FIFA 20 - FAST VS SLOW GAMEPLAY DEBATE

Comments

  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    edited August 23
    @3MenandaBebe One touch passing up the field using 7 or 8 players stringing together a fast passing game. Yes, brilliant stuff and can be replicated in a slower version of fifa. Not laser precision pass blinfly shoved upfield from a cb to a triangle of cam and two sts who do the mechanical brain dead interchange for a goal.

    Quick passing and breaking is viable in a slow game. In fact I'd argue it takes more skill than pushing the stick to the opponents goal and pressing pass hard for it to fall blinfly at the feet of your stay forward trio.
  • 3MenandaBebe
    2252 posts Fans' Favourite
    madwullie wrote: »
    @3MenandaBebe One touch passing up the field using 7 or 8 players stringing together a fast passing game. Yes, brilliant stuff and can be replicated in a slower version of fifa. Not laser precision pass blinfly shoved upfield from a cb to a triangle of cam and two sts who do the mechanical brain dead interchange for a goal.

    Quick passing and breaking is viable in a slow game. In fact I'd argue it takes more skill than pushing the stick to the opponents goal and pressing pass hard for it to fall blinfly at the feet of your stay forward trio.

    That’s just tactics, irrelevant of game speed

    Go back and watch Barcelona when Neymar was there. Defending corners with Messi/ney/Suarez ready to break.


    Fifa is obviously an arcade game and not close to real football but this thread is full of utter rubbish.

    The slower you are (in real football, or in Fifa or in life in General), the worse you are. It’s just a fact.


  • Pocketsquareguy
    4847 posts Big Money Move
    Lol you guys are funny.

    The best teams plays extraordinarily quickly. Man City. Liverpool. Barcelona. 1 touch passing, great movement. first time finishes.

    Most teams are not great teams. And they play slower football. It’s why they aren’t top teams

    Almost everyone in this thread is a terrible Fifa player who wants a slower game so your slower brains can think. awww.

    You can still play a fast style within slower game play. It isn’t a matter of because gameplay is slow you have to play slow. Yes the game unfolds more slowly, but you can still whatever style you want. It just requires you to think about how you want to play more. Instead of just only relying on muscle memory of what is op like fifa 19.
  • 3MenandaBebe
    2252 posts Fans' Favourite
    Lol you guys are funny.

    The best teams plays extraordinarily quickly. Man City. Liverpool. Barcelona. 1 touch passing, great movement. first time finishes.

    Most teams are not great teams. And they play slower football. It’s why they aren’t top teams

    Almost everyone in this thread is a terrible Fifa player who wants a slower game so your slower brains can think. awww.

    You can still play a fast style within slower game play. It isn’t a matter of because gameplay is slow you have to play slow. Yes the game unfolds more slowly, but you can still whatever style you want. It just requires you to think about how you want to play more. Instead of just only relying on muscle memory of what is op like fifa 19.

    That’s my point my friend.

    It doesn’t matter what ea do. The people who are fastest will still win. If you’re a silver 1 player (most of thread judging by the comments). You will still be silver 1 in a slower version because the people faster than you will still beat you.

    It doesn’t matter if they nerf heading for example. something else will exist.

    It’s like in real life, it’s common to have 2 inside forwards, overlapping full backs and 2x number 8’s creating an overload on one side.

    The faster teams can defend well. The worse teams can’t.

    Hence, if you’re a slower player, you will always suck, it doesn’t matter how ea change the speed of the game
  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    Did you play the beta mate? I clearly stated I was winning and losing in both versions we had. The losses in the slow tended because I'd been ripped apart, the wins in the slow tender to be because I'd used incisive passing to open up defences. Wins in the fast were from replicating moves from 19 with the added bonus of rebound goals. Defeats in the fast was due to players abusing fifa 19.tactics - mainly defending with their sts and cdms and allowing the ai to defend the cbs for them.

