Register

Articles

Engine: The Melee

Mitaka
There is something that I don't like at all - the melees. A.k.a. too many players focusing/targeting on same or close field-point (possible with tactical editor). Moreover if the opponent puts man-marking to these players, the players-crowd on that point becames unthinkable.

My next main target is to reduce that and I have several ideas.

But before that, I would like to see if you (the managers) have better solutions for that problem.

Be free to comment, every post could give us a clue :)

Comments

Aptul (21:22, 15 NOV)
Great pic.

As for the melee, I did pretty well until now. I’m looking forward to see Alin opinion on this.:)
Mod- Michael (21:42, 15 NOV)
maybe only the 5 players nearest the ball are taken into account during duels, if the are already 5 players there all other players will head in that direction but stop a set distance away.
Mod- Michael (21:43, 15 NOV)
of course the number 5 could be changed.
Harrissonsml (21:44, 15 NOV)
The man-marking is too robotic.
For example, the marker always are in front of the opponent.
At real life, this is impossible.

Maybe we should nerf the man marking. Include Strenght and speed to have some influence at this.
Harrissonsml (21:46, 15 NOV)
Now, for the tatical editor positions, its a matter of strategy... The managers that dont have striker with good striker skills gonna have more dificult to dribling everyone...

Mod- Michael gave a good idea for that cases. 5 is too much and I only saw it once (https://cdn.espn.com.br/image/wide/960_80a18d24-41f7-3ed1-99a8-e261583d2cf2.jpg) haha
Maybe 3 players... the others keep some distance...
Mod- Michael (21:47, 15 NOV)
if a player is being marked he will dodge around, the higher his decisions the more effectively he does so, the higher the player who is doing the marking decisions the more effectively he will keep with his target.
Harrissonsml (21:47, 15 NOV)
Harrissonsml (21:48, 15 NOV)
if a player is being marked he will dodge around, the higher his decisions the more effectively he does so, the higher the player who is doing the marking decisions the more effectively he will keep with his target

It already happens with the one that is doing marking...
The other one I cannot tell
Mod- Michael (21:50, 15 NOV)
making the number to low would only increase the power of forwards with high first touch, stick 3 near each other and they will always win headers as the defenders will not chalenge as there are already 3 players there.
Mod- Michael (21:52, 15 NOV)
i meant that the marked player will run forwards, dodge left then right, running a random pattern around his attack point.
Harrissonsml (21:56, 15 NOV)
i meant that the marked player will run forwards, dodge left then right, running a random pattern around his attack point.

For it work well, goleada should have off-sides.
And the possibility to set the MID pass for foward the player or at his exaclty position.
Mod- Michael (21:59, 15 NOV)
i agree, there should be an option of where to pass
Aguia65 (21:59, 15 NOV)
I think there would have to be another way for players to make the man-to-man marking. Mine are waiting for the opponent at the scoring point. I don't know if it's a mistake or not but I think it could and should be improved / corrected!
Mitaka (22:40, 15 NOV)
Let me explain about man-marking.

It has a history, and now we need it because of this history.

In the past - without man-marking, it was very common to see this case in live game.
- team A puts a left-winger.
- team B puts a player (right-back) against that winger.
- but meantime team A changes the winger position to right.
- team B's right-back becomes meaningless, and he moves the player on the left side.
- but team A changes his winger to the left again...
And all that never ends. Continuous never-ending moves from one side to another.

Then it was introduced man-marking. It solves the problem above. Doesn't matter on which side is the opponent winger, our defender will follow him all over the field.

Of course, this is applied for other field-positions as well. It works fine.

Man-marking is simple - your player just follows the opponent all over the field. But has its cost - you can't use your player in attack, or in other way. You man-mark opponent player and that is all.

But when everyone is man-marked, and even more if the opponent manager do the same, the matches became... strange. This should be reduced, imo. Probably a hard limit, or something.

But let me see your ideas...

It is connected with close/similar attack points. That's why I posting this article. Let's see. I'm searching an effective and simplest possible solution.

Axdron (00:22, 16 NOV)
I agree with Mod- Michael, I think the answer to the melees should go in these directions:

- Players should no occupy the same space (maybe some strength check, when they try to stay in he same position, and FT in the final moment of an "aerial duel");
- Add feints, like Mod- Michael suggests (maybe some speed + dribbling check). When a feint is successful, the defender gets "frozen", like when dribbled;
- Man-marking should not happen when the team it's in attacking phase. This is a defensive posture. The most stranges "melees" happens because the "recursive" man marking..

