What makes someone skilled at FIFA?

2

Comments

  • DanValletta
    1526 posts Play-Off Hero
    Seanregal wrote: »
    Unkplayer1 wrote: »
    To me I’m thinking more of defending? Like people who are skilled should know how to manual defend and also very good at it. Example, I love manual defending, but I am a average G3 player and conceive a lot

    Manual defending makes you fertile?

    :lol:
  • SPN1987
    2044 posts Fans' Favourite
    Seanregal wrote: »
    Unkplayer1 wrote: »
    To me I’m thinking more of defending? Like people who are skilled should know how to manual defend and also very good at it. Example, I love manual defending, but I am a average G3 player and conceive a lot

    Manual defending makes you fertile?

    This might be the main reason I'll never let my GF play FIFA. Having one kid is more than enough.... :D :D :D
  • Invincibility
    3426 posts National Call-Up
    Bankroll or trading 24/7
  • Mmandras
    1770 posts Play-Off Hero
    Using all the exploits and available game mechanics to your advantages. I know that won't be popular opinion, but that's what makes you good at competative computer games.
  • oneskyworld
    1025 posts Professional
    Nothing really just think how football is played and do nothing like it

    Funny thing is as soon as the new season started, I played worse than before.
    Guess I watched too much real football, and trying to mimic it in the game. 😁
  • lIlIlIlIlIl
    2959 posts National Call-Up
    Just some drunken esoteric meta-analysis rambling ahead.

    One could posit the ontological argument that FIFA is a textbook dynamical system; a nonlinear chaotic entity soaring exponentially as small initial changes, disturbances and errors rapidly snowballs into the realm of unpredictability. And that's not wrong, yet personally I prefer linearity and reductionistic models (as any sane person!)

    Whilst the former is true for each and every single game of FIFA, I find it all incredibly linear and thus very much deterministic-- even in the long run. The broken mechanics is the common denominator! And unequivocally so (as shown by Tekkz)-- the more you abuse them in a well timed fashion, the better you fare.

    So as success correlates with skill; we can extrapolate that to succeed we need to at least:
    (A) employ every broken mechanic in the game;
    (B) gracefully time them.

    The player that does A+B best will always win in the long run. Which answers the question!

    Your spellcheck must be of the utmost quality. What is reductionistic though? I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.

    I needn't delve into the metaphysics here but essentially reductionism is an epistemological method of solving--often abstruse and arduous problems--by elimination and simplification of sets into smaller parts. Children do it every day through Calculus--most of them are completely oblivious to its implications ;)

    One familiar example of reductionism is Occam's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
  • Nodge86
    1001 posts Professional
    Mmandras wrote: »
    Using all the exploits and available game mechanics to your advantages. I know that won't be popular opinion, but that's what makes you good at competative computer games.

    This is the ONLY thing that makes you good, or not good if you don’t use them. Forget all your ‘football should be played like...’ or any of your delusions. You’re good at Any game if you’re good at utilising the exploits and mechanics of that game. Rightly or not. That’s all.
  • DanValletta
    1526 posts Play-Off Hero
    Just some drunken esoteric meta-analysis rambling ahead.

    One could posit the ontological argument that FIFA is a textbook dynamical system; a nonlinear chaotic entity soaring exponentially as small initial changes, disturbances and errors rapidly snowballs into the realm of unpredictability. And that's not wrong, yet personally I prefer linearity and reductionistic models (as any sane person!)

    Whilst the former is true for each and every single game of FIFA, I find it all incredibly linear and thus very much deterministic-- even in the long run. The broken mechanics is the common denominator! And unequivocally so (as shown by Tekkz)-- the more you abuse them in a well timed fashion, the better you fare.

    So as success correlates with skill; we can extrapolate that to succeed we need to at least:
    (A) employ every broken mechanic in the game;
    (B) gracefully time them.

    The player that does A+B best will always win in the long run. Which answers the question!

    Your spellcheck must be of the utmost quality. What is reductionistic though? I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.

    I needn't delve into the metaphysics here but essentially reductionism is an epistemological method of solving--often abstruse and arduous problems--by elimination and simplification of sets into smaller parts. Children do it every day through Calculus--most of them are completely oblivious to its implications ;)

    One familiar example of reductionism is Occam's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    Thank you for the explanation Russ. :smile:
  • lIlIlIlIlIl
    2959 posts National Call-Up
    Just some drunken esoteric meta-analysis rambling ahead.

    One could posit the ontological argument that FIFA is a textbook dynamical system; a nonlinear chaotic entity soaring exponentially as small initial changes, disturbances and errors rapidly snowballs into the realm of unpredictability. And that's not wrong, yet personally I prefer linearity and reductionistic models (as any sane person!)

    Whilst the former is true for each and every single game of FIFA, I find it all incredibly linear and thus very much deterministic-- even in the long run. The broken mechanics is the common denominator! And unequivocally so (as shown by Tekkz)-- the more you abuse them in a well timed fashion, the better you fare.