    One version was a brand new game with endless possibilities, the other was fifa 19 minus chained skill moves.

    Fifa 19 is generally accepted (although I actually disagree) as being the worst fifa for a long while.why would we want a refresh of that same game.

    If it makes you feel superior to believe those hoping for a slower more thoughtful game are just trash 5heb you should go for it. In my experience that didn't seem to be the case.
  • Pablofsi08
    392 posts Sunday League Hero
    madwullie wrote: »
    @3MenandaBebe One touch passing up the field using 7 or 8 players stringing together a fast passing game. Yes, brilliant stuff and can be replicated in a slower version of fifa. Not laser precision pass blinfly shoved upfield from a cb to a triangle of cam and two sts who do the mechanical brain dead interchange for a goal.

    Quick passing and breaking is viable in a slow game. In fact I'd argue it takes more skill than pushing the stick to the opponents goal and pressing pass hard for it to fall blinfly at the feet of your stay forward trio.

    That’s just tactics, irrelevant of game speed

    Go back and watch Barcelona when Neymar was there. Defending corners with Messi/ney/Suarez ready to break.


    Fifa is obviously an arcade game and not close to real football but this thread is full of utter rubbish.

    The slower you are (in real football, or in Fifa or in life in General), the worse you are. It’s just a fact.


    You are wrong. That is an one dimensional, short sight and fake assumption. When you play a fighting game you realize this. Same when you fist fight in real life. It's not about doing barrages of things as quickly as possible, because that will only get you knocked out by a guy who controls his rhythm and has deeper understanding of stuff and mechanics if we are talking about a fighting game. If you just berserk with a flurry of attacks the rival will, in a slower (then he will surprise with a faster movement), more composed pace he will find an opening in your flurry which will knock you out. This is because he is managing his pace which means he's less predictable than you (because when you throw punches always in the same points of time the rival already knows when you are going to throw the punch) and you are a slave to your pace. It's the same on Fifa. He can also make use of other types of attacks and combinations, structures of attacks/plans of attack which are more intrincate in time and vision that make use of different paces. Of course this is about the structure and planning of attacks and does not refer to attack speed in itself, which is the factor that would be the parallel of your assumption.

    If the game is structured (namely: correcting AI defending and positioning so that it doesn't leave **** positional gaps so that casuals can find a shooting profile more often, removing that weird delay you have after switching to a defender with the right stick before you can switch to the next one, and stopping defenders and CDMs from doing some **** things on defense) in such a way that it allows you to defend well manually, you can easily stop these first time first option passing games. They have no planning behind, and this is what people who ask for a slower game are asking for, for that planning to be valid for them, and for casuals to not be able to be riskier than them just by quick passing around mindlessly. They want to build more complex passing structures and plans, and if they have more vision of that they should win, just like in the example above.

    But that should not be achieved by slowing down the game, it should be achieved by correcting what's hindering your ability to defend more accurately and timely.
  • 3MenandaBebe
    2252 posts Fans' Favourite
    Pablofsi08 wrote: »
    madwullie wrote: »
    @3MenandaBebe One touch passing up the field using 7 or 8 players stringing together a fast passing game. Yes, brilliant stuff and can be replicated in a slower version of fifa. Not laser precision pass blinfly shoved upfield from a cb to a triangle of cam and two sts who do the mechanical brain dead interchange for a goal.

    Quick passing and breaking is viable in a slow game. In fact I'd argue it takes more skill than pushing the stick to the opponents goal and pressing pass hard for it to fall blinfly at the feet of your stay forward trio.

    That’s just tactics, irrelevant of game speed

    Go back and watch Barcelona when Neymar was there. Defending corners with Messi/ney/Suarez ready to break.


    Fifa is obviously an arcade game and not close to real football but this thread is full of utter rubbish.

    The slower you are (in real football, or in Fifa or in life in General), the worse you are. It’s just a fact.