I can't think in more things now, but I'll follow the discussion
Ececchi (06:03, 16 NOV)
For man-marking, I would put a maximum limit (e.g. 4 or 5). There are teams that mark forwards, midfielders and even defenders with forwards. With a maximum mark-man limit you are forced to make a choice.
Mitaka (07:19, 16 NOV)
Mod- Michael, Axdron
Players should no occupy the same space
I've already tried that, but the problem is that server resources for game executing grow by 30%. It is just too much and I deleted all that code. But I will think again. This is the best and most natural way it could be solved.


AxdronMan-marking should not happen when the team it's in attacking phase.
I explained several times about that. In theory seems OK, but in practice it will produce big problem.
Let me explain by example.

Let's say your right back is man-marking an opponent left-wing. In defense-phase, he is close to the wing, in attack-phase he is running to his attack-point. And vice versa.

But what happen, if the opponent moves the wing on the other side. Our back will run between very far points. In fact, in many situations he will not reach on time, nor the wing, nor his attack point. He will be just between them. And he will do practically nothing - he will not finish his tasks. Both of them.

Probably someone remember, but this was just the case, that triggered defense-zones implementation. We saw that in one Maxdino 's game.

Even more - it is possible that some managers will exploit that, and will see more strange runs than I explained above.
Mitaka (07:26, 16 NOV)
EcecchiFor man-marking, I would put a maximum limit (e.g. 4 or 5). There are teams that mark forwards, midfielders and even defenders with forwards. With a maximum mark-man limit you are forced to make a choice.
Ececchi, I plan to limit them to 4. Let's say - manager could double-man-mark the two of opponent's most dangerous players.
Diabolik67 (07:42, 16 NOV)
Mitaka (08:26, 16 Novembre)

Ececchi
For man-marking, I would put a maximum limit (e.g. 4 or 5). There are teams that mark forwards, midfielders and even defenders with forwards. With a maximum mark-man limit you are forced to make a choice.
Ececchi, I plan to limit them to 4. Let's say - manager could double-man-mark the two of opponent's most dangerous players.

... i think 4 is the right number ... the maximun number ... 3 strikers and 2 wings they will already force the defender to make a choice ... and if he wants to sacrifice one or two for other areas of the field, he will have to free another attacker or a winger or both ... I think that 4 is the maximum that should be allowed...
Danciualin23 (07:51, 16 NOV)
make the double man-mark to keep distance from gk kick and free-kicks if it is possible first
Danciualin23 (07:54, 16 NOV)
and then if it possible , make the double man-mark to not follow the ball
the player 1 who is in defense phase will stay in front of his target ( player 2) who is also man-marking the player 1
and vice-versa
Mitaka (08:25, 16 NOV)
Yes, free-kicks and fouls need attention.

Danciualin23, you propose to remove the option "between player and the ball"? If yes - why?
Danciualin23 (08:52, 16 NOV)
No , keep it but players that man mark each other ( p1 marks p2 and p2 marks p1 ) will not follow the ball everywhere . I proposed the p1 who is in defence phase to stay in front of the attack position of p2 and vice-versa
Idk if this can be implenented or will work
Mitaka (08:55, 16 NOV)
Danciualin23...players that man mark each other...
Aha, I've got it.
El Cebra (10:19, 16 NOV)
I agree, another unfortunate thing in my view is that if a player is marked as a man he follows the defender and not the tactical settings of the editor.
It should be the other way around, that the defender follows the attacker and not vice versa.

