Soccer Star

Soccer Star forum
It is currently Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:06 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


This section is only for discussing a rewrite of the original Soccer Star game.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:31 pm
Posts: 405
I do want to keep things as close to the original game as possible, but I think everyone agrees that there could / should be some extra options with the subbing. I definitely want more subs, but also more subbing options. Off the top of my head, one idea that I'm liking is to simply tell your players which result you're after, which would vary from 'Damage limitation' to 'Win at all costs'. Based on that, the computer would pick subs according. For example, if you're playing for a draw, then it will simply sub off an attacker for a defender (after half-time, like it does now) if you're winning or drawing. I think this is fairly simple and does the job without requiring overly-complex subbing conditions. End of the day, you're not at the game 'live' so you really want to computer to carry out your orders in a sensible fashion.

This would also mean that we could have a larger number of subs, giving the computer more options when looking for suitable changes. Perhaps 7 subs makes sense in this case, so you could have a spare keeper and 2 from each outfield position, allowing lots of variety for the AI to choose from.

Also regarding positions, the current system is badly flawed where you just tag a player with a position and he's valued on that position (the valuation part is especially bad). I'm not sure how to deal with this. Visually, the players could just be placed in the chart based on the position they most recently played in (which will almost certainly therefore be their better position) or maybe based on the computer's idea of which position they'd be best in (that will get confusing with maxed players). For subbing, it would be a bit different in that you'd just pick a player as 'Sub' and then the computer would look for a suitable replacement and base it on ratings. So for example, if it decides that it wants to put a defender on, it will just choose the player with the best defender ratings (e.g tackling and heading).

These are all just thoughts for now. I am currently working on the match reports which does require me to do something with the subs, but for now I'm just marking them as 'sub' without a position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:49 pm
Posts: 200
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
I would like the option to choose the player coming off and on.
I like the other suggestions :D

_________________
Cheers
Dave.
Barton Blitz......WPL 53 Mancs F.C......WPL 64 Wigan Wildcats....Opal 58
Swinton Pirates ....ELZ 24 Dinamo Petrovac....ELZ 54
Manchester Dragons...RH 17 Stonefield Cobras ...RH 26
Luosto Tunturi...WS 7 Locomotiv Leigh. ...NSA 18 Limone Sul Garda .....BS26
Trafford Rhino's ...MOA 10 Tyldesley Panthers ...MOA 38


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 204
Location: Kilburn, Derby
agree with Dave & Mark :)

_________________
Razor HAS the edge!!

Kilburn United (WS57)
Inter Derby (WS10)
Spondon Phoenix F.C (WPL3)
Chaddesden Celtic (Opal41)
Torpedo Belper (NSA17)

http://razorsssteams.bravesites.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:49 pm
Posts: 200
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Dear diary, 21 /8/15 got something right, make note for future reference :shock:

_________________
Cheers
Dave.
Barton Blitz......WPL 53 Mancs F.C......WPL 64 Wigan Wildcats....Opal 58
Swinton Pirates ....ELZ 24 Dinamo Petrovac....ELZ 54
Manchester Dragons...RH 17 Stonefield Cobras ...RH 26
Luosto Tunturi...WS 7 Locomotiv Leigh. ...NSA 18 Limone Sul Garda .....BS26
Trafford Rhino's ...MOA 10 Tyldesley Panthers ...MOA 38


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:28 pm 
I agree with Dave that being able to pick which player comes off would be good,not sure about swapping defs for atts at half time or vice versa,i played a game like this and it got to the point where one player would go more Def at HT if winning,the other player more offensive if losing at HT it ended up negating each other,i like the simplicity of the tactics in SS,think i'd be too lazy to get into too much tactical detail :)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:31 pm
Posts: 405
The thing about choosing the players yourself is, you don't actually know the situation. The computer is in a much better position to make sensible decisions based on your targets for the game.

The existing system doesn't allow that either and it also decides who to replace (it replaces the least effective at that point, which seems sensible to me).

I could make it similar except that you choose who to remove, but then it would need some conditions. So it'd be more like 'Replace John Smith with Tim Jones if winning'? That actually sounds MORE complex to me and it won't be as effective?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:31 pm
Posts: 405
Good point about the tactics negating each other though, I hadn't thought of that.