    You are wrong. That is an one dimensional, short sight and fake assumption. When you play a fighting game you realize this. Same when you fist fight in real life. It's not about doing barrages of things as quickly as possible, because that will only get you knocked out by a guy who controls his rhythm and has deeper understanding of stuff and mechanics if we are talking about a fighting game. If you just berserk with a flurry of attacks the rival will, in a slower (then he will surprise with a faster movement), more composed pace he will find an opening in your flurry which will knock you out. This is because he is managing his pace which means he's less predictable than you (because when you throw punches always in the same points of time the rival already knows when you are going to throw the punch) and you are a slave to your pace. It's the same on Fifa. He can also make use of other types of attacks and combinations, structures of attacks/plans of attack which are more intrincate in time and vision that make use of different paces. Of course this is about the structure and planning of attacks and does not refer to attack speed in itself, which is the factor that would be the parallel of your assumption.

    If the game is structured (namely: correcting AI defending and positioning so that it doesn't leave **** positional gaps so that casuals can find a shooting profile more often, removing that weird delay you have after switching to a defender with the right stick before you can switch to the next one, and stopping defenders and CDMs from doing some **** things on defense) in such a way that it allows you to defend well manually, you can easily stop these first time first option passing games. They have no planning behind, and this is what people who ask for a slower game are asking for, for that planning to be valid for them, and for casuals to not be able to be riskier than them just by quick passing around mindlessly. They want to build more complex passing structures and plans, and if they have more vision of that they should win, just like in the example above.

    But that should not be achieved by slowing down the game, it should be achieved by correcting what's hindering your ability to defend more accurately and timely.

    No sir. You’re completely and utterly wrong in every single way. It’s actually laughable at the lack of intelligence you display. I’ll explain.

    With skill levels mismatched. The slower fighter can win because they are simply better. We’re not talking about mismatched skill level. Speed or style don’t really one into it. I could play against a d5 player on Fifa and win with 11 defenders restricting myself to only scoring with chip shots because the skill is so different.

    At even skill, that’s not the case. Muhammad Ali won consistently against his peers and he was equal to them in a lot of aspects and faster in many too.

    Maybe come up with a metaphor that is actually true next time
  • Pablofsi08
    392 posts Sunday League Hero
    Pablofsi08 wrote: »
    madwullie wrote: »
    @3MenandaBebe One touch passing up the field using 7 or 8 players stringing together a fast passing game. Yes, brilliant stuff and can be replicated in a slower version of fifa. Not laser precision pass blinfly shoved upfield from a cb to a triangle of cam and two sts who do the mechanical brain dead interchange for a goal.

    Quick passing and breaking is viable in a slow game. In fact I'd argue it takes more skill than pushing the stick to the opponents goal and pressing pass hard for it to fall blinfly at the feet of your stay forward trio.

    That’s just tactics, irrelevant of game speed

    Go back and watch Barcelona when Neymar was there. Defending corners with Messi/ney/Suarez ready to break.


    Fifa is obviously an arcade game and not close to real football but this thread is full of utter rubbish.

    The slower you are (in real football, or in Fifa or in life in General), the worse you are. It’s just a fact.


    You are wrong. That is an one dimensional, short sight and fake assumption. When you play a fighting game you realize this. Same when you fist fight in real life. It's not about doing barrages of things as quickly as possible, because that will only get you knocked out by a guy who controls his rhythm and has deeper understanding of stuff and mechanics if we are talking about a fighting game. If you just berserk with a flurry of attacks the rival will, in a slower (then he will surprise with a faster movement), more composed pace he will find an opening in your flurry which will knock you out. This is because he is managing his pace which means he's less predictable than you (because when you throw punches always in the same points of time the rival already knows when you are going to throw the punch) and you are a slave to your pace. It's the same on Fifa. He can also make use of other types of attacks and combinations, structures of attacks/plans of attack which are more intrincate in time and vision that make use of different paces. Of course this is about the structure and planning of attacks and does not refer to attack speed in itself, which is the factor that would be the parallel of your assumption.