In any case, in my opinion it would be a good thing to limit the number of scoring per man to 2/3 per game. I've seen too many games where 6/7 players were marked per man and it's a bad thing to see
Mentore (10:32, 16 NOV)
Secondo me non è un problema di motore il fatto che tre giocatori marchino un attaccante, ma una scelta del manager, che la trova efficace per una ridotta possibilità di scelte nell'editor tattico.
In primis, dividerei le fase di non possesso da quella di possesso palla e mi spiego.
Oggi è possibile impostare la marcatura (a zona su uomo, o a uomo a tutto campo) ... il problema è che poi non si ha possibilità di dare indicazione tattiche sulla fase di possesso palla. Questo lo trovo un grosso limite soprattutto per l'utilizzo dei terzini e dei centrocampisti.
Il tutto si risolverebbe se fosse possibile i postare le opzioni (marcatura, più passaggio ecc.) e comunque avere la possibilità di dare indicazioni sulle posizioni da tenere e i movimenti da fare nelle due fasi.
PS. Una modifica che riterrei necessaria è la possibilità di scegliere chi batte i calci piazzati e come ... è vero che allo stato sono veramente pochi (anche questo andrebbe reso un pò più realistico in percentuale ai contrasti) ma proprio perchè sono pochi è un peccato che a batterli e come decida il motore mandando per esempio dal limite dell'area chi ha tiro zero.
Scusate se sono stato troppo prolisso.
Un saluto a tutti
Mentore (10:34, 16 NOV)
E' un peccato che a batterli e come decida il motore mandando per esempio dal limite dell'area chi ha tiro zero.
Mentore (10:41, 16 NOV)
Poi, il topo sarebbe poter impostare le scelte di passaggio su un determinato giocatore, almeno un paio, questa sarebbe una svolta perchè darebbe veramente la possibilità di fare degli schemi ...
Mentore (10:43, 16 NOV)
Il top sarebbe poter impostare (correzione)
Axdron (10:44, 16 NOV)
Agree with Ececchi
Axdron (14:53, 16 NOV)
Mitaka about the players swap, sure. As Ececchi suggested after me, I think his solution it's better, and maybe less than 4 should be available (1 or 2). Man-marking it's to block a key player (e. g. double marking), not the entire team attackers...

Linked to his suggestion, I'll suggest to make the configurations of the man marking available to the defensive zone: the defender can be between his opponent and the goal, or between the ball and his opponent in defensive zone too. This way, you will restrict the man marking but without losing this very important behavior. The difference between a defensive zone player and a man marking one it's how the follow his opponent on the field (only when he enters in his zone or the entire field).

Another suggestion, to make the zone and man marking more different: raise the chances of the man marking player commit fouls and receive cards. As the player is focused in don't let the other plays, he tends to be more harsh in duels.
Cakz (15:32, 16 NOV)
I like the idea of ​​limiting the amount of man-marking. 2-4 will be a good number. For me the biggest issues are related to the lack of attack movement of these players. Or simply "ignore" the ball and re-mark your predetermined player.

The game gets very ugly when teams decide to use many man-markings. So limiting (Ececchi and Axdron ) and increasing the % of fouls and cards (Axdron) are interesting to me.
Mitaka (15:48, 16 NOV)
Cakz increasing the % of fouls and cards ( Axdron ) are interesting to me.
Interesting - yes.

If I find time will implement it and will give it to the committee to balance it (as request functionality, like lucky shots).
Melga (16:57, 16 NOV)
I'll leave a suggestion, and it's just that, a suggestion. I've not read the discussion, I'm sorry. If a bad suggestion just ignore it.

The concept of overcrowd.

The problem of many players in the same spot is not on the man marking, or in the defensive movement itself, but I feel the managers have no alternative to mark a huge overflow of offensive players in the defensive area. Man marking sometimes is the best or only solution (this need a case by case evaluation, ofc, I'm extrapolating).

Define a number of players that can occupy a determined area and each player of the same team in that same area will have some sort of nerf.
Dunno the best number of players, dunno the best area, dunno the best nerf, but imagine one situation. Team A has 4 players inside the penalty area, the optimal limit is 3, so after the fourth player all of them have a nerf on FT and dribbling of 10%.

I would go even further, the penalty should be only to the attacking team, or the numbers for the defensive team should be one more than the attack.

A small tweak to this idea is not allowing the players to be positioned at some distance from each other, to prevent tactics with 5 players occupying the same space.

Pros: could reduce a bit the unrealistic number of players in the same spot. Managers should consider if it's worth the effort. Sometimes it will, sometimes it don't.

Cons: returning to nerfing skills, something that we want to end. It can be subjective the number of players or the area to apply it. It could be tricky to do since having 4 nearby players in midfield is kinda realistic, but in the area it is not.
Melga (17:00, 16 NOV)
Sorry, I've now read the last posts, since the last one was so far of my idea, and I think I completely misunderstood the problem. I do not have any ideas on marking. Sorry again.

There's no option to delete my post, just ignore it.

(suggestion, add the option to delete posts).
Mitaka (19:30, 16 NOV)
MelgaA small tweak to this idea is not allowing the players to be positioned at some distance from each other, to prevent tactics with 5 players occupying the same space.
That was my pure idea when I started this article.

Reading the posts, I came to conclusion, that best way is physical-approach ("Players should no occupy the same space").

Now I'm not sure again...

Although physical-approach is logical and (very-important) natural, I think it will not solve the "ugly" games that many players are very close each other. They will not be on same spot, but could be very close each other - a big group of players moving together.

