Results 1 to 10 of 30
Like Tree22Likes

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: I dont understand this game and i am angry!!!

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #19
    Elite Tactician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactician View Post
    Ahlony Wong, this 'illegal formation' thing is something that I have never agreed with in this game. Like you said, you should be free to use whatever formation you want, that is there should be no penalty in these terms. However, if ever the formation is inappropriate to be used against a particular opponent, then of course it should be classified as inferior. In fact, in some cases, illegal formations have been observed to be superior. But, some people have mentioned the possible purpose of having the 'illegal formation' system. This might prevent unexpected outcomes (referred here by many users as 'troll' results). But, still 'troll results' have been occurring. So, this game might be fooling you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactician View Post
    Apparently, in the past, there was the illegal formation system in this game. The penalties imposed were apparently a reduction in possession. Some of it still appear to be there.

    The question is why should there be a penalty (whatever sort of penalty) just because you use of a formation that has at the back say only 2DC, followed by DMR and DML, or like you say a formation that has no ST. In fact, this make no sense, since playing with an extra midfielder instead of a ST might give you more ball possession, and also playing with DMR and DML might give you more ball possession. Penalties should be there only when the formation or orders you have selected are not appropriate for facing your next opponent. That is, reasons should be tactical or in terms of football, not just because a user did not make use of an ST or did not make use of at least 3 defenders..

    Of course if a team plays a formation where all the players (except the GK) are on the side, then there should be a penalty, but in that case, the formation should classified as tactically inappropriate, and the penalty imposed should be in relation to what is tactically wrong in that formation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactician View Post
    No, it is you who misunderstood me. I know what you mean, and yes players are not fixed about their positions. What I meant is if you face an opponent using a formation like GK-DL-DR-DML-DMR-ML-MR-AML-AMR-ST, then an appropriate penalty should apply in respect to what is wrong in there. If you think it that it is not possible to face such formations, just ask other 'old' users here and they will tell you up to what kind of strange formations they have faced.
    I have highlighted the parts. Yet, you say that I'm wrong. Based on your reply, you either misunderstood me or you did not read the posts well. What the author of this thread suggested in terms of penalties and what I have said are totally different.

    Take into consideration that this is a simulation game. There has to be things for the system to distinguish between what is good and what is wrong, and to apply appropriate penalties so that the final outcomes (match results) are logic. Whatever is happening on the pitch is based on whatever the game has decided there will be as final outcome. All variables are considered and a final overall decision is taken, and a simulated segment is sent for you see.

    I stop here for this because it seems that you don't want to see what has been really said, and what you did wrong in your replies to me.
    Last edited by Tactician; 04-22-2016 at 03:21 AM.
    quit this game (23/08/2015)
    started playing again (13/03/2016)
    quit this game (08/08/2016)
    playing (11/12/2016)
    quit this game (11/01/2017)
    playing (May 2017)
    quit this game (23/07/2017)
    playing (22/07/2018)
    quit this deceiving game (24/08/2018)
    playing (02/09/2019)
    Final Quit; Enough is Enough (10/12/2019)