    If the game is structured (namely: correcting AI defending and positioning so that it doesn't leave **** positional gaps so that casuals can find a shooting profile more often, removing that weird delay you have after switching to a defender with the right stick before you can switch to the next one, and stopping defenders and CDMs from doing some **** things on defense) in such a way that it allows you to defend well manually, you can easily stop these first time first option passing games. They have no planning behind, and this is what people who ask for a slower game are asking for, for that planning to be valid for them, and for casuals to not be able to be riskier than them just by quick passing around mindlessly. They want to build more complex passing structures and plans, and if they have more vision of that they should win, just like in the example above.

    But that should not be achieved by slowing down the game, it should be achieved by correcting what's hindering your ability to defend more accurately and timely.

    No sir. You’re completely and utterly wrong in every single way. It’s actually laughable at the lack of intelligence you display. I’ll explain.

    With skill levels mismatched. The slower fighter can win because they are simply better. We’re not talking about mismatched skill level. Speed or style don’t really one into it. I could play against a d5 player on Fifa and win with 11 defenders restricting myself to only scoring with chip shots because the skill is so different.

    At even skill, that’s not the case. Muhammad Ali won consistently against his peers and he was equal to them in a lot of aspects and faster in many too.

    Maybe come up with a metaphor that is actually true next time

    No, you are the one who lacks enough vision to understand what I'm saying.

    You are putting an example of two fighters who both have a knowledge and planning of their next moves in equal conditions. That is not the case in Fifa between a player who barely understands passes structuring and just does first touch first option passes all the time one that does understand it. The first one will not know when to vary and won't know when to expect the next pass and thus won't know where, the second one is reading his rival well. The first player is dumb and is not on par with knowledge about the build up game. So they aren't both at the same level.

    Regarding Fifa we are talking about that level versus that level. These are two types of casual players we can identify easily.

    Now when BOTH players know how to compose more intricate pass strings and are experienced at the game believe me, both know how to defend against each other and both know how to stop first intention pass strings. The fastest player does NOT win necessarily, have you actually watched tournaments? Both players are usually fast and as fast as the rival. But people stop often to find other openings sending the ball to the opposite side of the pitch because the rival IS ALREADY POSITIONED TO INTERCEPT/MARK THEIR NEXT PASS, which is the first pass option they can find. They turn around often to protect the ball and change the direction they will attack from. This is all NOT THE FASTEST POSSIBLE pass combinations you can make. Those are also the first ones that are blocked. And this proves that at least on Fifa, speed isn't the deciding factor. And it should only be in cases where you surprise the opponent.

    I made a comparison with fighting because the illustration was useful to make my point understandable. Your example of two fighters (one being Muhammad) being completely on par with each other regarding experience and understanding wasn't parallel at all with two casual players on Fifa so you didn't really understand the context but forgiving that, I gotta tell you something so you finally wake up: you cannot reflect Ali's speed advantage on Fifa. It depends on Ali being trained to a point his body speed and reflexes (and understanding) are superior to his rivals'. You cannot produce the same result on Fifa since all animations have the same speed for both players. You will never be able to reflect a "unique" speed on Fifa so this debate is actually over at that point. Let me burst your bubble here: all you can do with quick first touch first passing options is give me the ball if I know the game a little bit. However, if you compose it more then maybe you will be able to get past my defense.
  • Antiversum
    5763 posts Big Money Move
    madwullie wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    You forgot the con of slow gameplay being awfully boring to play.

    And for me a lot more things than just passing play into fast gameplay. You can pass as quickly as you want, spam your X/A button until it falls out, fifa 19 will still remain an awfully slow game.

    Dribbling needs to be so much better than it is. Attackers shouldn’t slow down to snails pace to let defenders catch up. If dribbling was better you could actually use it and time your turns. Now there is nothing to do apart from doing a la croqueta or pass the ball off. You simply can't turn with the player.