And as I said - when I tested physical-approach, the calculation became 30% more resource consuming. Probably, I will find a way to reduce it to 20% or ever more 10%, but when such a big number of games are calculated daily - it is not good at all. Up to this time I always tried to lower the consumption.

However, I'm ready to grow the server-consumption if it solve the problem. But as I'm thinking it will not solve it...

So, I'm back to the idea of limiting the the distance of players (in tactics editor). We will have better (and more realistic) distribution of players over the field, more difficult lineup/tactical-choices for the managers, less server-resources, and not so "ugly" games.

Let me see, if there is something that I don't put in the consideration... I'm waiting the next posts of the managers.

------------------

About man-mark limitation - it sure that I will apply it very soon. The right number (11, 4 or 2) will be decided and controlled from the community (a.k.a. the elected community members of the committee).

------------------

PS: My predictions sometimes are far from the reality... Before last changes I thought that we will see football-results in Goleada at last, but now we are almost on previous situation. The defense-zones makes the difference between the teams much more stronger than previous defense and produce much more goals than before. Even triple reduced, we are almost on the same spot...
Melga (19:43, 16 NOV)
I do not understand nothing about coding but can the distance thing be coded into the editor itself, not in the engine? Or is that coding that creates the effort on the servers? This is not related to the problem of overcrowding, I'm just curious about that effort on the servers issue.
Mitaka (20:04, 16 NOV)
Yes, exactly. It will be coded in editor.

The engine will start with positions (not too close each other) and will not calculate the distances (and prevent closer) on every tick (which exactly grows the resources in this case).
Mod- Michael (10:43, 17 NOV)
yes, i think that the reason for more goals is that the default tactics that bots use are rubbish, i just won a match spectacularly:
hearts 28-0 adex nation
i haven't watched the match yet so this is only a guess, did my opponent forget a goalkeeper?
also goal balancing is imho uneccesary.
Mod- Michael (11:14, 17 NOV)
i have thought of a way to reduce server consumtion Mitaka , could bot vs bot games be given a random result instead of actually being played a sort of autoresolve? total war fans will know what i mean.
Axdron (11:49, 17 NOV)
Or be always 3x0 to home bot team
Mod- Michael (11:50, 17 NOV)
Yes.
Mod- Michael (11:50, 17 NOV)
Maybe a bit of variety though.
Mod- Michael (11:51, 17 NOV)
It might already be being done though.
Mitaka (12:04, 17 NOV)
Mod- Michaelcould bot vs bot games be given a random result instead of actually being played
It is random. From the beginning of the game.
Mentore (12:30, 17 NOV)
Scusate, non voglio apparire presuntuoso perchè sono nuovo ... ma ripeto che secondo me il problema è approcciato al contrario, mi spiego.
Se un manager mette tre uomini a marcare lo stesso attaccante lo fa perchè a differenza che nella realtà in fase di attacco il "motore" effettua il passaggio a quel calciatore anche se marcato, e questo avviene perchè nell'editor non c'è possibilità di opzioni sul destinatario del passaggio.
Io modificherei questo aspetto. Se ci fosse possibilità di decidere e/o variare il destinatario del passaggio (es. 70% attaccante sinistro 30% attaccante destro e così via) i manager la smetterebbero di fare tripla marcatura a uomo sullo stesso attaccante perchè lascerebbero sempre uomini liberi, come nella realtà, rischiando di prendere molti più goal!
Scusate se sono stato prolisso e/o poco chiaro.
Un saluto a tutti
Axdron (12:38, 17 NOV)
Mentore I may be wrong because I confess I'm not following too much my matches lately, but when a player will pass, he uses his tactical skill to see if the receiver it's free, so a high skilled player try to pass to a free player more than another player with 3 defenders around him...
El Cebra (12:40, 17 NOV)
Axdron true
Mentore (12:46, 17 NOV)
E... sono nuovo come ho detto quindi credo abbiate ragione ... ma se è così va aumentata in percentuale la capacità di fare goal anche di quei giocatori con tiro scarso ... perchè nella realtà se va davanti al portiere un centrocampista anche se ha poco tiro la porta la prende ... faccio esempio su di me.
Ieri ho perso 2 a zero nonostante abbia doppiato il mio avversario in tutte le statistiche ... ho tirato 35 volte, di cui 20 nello specchio, 10 volte solo in area ... lui preso la porta 8 volte con 12 tiri ... fatto due goal da fuori area ...
El Cebra (12:53, 17 NOV)
Mentore per i tiri dipende da altro. C'è il discorso + da tenere in considerazione e comunque molto la fa la skill decisione. Un attaccante con decisione bassa prende la porta più difficilmente.
Mentore (12:58, 17 NOV)
Si ma nella realtà pure un brocco 10 volte davanti alla porta un goal lo fa ... va beh ho partita saluti a tutti
Cosmoanarca (23:00, 17 NOV)
I don’t want to provide a complete feedback on the improved engine because I need longer time to understand and assess it. Anyway, you did a good job Mitaka ;) (except for pluses :D)