    So as success correlates with skill; we can extrapolate that to succeed we need to at least:
    (A) employ every broken mechanic in the game;
    (B) gracefully time them.

    The player that does A+B best will always win in the long run. Which answers the question!

    Your spellcheck must be of the utmost quality. What is reductionistic though? I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.

    I needn't delve into the metaphysics here but essentially reductionism is an epistemological method of solving--often abstruse and arduous problems--by elimination and simplification of sets into smaller parts. Children do it every day through Calculus--most of them are completely oblivious to its implications ;)

    One familiar example of reductionism is Occam's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    Thank you for the explanation Russ. :smile:

    You're welcome. Although I don't know what Russ means!
  • PirateW
    127 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Succeeding without icons.
  • JWNYsg
    682 posts An Exciting Prospect
    it's a little bit of mind power also

    some of you may think it's scripting but to get into positions to score last minute or kick off goals generally require some form of skill

    for example, someone letting in a goal at the 88th minute may give up and shrug the comeback but another person may react differently and find that elusive equaliser to take the game further.
  • Cortza
    845 posts Professional
    I've played about 1,000 games this year and whilst I've lost my fair share to mechanics abusers...one of the most one sided games I've played all year was against someone who was brilliantly patient at passing the ball about. I couldn't get near his players and he just tore me apart attack after attack. So I think actually choosing your timings are very important...before exploiting timed finishing and first time shots.
  • Colt_seevers
    1076 posts Professional
    Just some drunken esoteric meta-analysis rambling ahead.

    One could posit the ontological argument that FIFA is a textbook dynamical system; a nonlinear chaotic entity soaring exponentially as small initial changes, disturbances and errors rapidly snowballs into the realm of unpredictability. And that's not wrong, yet personally I prefer linearity and reductionistic models (as any sane person!)

    Whilst the former is true for each and every single game of FIFA, I find it all incredibly linear and thus very much deterministic-- even in the long run. The broken mechanics is the common denominator! And unequivocally so (as shown by Tekkz)-- the more you abuse them in a well timed fashion, the better you fare.

    So as success correlates with skill; we can extrapolate that to succeed we need to at least:
    (A) employ every broken mechanic in the game;
    (B) gracefully time them.

    The player that does A+B best will always win in the long run. Which answers the question!

    Your spellcheck must be of the utmost quality. What is reductionistic though? I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.

    I needn't delve into the metaphysics here but essentially reductionism is an epistemological method of solving--often abstruse and arduous problems--by elimination and simplification of sets into smaller parts. Children do it every day through Calculus--most of them are completely oblivious to its implications ;)

    One familiar example of reductionism is Occam's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    Well that was helpful...
  • Jpo41
    795 posts Semi-Pro
    Instead of passing the ball around looking for the open shot, when you get the ball first time 180 that ball 9/10 it is in
  • JayyThunder
    4264 posts Big Money Move
    Defending without having to sprint back with a midfielder when you have all 4 defenders back. If you don’t do this, I automatically rank you as an inferior player. EA hand hold so much with defending this year it’s ridiculous. If they EVER decide to make defending more difficult, half the player base would be screwed.
  • Orison
    47601 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Defending without having to sprint back with a midfielder when you have all 4 defenders back. If you don’t do this, I automatically rank you as an inferior player. EA hand hold so much with defending this year it’s ridiculous. If they EVER decide to make defending more difficult, half the player base would be screwed.

    The half that would be screwed is the half that isn't great this year either. The people who are good now would be screwed for a few days/weeks and then they would have adapted and be elite/top 100 again.
  • lIlIlIlIlIl
    2959 posts National Call-Up
    Just some drunken esoteric meta-analysis rambling ahead.

    One could posit the ontological argument that FIFA is a textbook dynamical system; a nonlinear chaotic entity soaring exponentially as small initial changes, disturbances and errors rapidly snowballs into the realm of unpredictability. And that's not wrong, yet personally I prefer linearity and reductionistic models (as any sane person!)

    Whilst the former is true for each and every single game of FIFA, I find it all incredibly linear and thus very much deterministic-- even in the long run. The broken mechanics is the common denominator! And unequivocally so (as shown by Tekkz)-- the more you abuse them in a well timed fashion, the better you fare.

    So as success correlates with skill; we can extrapolate that to succeed we need to at least:
    (A) employ every broken mechanic in the game;
    (B) gracefully time them.

    The player that does A+B best will always win in the long run. Which answers the question!

    Your spellcheck must be of the utmost quality. What is reductionistic though? I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.

    I needn't delve into the metaphysics here but essentially reductionism is an epistemological method of solving--often abstruse and arduous problems--by elimination and simplification of sets into smaller parts. Children do it every day through Calculus--most of them are completely oblivious to its implications ;)

    One familiar example of reductionism is Occam's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    Well that was helpful...

    Which part did you find confusing?
Sign In or Register to comment.