    In an even slower game this would only get amplified, because quick turning would require quick actions (also from the defender) and would automatically increase gameplay speed. Dribbling would be completely dead in a slower game and considering we are still looking at a videogame I much prefer a quicker game over one that requires you to hold possession and pass back and forth, because it's too slow to move around.

    A slow game doesn't necessarily mean that fast defenders can't break through. Sure, they're slow, but the defender chasing them is also slow relative to the attackers speed, so the attacker still. Breaks through

    Not taking side for either fast or slow (I leave that kindergarten to you guys) but this is the most important sentence in this thread yet.
  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    Yeah that should say fast attackers not fast defenders. Oh well, hopefully the concept was clear anyway.
  • NathW90
    367 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited August 24
    It's not a fast vs slow debate, it's realism vs unrealistic, ridiculous, not-actually-football bull****.

    The fact someone was rambling about how FIFA 19 is too slow just shows how idiotic the FIFA community is. The game is on ****ing fast forward.

    The kiddies want ridiculous 5 star skills all over the gaff, fast forward gameplay and 11 Kante's closing down at full tilt the entire game, and that's what they get. It's why the game is a joke and a terrible imitation of the sport it's supposed to be based on, and it's why EA and FIFA can get ****ed this year and I'll be buying a real football game in PES.

    Oh, and for the child above - imagine being so dumb and biased that you actually try and argue in favour of FIFA's game speed realism. What a complete fool.
  • I have for years struggled to understand why EA don't use the same gamespeed as h2h seasons, it is perfect. It isn't too slow and it certainly isn't too fast. On h2h seasons you can actually play football.
  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    I have for years struggled to understand why EA don't use the same gamespeed as h2h seasons, it is perfect. It isn't too slow and it certainly isn't too fast. On h2h seasons you can actually play football.

    I've always felt that both speeds are the same, but the ridiculous boosts the fut cards get from chem is what makes it so rapid. But what they did with the beta really changed my mind in that regard.
  • Pablofsi08
    392 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited August 24
    madwullie wrote: »
    I have for years struggled to understand why EA don't use the same gamespeed as h2h seasons, it is perfect. It isn't too slow and it certainly isn't too fast. On h2h seasons you can actually play football.

    I've always felt that both speeds are the same, but the ridiculous boosts the fut cards get from chem is what makes it so rapid. But what they did with the beta really changed my mind in that regard.

    Exactly this, and the fact that there's higher input delay on FUT, meaning that your defenders' reaction is hindered while kiddies who just send blind filtered passes is boosted, giving an image of players being faster.

    And the higher input delay compared to out of FUT Seasons happens because FUT uses stupid 90's netcode technology servers while Seasons actually uses P2P netcode, which halves the delay servers give you under the same latency.
  • Orison
    47625 posts FIFA Cover Star
    NathW90 wrote: »
    It's not a fast vs slow debate, it's realism vs unrealistic, ridiculous, not-actually-football bull****.

    The fact someone was rambling about how FIFA 19 is too slow just shows how idiotic the FIFA community is. The game is on ****ing fast forward.

    The kiddies want ridiculous 5 star skills all over the gaff, fast forward gameplay and 11 Kante's closing down at full tilt the entire game, and that's what they get. It's why the game is a joke and a terrible imitation of the sport it's supposed to be based on, and it's why EA and FIFA can get ****ed this year and I'll be buying a real football game in PES.

    Oh, and for the child above - imagine being so dumb and biased that you actually try and argue in favour of FIFA's game speed realism. What a complete fool.