One comment I have necessarily to provide here on something I do consider as a terrible weakness of the new defence zones system that is somehow related to this topic.
Why players move to the closer opponent into their defending zones? Why we do not simply let them to hunt the ball when it enters the zone? I don’t want my player sticks to the closer opponent. If I want that, I use man marking. I want my player to control the zones I assign him. With the previous system, a manager can still avoid stupid defensive behave of defenders in some way. Now not anymore. Defensive players go where your opponent put his players, or they start to move between two of them. If you remove defence zone, they don't move at all. I hope this will be adjusted.

Melees occurrence is increased by the described players’ behave, because now defenders move closer even to man-marked opponent players. You can have 3 or 4 players marking the same player. Not good.
Harrissonsml (23:27, 17 NOV)
Why we do not simply let them to hunt the ball when it enters the zone?

They already do that, dont?
Harrissonsml (23:27, 17 NOV)
ops... wrong option :P

Why players move to the closer opponent into their defending zones?

They already do that, dont?
Cosmoanarca (23:50, 17 NOV)
Why players move to the closer opponent into their defending zones?
They already do that, dont?

Yes they do. I'd prefer they don't.
I'd prefer the player only hunts the ball, or an opponent player controlling the ball inside the defence zone. Not an opponent player without the ball.
I'd prefer my players remain in the defending position I assigned him, not going to stick to closer opponent player, but hunting the opponent with the ball inside the defending zone (before it was not possible to select defending zone, so this would be the improvement with defence zones).
I'm surprised I read just one manager pointing out this issue.
Harrissonsml (00:07, 18 NOV)
I understood what you mean, I guess.
But I do prefer like is now. The big problem to me at the old engine, was that the player didnt marked the opponent...

I'd prefer the player only hunts the ball, or an opponent player controlling the ball inside the defence zone. Not an opponent player without the ball.

They already hunt the opponent with the ball cos.
The ball (alone)I dont remember to see this... But I think that they already do that too.

The diference is that he will mark the player without the ball if have no opponent with a ball in the defensive zone.
El Cebra (11:11, 18 NOV)
watch this game. There are 4/5 man markings (2 on the wings 2/3 on the attackers).
In my opinion 2/3 are more than enough.

https://goleada.org/match/index.php?match_id=540415&r=%2F%2Fdashboard.php%3Fscrollpageto%3D0

But that's not the real problem imho either.
If you look closely, my 2 forwards follow the opposing defenders in the defensive phase up to midfield.
I think it's a really bad thing to see.
Even when I placed the 3rd attacker (unmarked) he still followed the defenders wherever they went.
This inevitably causes a man marking to knock out the attacker editor.

In my opinion, in addition to the number, this aspect should be reviewed.
If defender X marks attacker Y as a man, Y follows X and not the other way around.
Otherwise, more than a man marking it looks like a waltz :)

Cosmoanarca (11:26, 18 NOV)
Harrissonsml

The big problem to me at the old engine, was that the player didnt marked the opponent...
For me it was the central defenders going to mark the wings, and the side defenders going to mark central forwards. Actually, taking advantage of an engine trick, your opponent was “deciding” where your defenders would move to. But at least, with the “old” engine, a manager can still deal to engine tricks, with other engine tricks.

They already hunt the opponent with the ball cos.
The ball (alone)I dont remember to see this... But I think that they already do that too.

Yes, they do. They did it also before, but I guess “defense zone” was as default for every player. Now a manager can set the defense zone of a player as he likes. This is a huge improvement, that provides a lot of new tactic opportunities.

The diference is that he will mark the player without the ball if have no opponent with a ball in the defensive zone.
The difference is that the player marks the closer opponent, while before he was marking the opponent according to his location in the tactic editor. This would have been an improvement, if a manager could still decide his players don’t do that, like it was possible before. But now, positional defending does not exist anymore, because all your players will move to stick to an opponent with the defense zone system. Moreover, if you renounce to the defensive zones, your player become defensively useless.
A manager has not anymore the possibility to implement positional defending.