So basically, similar to now, except you can choose who comes off? One good thing about the existing system (and this idea) is that you get to make mistakes, which I suppose is a good thing. I keep saying the computer is in the better position to make decisions for you, but maybe that's not a good thing. Maybe you should be using your judgement to decide - if you choose the stronger player to bring off, that's your own fault. Actually I like it :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:17 pm
Posts: 2777
Location: Asleep in the grass
As we have all been asking for it for years (and has been the mainstay on the wishlist) safe to say everyone will want it and learning by our own mistakes is always good :)

Round about way of saying sorry Dave but it is hardly yuor idea so you still have to wait a while :wink: :P :lol:

_________________
Cheers
Rich

CHARSCOT WANDERERS.........WPL1
DEP EL CELTICO.........................WPL37
WASCISCO RED SOX...................WPL43
ZIASTE NEQUENO.......................WPL24
CASTLE ROCK FURIES..................WPL31
OSSUS STELLA SEI.....................ELZ56
REVELSTONE..(C 05/6, 08/9)........RH15....(189T)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:31 pm
Posts: 405
So the same as now, except you decide who comes off and 3 subs instead of 2?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:31 pm
Posts: 405
Bear in mind that if we go that route, it'd be just the one condition per player. So you'd go from 'John Smith (W)' to 'John Smith (W for Tim Jones)'. That's fine, I personally think it's a bit limiting and is part of the game that needs improvement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:17 pm
Posts: 2777
Location: Asleep in the grass
No, no reason we can't have 7 subs and the options you state AND the ability to specify who comes on/off :)

Well there may be reasons but that isn't what I was saying :lol: Just be good to be able to do the instructions whichever way a manager likes or a mixture of the two. :D

_________________
Cheers
Rich

CHARSCOT WANDERERS.........WPL1
DEP EL CELTICO.........................WPL37
WASCISCO RED SOX...................WPL43
ZIASTE NEQUENO.......................WPL24
CASTLE ROCK FURIES..................WPL31
OSSUS STELLA SEI.....................ELZ56
REVELSTONE..(C 05/6, 08/9)........RH15....(189T)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:31 pm
Posts: 405
Well I'm sold on the idea of stating who comes off. That's way better than my idea of having the computer do it as it takes away some of the manager skill - plus that's what you want, so I'll go with that.

The point brought up about tactics negating each other is interesting and should be avoided. I'm thinking of a combination, using 7 subs and you can specific tactics for each. That would give you all sorts of options. So you have 2 attackers - you specify one to come on for a defender, if you're losing and another to come on for another attacker if you're winning. Only one would come on (at one time at least), so you get options. But this point about tactics negating each other is niggling at me a bit now :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:17 pm
Posts: 2777
Location: Asleep in the grass
To be honest I would ignore Rob (in the nicest way Rob :) ) as if the new version with MORE tactical options can result in tactics negating each other then it would be easier in the current game (as surely the tactics you describe are just one part of what will make up the results and not the be all and end all in and of themselves). As I have never heard of anyone complaining about that happening in SS (including Rob) then logically it is even less likely in a more complex game (ie one with more options).

In other words, let it go as I think that that train of thought could easily be VERY misleading and cause you grief that you literally have no need to go through. :)

_________________
Cheers
Rich

CHARSCOT WANDERERS.........WPL1
DEP EL CELTICO.........................WPL37
WASCISCO RED SOX...................WPL43
ZIASTE NEQUENO.......................WPL24
CASTLE ROCK FURIES..................WPL31
OSSUS STELLA SEI.....................ELZ56
REVELSTONE..(C 05/6, 08/9)........RH15....(189T)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:24 pm 
I would just say this Rich,i've played a game where this method of tactical change was used and in the end it became a case of one manager using a tactic then the other manager countering it to the point it was a bit like playing chess..i didn't like it and left..but that doesn't mean Glynn shouldn't try to create a game with those tactical changes and it really doesn't mean most of the managers here wouldn't want to play it and enjoy it,just it wouldn't be something I would want to play again. :)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:17 pm
Posts: 2777
Location: Asleep in the grass
The important point here though is that the other variables WILL count, which makes the rest an unnecessary worry.

All the factors that go into match results now will no doubt apply in the new game and any extra tactical options will just make a canceling out even more unlikely, not more likely.

If your fear had any truth to it in terms of any version of soccer star then the current game would result in teams canceling each other out just because both go balanced or one is offensive to the other being defensive. That isn't the case.

Glynn would never allow one tactical aspect to dominate like that so worrying about it is not necessary :)

_________________
Cheers
Rich

CHARSCOT WANDERERS.........WPL1
DEP EL CELTICO.........................WPL37
WASCISCO RED SOX...................WPL43
ZIASTE NEQUENO.......................WPL24
CASTLE ROCK FURIES..................WPL31
OSSUS STELLA SEI.....................ELZ56
REVELSTONE..(C 05/6, 08/9)........RH15....(189T)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group