflect the performance of players in the matches being reported on and the quality of team scouts. The idea is that these reports are created not from thin air, but by team scouts watching the matches and making value judgements about player abilities. There are two aspects here: (a) the players' actual performances and (b) the ability of team scouts to judge them accurately.
(a) In each of the 5 matches given in "next match report" feature, skill values should reflect player performance in the match, not their expected/average values. For example, a player with a 10 rating in a match probably displayed skills at the high end of their range, while one with a 4 rating exhibited skills at the low end of the range. Thus the values for a given player would vary from match to match, depending on their performances.
(b) The accuracy of these (actual) values of player skills given in a NMR should also be based on team scout "judge player ability" quality. For a team with scouts of very bad level, these figures should contain significant error, whie "the best" scouts will yield perfectly accurate reports.
Here is a full example of how this would work for one skill (e.g. action pass ball on floor, but it could be any) with skill level range of 51-55 given in player analysis:
Range of possible values in NMR given different "judge player ability" levels**
Match Rating Player Skill Level 1 2 3 4 5
10 55 44-66 49-61 52-58 54-56 55
4 51 40-62 45-57 48-54 50-52 51
max error 20% 10% 5% 2% 0%
**value given in NMR would not be a range of values like these, but a single value selected randomly from within the relevant spread.
1) Team Reports and Next Match Reports should not be free, even for premium managers. These should cost some energy and nonpremium members should also have access to Team Reports at a higher cost. For example:
Energy Cost
Report Premium Nonpremium
Team 20 50
Next Match 40-200* NA
*depending on team scout analysis skill level (1=200, 2=160, 3=120, 4=80 and 5=40)
2) Next Match Reports (NMRs) should reflect the performance of players in the matches being reported on and the quality of team scouts. The idea is that these reports are created not from thin air, but by team scouts watching the matches and making value judgements about player abilities. There are two aspects here: (a) the players' actual performances and (b) the ability of team scouts to judge them accurately.
(a) In each of the 5 matches given in "next match report" feature, skill values should reflect player performance in the match, not their expected/average values. For example, a player with a 10 rating in a match probably displayed skills at the high end of their range, while one with a 4 rating exhibited skills at the low end of the range. Thus the values for a given player would vary from match to match, depending on their performances.
(b) The accuracy of these (actual) values of player skills given in a NMR should also be based on team scout "judge player ability" quality. For a team with scouts of very bad level, these figures should contain significant error, whie "the best" scouts will yield perfectly accurate reports.
Here is a full example of how this would work for one skill (e.g. action pass ball on floor, but it could be any) with skill level range of 51-55 given in player analysis:
Range of possible values in NMR given different "judge player ability" levels**
Match Rating Player Skill Level 1 2 3 4 5
10 55 44-66 49-61 52-58 54-56 55
4 51 40-62 45-57 48-54 50-52 51
max error 20% 10% 5% 2% 0%
**value given in NMR would not be a range of values like these, but a single value selected randomly from within the relevant spread.
73
Suggestions/Bugs / [suggestion] player orders in advance instructions
« on: September 09, 2013, 05:18:42 AM »
It would be nice if, in advance instructions, we could set player orders for substitutes so they need not follow the same ones set for the starting player. Player orders include:
-Long shots (rarely, default, often)
-Run with ball (rarely, default, often)
-On penalty area (try to pass, default, try to shoot)
-More attack, default, more defend
Of courses, on additional option (no change) would also be needed for each,
What do you think?
-Long shots (rarely, default, often)
-Run with ball (rarely, default, often)
-On penalty area (try to pass, default, try to shoot)
-More attack, default, more defend
Of courses, on additional option (no change) would also be needed for each,
What do you think?
74
Suggestions/Bugs / [suggestion]Friendly matches during WCL
« on: August 31, 2013, 04:45:36 PM »
I brought this up before in a different thread, but I think it deserves its own.
Teams not playing in the WCL should have the opportunity to play friendly matches on Thursdays (while WCL matches are happening), just as friendlies happen during national cup matches, with condition loss equal to that of WCL matches. If the server cannot handle so many matches at once, then they could be played throughout the day on the normal schedule while WCL matches happen together.
Teams not playing in the WCL should have the opportunity to play friendly matches on Thursdays (while WCL matches are happening), just as friendlies happen during national cup matches, with condition loss equal to that of WCL matches. If the server cannot handle so many matches at once, then they could be played throughout the day on the normal schedule while WCL matches happen together.
75
Player Transfer Ads / 651ML*****, 552FC*, 272 DCL* (* = exp)
« on: August 19, 2013, 01:22:51 AM »
CA6
Moses Blake 2159914 6/5/1 ML AML 26y okay exp 437K
Dakota Gilliam (5711310) 6/6/4 DC MC 20y very low (**) experience SOLD
CA5
Laz Lowe 5/5/4 FC Unusually high skills for value (level 52), 21y very low exp 417K
Tito Aqua (2493441) 5/5/1 DC 31y Very good experience, 16 Influence SOLD
CA 1-4
2/7/2 DCL http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7030197 125K
3/6/2/ FChttp://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6639197 SOLD
2/5/4 DMR http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6723081 make an offer
Any reasonable offers will be accepted via pm!
Moses Blake 2159914 6/5/1 ML AML 26y okay exp 437K CA5
Laz Lowe 5/5/4 FC Unusually high skills for value (level 52), 21y very low exp 417K CA 1-4
2/7/2 DCL http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=7030197 125K
3/6/2/ FC
2/5/4 DMR http://www.gokickoff.com/team_player_detail.php?player_id=6723081 make an offer
Any reasonable offers will be accepted via pm!