Except for penalty area and a small area around, in football, most of the teams cover 75% of the field by positional defending, and only “hunt” the opponent players when they hold the ball. Only a handful of trainers pushes on one-to-one player deals in most of the field (Bielsa, Gasperini, etc.). Now we all play like those trainers! :)
For me this is a terrible weakness of the improved engine.

Mitaka do there is any possibility to allow positional defending?
In other words, is it possible to add an option that allows managers to “ask” their players only to only hunt the ball/opponent players holding the ball inside their defense zone (not taking into account the closest opponent)?
Let’s try to keep alive every tactical option as much as possible.
Mitaka (12:05, 18 NOV)
I don’t understand, Cosmoanarca.

Currently the the players “hunt” opponents only in their defense-zone.

They will “hunt” free ball if they are closest, or their man-marking-target opponent is running for the ball.

———-

I don’t understand you, but I have no plan (or desire) to make the things complicated. It is simple now, with clean and understandable rules.
Mod- Michael (12:16, 18 NOV)
what he wants is that when the ball isn't in the defenders area for there to be an option that means that the player stays at their in defence point instead of going towards an opponent without the ball.
Melga (12:17, 18 NOV)
Mitaka I think I understand Cosmo. I think he does not want to make the game more complicated. If I got it right:

Now a player, if no one has the ball in his defensive area, will choose one player to mark, even if without the ball, so many times we will see, for instance, a defensive midfielder marking a forward, or a wingback marking a forward (whatever), not considering if that player is already marked, or even double marked.

If we do not want our player to do that we have to tick the box and make him forget the defensive phase of the game almost entirely (he still moves to go to loose balls and balls in the air).

I think that what Cosmo is asking is an option to make a defensive player stay in the spot that the manager chooses in the tactical editor without marking a player without the ball, and only moves to defend a player in his defensive area if that player has the ball.
Mitaka (12:26, 18 NOV)
OK, I think I've got it.

Checkbox - "Attack only opponent with a ball"?

Is that?
Melga (12:54, 18 NOV)
I'll leave that final thoughts to him. In my understanding his idea is something like that, yes.
Cosmoanarca (12:57, 18 NOV)
Mod- Michael and Melga perfectly got it.

Mitaka
“Checkbox - "Attack only opponent with a ball"?
Is that?”
Yes. Of course, only within the defence zone the manager assigns to the player, not all the field around.
I want to simplify, remove possible undesired behave in players, not to add a different one.
I think the checkbox would be a good solution, because it would add a tactic option for managers, with no important additional work for you.
Mitaka (13:32, 18 NOV)
I'm just working on that part. I will add it.
El Cebra (13:44, 18 NOV)
What Cosmoanarca has proposed is really excellent and interesting but I repeat guys, in addition to the maximum number of markings or other changes, I would like that all pay attention to the fact that currently the man marked forward follows the defender who marks him.
I think it's the most important thing to review on the man-marking system.
Mitaka (13:58, 18 NOV)
El Cebrathe fact that currently the man marked forward follows the defender who marks him
No, this is some kind of offside. The defenders pull the opponent players behind.

The opposite - an attacker to stay all the time in penalty area is not better. And this will happen if the defender that man-marks him covers the offside.
Mitaka (14:07, 18 NOV)
I don't like the "offside" as well. The game becomes ugly...

But I think that other could be worse - forwards staying all the time close to the goal....
Mentore (15:20, 18 NOV)
Mitaka (15:07, 18 NOV)

Non mi piace neanche il "fuorigioco". La partita diventa brutta ...

Più che diventare brutta la partita inserire il fuorigioco richiederebbe ulteriori variabili nell'editor se mi posso permettere ... :
- la possibilità di indicare agli attaccanti di giocare sul filo del fuorigioco.
- la possibilità di indicare alla difesa di attuare il fuorigioco.

Se ci fossero queste opzioni non si vedrebbero tre attanti fissi in area o tre difensori sulla linea della porta ... ma per ora senza fuorigioco il motore funziona bene secondo me
El Cebra (07:35, 19 NOV)
Mitaka I partly agree with you, but it's not nice that the attackers follow the defenders to the midfield line. (I noticed that can be avoided by deploying the attackers as midfielders but i don't like this).
Maybe the thing could be solved if the defenders kept the instructions of the editor when man marking.

Doing so would improve the concept of marking both in attack and in defense.
Mentore (07:52, 19 NOV)
El Cebra (08:35, 19 NOV)Forse la cosa potrebbe essere risolta se i difensori tenessero le istruzioni dell'editor durante la marcatura dell'uomo. in questo modo migliorerebbe il concetto di marcatura sia in attacco che in difesa.

Anche a me piacerebbe poter impostare marcatura per fase difensiva e editor per quella di possesso palla, ma non è detto che risolveresti del tutto il problema degli attaccanti che seguono i difensori perchè comunque devono rimanere in gioco non essendo previsto il fuorigioco ... quindi se avversario in fase di possesso posiziona i difensori sulla linea di centrocampo ti troverari sempre i tuoi attaccanti sulla linea di centrocampo
Mitaka (08:04, 19 NOV)
El CebraMaybe the thing could be solved if the defenders kept the instructions of the editor when man marking.
I plan to inspect the "offsides" next week.

Current "Fake Offside" vs "Defense-Points close the opponent goal". I will see what could be done there... But without having an idea for solution, I don't promise anything. I could be left as it is.

So every idea is welcomed - could give me the clue. But it should be very simple, I would not do something complicated.
Melga (09:59, 19 NOV)
The feature requested by Cosmo will change many things, especially related with offside.

Can we see some games with it just to see how managers use it?

In theory with that feature it seems to me that the defensive line can be set everywhere.
Mod- Michael (10:14, 19 NOV)
to be honest i don't see a problem with the current implementation of offside, is there something i am missing?
Mitaka (10:17, 19 NOV)
We will see. It is possible to stay as it is.
Mentore (10:45, 19 NOV)
Mitaka (11:17, 19 NOV)

Vedremo. È possibile restare com'è.

Io se mi posso permettere, credo che al momento la posizione degli attaccanti per non andare in fuori gioco non è sbagliata non essendo previsto il fuori gioco come fallo.

E guardando alcune partite di altri manager ho notato che il più delle volte i movimenti dei giocatori sono brutti perchè i manager usano tattiche brutte e irrealistiche, come piazzare tre difensori sulla linea di porta.

Per me cosa veramente interessante che aumenterebbe l'importanza dell'editor tattico rispetto alle skill è poter impostare marcatura per fase difensiva ... ma per fase di attacco essere libero di dare indicazioni ai difensori.

Scusate se non sono stato chiaro
Cosmoanarca (14:52, 20 NOV)
Mitaka
Just to make me better understood, have a look at minute 67 this match:
https://goleada.org/match/index.php?match_id=551217&2d&r=%2F%2Fcalendar.php%3Fscrollpageto%3D33897
The central defender of Cape Verde moves in the opposite direction of the Argentinian forward going with the ball straight to the goal. The central defender leaves the position in the middle to go on the side marking another forward that is already marked by a teammate (!), while the forward with the ball goes straight to the goal. That is a senseless behave, forced by the current default behave of the players.
I can provide a dozen of these examples per match, not always that evident, or that relevant.
I selected that case because it is easy to understand that “stupid” behave is due to the player behavioral default and not to the defense zone coverage decided by the manager.
Before the engine improvement, these illogical behaves could be avoided by managers.
Some tactic options as the “libero” or “filtering” midfielders have been affected a lot by the current setting. The exact position of these players in the field, is currently controlled better from opponent managers, than from their own managers. Not good.
I think the possibility of the managers to remove the “marking of opponent player without the ball behave” in players’ defense zones, would improve current setting removing a lot of irrational behaves, turning matches closer to reality.
If we would allow that, then we would have three options for defensive behave:
- Man-marking (we have 2 types of it available already).
- Active zone defending (the players actively seek for the closest opponent player in their defending zones to mark him, independently from ball possession, as it is now).
- Positional defending (the players control a zone only seeking for the ball or the player holding the ball; the update I’m proposing).
I hope my advice is persuasive enough now.
Mitaka (15:33, 20 NOV)
Cosmoanarca- Positional defending (the players control a zone only seeking for the ball or the player holding the ball; the update I’m proposing).

If I understand you well, we already commented it:
Cosmoanarca
MitakaCheckbox - "Attack only opponent with a ball"?
Is that
Yes.


If that is the same proposal - it is already implemented on my local server and it just waits the update. The update is delayed, because the player-distance-from-teammates is very complicated as interface. I'm close to finish it, but it still needs more work. When I'm ready - they will be applied together.
Cosmoanarca (18:48, 20 NOV)
Thanks for answering.
Great!
Yes, it is the same proposal.
I thought from your last comment that setting could stay as it is, so I wanted to be more convincing. :)
No problem for the time you need, of course.
Mitaka (18:52, 20 NOV)
It was about "fake-offsides". I have no clear idea there.
Mitaka (18:52, 20 NOV)
It was about "fake-offsides". I have no clear idea there.
Harrissonsml (18:57, 20 NOV)
Off-sides could be nice... The manager would have to be able to set the positions of the defenders and strikers...
And a option for a individual instruction for the players "pass foward"...
If is possible implement both, could be another great thing for the game!
Mentore (19:48, 20 NOV)
Harrissonsml (19:57, 20 NOV)

Il fuorigioco potrebbe essere carino ... L'allenatore dovrebbe essere in grado di impostare le posizioni dei difensori e degli attaccanti ...
E un'opzione per un'istruzione individuale per i giocatori "passo avanti" ...
Se è possibile implementare entrambi , potrebbe essere un'altra grande cosa per il gioco!

Concordo, ho detto una cosa simile un paio di giorni fa

Cosmoanarca (19:55, 20 NOV)
IMO We have a “functional” offside system that works.
Only once Cris showed me what it was 99% an “off-side” bug. I never noticed another one; but I don’t pay attention for.
We have no interruptions too, that in a 30 real minutes match is relevant and let us to enjoy the game better.
In Goleada it is like if in real football forwards would be all time long super effective in avoiding offside. I’m ok with that.
Axdron (20:08, 20 NOV)
I agree Cosmoanarca, always like how offside works on Goleada. Changing it can cause some problems, e.g., if a manager cannot see his match, his opponent may move his defense line forwards to set opponents strikers always on offside. Except if the engine hasn't some failsafe to prevent this, better don't touch...
Mentore (20:40, 20 NOV)
Axdron (21:08, 20 NOV)

Sono d'accordo Cosmoanarca , piace sempre come funziona il fuorigioco su Goleada. Cambiarlo può causare alcuni problemi, ad esempio, se un allenatore non può vedere la sua partita, il suo avversario può spostare la sua linea di difesa in avanti per mettere gli attaccanti avversari sempre in fuorigioco. Tranne se il motore non ha un dispositivo di sicurezza per impedirlo, meglio non toccare ...


Anche io ho sostenuto che il fuorigioco così com'è va bene ... quello di cui si parlava era la possibilità di dare ulteriori indicazioni tattiche ... cioè dire alla difesa di cercare di mettere in fuorigioco gli attaccanti e a questi di giocare sul filo del fuorigioco.

Non avrebbe ripercussioni su chi non può seguire la partita perchè il motore tende sempre a tenere i calciatori in gioco, la capacità degli attaccanti di non cadere in fuorigioco dipenderebbe dalla "DECISIONE" come quella dei difensori di riuscire a mettere in fuori gioco gli avversari.

Sulle interruzioni sono d'accordo a metà ... qualcuna in più renderebbe più realistica la partita, aumenterebbe la possibilità di modificare in corso di partita l'editor e renderebbe più usufruibile l'effort per chi ne volesse fare uso
Mentore (20:42, 20 NOV)
Axdron (21:08, 20 NOV)

Sono d'accordo Cosmoanarca , piace sempre come funziona il fuorigioco su Goleada. Cambiarlo può causare alcuni problemi, ad esempio, se un allenatore non può vedere la sua partita, il suo avversario può spostare la sua linea di difesa in avanti per mettere gli attaccanti avversari sempre in fuorigioco. Tranne se il motore non ha un dispositivo di sicurezza per impedirlo, meglio non toccare ...


Anche io ho sostenuto che il fuorigioco così com'è va bene ... quello di cui si parlava era la possibilità di dare ulteriori indicazioni tattiche ... cioè dire alla difesa di cercare di mettere in fuorigioco gli attaccanti e a questi di giocare sul filo del fuorigioco.

Non avrebbe ripercussioni su chi non può seguire la partita perchè il motore tende sempre a tenere i calciatori in gioco, la capacità degli attaccanti di non cadere in fuorigioco dipenderebbe dalla "DECISIONE" come quella dei difensori di riuscire a mettere in fuori gioco gli avversari.

Sulle interruzioni sono d'accordo a metà ... qualcuna in più renderebbe più realistica la partita, aumenterebbe la possibilità di modificare in corso di partita l'editor e renderebbe più usufruibile l'effort per chi ne volesse fare uso
Axdron (21:58, 20 NOV)
Mentore I think I’ve got it. In this case, tactics skills should work for both = the defenders will try to se the strikers in offside and strikers should try to still in regular position/search for empty spaces.
Mentore (22:02, 20 NOV)
Si esatto