    @NathW90 it's kinda funny that the people who aren't good at the game want a "realistic" RNG fest instead of a skillbased game :trollface:
  • Empyrium7
    2762 posts Fans' Favourite
    edited August 24
    some people assume that if you are asking for a game that simulate football, and feel realistic, then you are a 75 years old grandpa playing in DIV 10 and can't press two buttons at the same time.
  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    These discussions are always reduced to this level on here. It's frustrating because it means nothing can ever seriously be discussed.

    oh well you want the tifos to predominantly have checked patterns rather than stripes, that means you clearly play drop back 1 depth and spend the entire game defending with tots mbappe who you start at cdm

    oh really, well you want the game to reflect a game of football more than a twitch reaction 21st century computer game, therefore you favour multiple la croqueta and get your kicks hanging outside primary schools during the holidays .

    It's possible to be good at the game but to prefer a slower more deliberate build up, just as people who like fast action won't necessarily all be elite level players banging out El tornados as easy as eating their dinner.
  • Benja190782
    1255 posts Professional
    I’m sorry @3MenandaBebe and @Orison but @Pablofsi08 and @Empyrium7 are right.

    The core about this slow vs. fast gameplay is simple.

    The speed freaks think fast gameplay means more skill gap because they can pass from defence to attack with four blind passes. The problem is that @3MenandaBebe and @Orison forget that everybody can spam the pass button, and get rewarded for it. Why?

    Because passing and shooting is so heavy assisted that it does matter if you hit the right angle or the right power. The assisted controls will hold your hand anyway.

    What @3MenandaBebe and @Orison doesn’t realise is that all this ping pong passing followed by a blind first time shot has absolutely NOTHING to do with them being good at fast gameplay.
    Anybody can abuse broken game mechanics, and rely on fast reactions. Which brings us on to the next topic.

    All humans are born with nearly the same set of reaction time. The difference between us are very small. What all humans are NOT born with is vision/composure, tactical awareness, and football knowledge in general.

    The main thing about FIFA is: we all want responsive player movement and no lag to feel the game 1 to 1.
    Then some of us like simulation, and some like arcade. It doesn’t tell anything about your reaction time. Which like I said is not that different between any of us anyway.

    Now if FIFA was meant to be an real E-sport and was played without assists like every other E-sport.
    This thread was never needed, because @3MenandaBebe and @Orison and 60% of the entire fifa crowd, wasn’t able to ping pong pass their way through the game while feeling proud.

    So to sum this up. The main problem isn’t nessesary the gameplay speed, (as it’s different to what players you have in your squad anyway) the main problem is people that think they have godlike reactions are rewarded for assisted ping pong passing and broken first time shots.

    I have no clue how these speed freaks can’t see that. Sorry but quick reactions is nothing to be proud of when your not controlling the passes and shots yourself.

    Defending controls being manual and attacking controls being assisted doesn’t make any sence, but that’s another story...

  • Orison
    47625 posts FIFA Cover Star
    What people don't realize is that good players will always adapt.

    Slow gameplay, fast gameplay, assisted, more manual, good players will remain above the rest in the long run (maybe after an adjustment period).

    It's about making the game fun and also reducing random moments that are able to decide one off games. Over 10 games, 30 games, 50 games the good player will always come out on top, but in a one off game he can lose to far inferior players to some random bs.

    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.
  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    edited August 24
    Orison wrote: »
    What people don't realize is that good players will always adapt.

    Slow gameplay, fast gameplay, assisted, more manual, good players will remain above the rest in the long run (maybe after an adjustment period).

    It's about making the game fun and also reducing random moments that are able to decide one off games. Over 10 games, 30 games, 50 games the good player will always come out on top, but in a one off game he can lose to far inferior players to some random bs.

    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.

    I do realise that mate. I don't think if the game was made how I'd like it to be I'd suddenly be banging out elite finishes. I'm a gold 1/2 player. I'll always be a gold 1/2 player. It'd be nice to be a gold 1/2 player in a game that I enjoy all year because skills that I believe to be important in a football computer game (defending, passing, breaking down defences) are actually important and it doesn't become clear around January that strength, height and a willingness /ability to learn how to use mechanics/ exploits to an extremely skilled level are more important than what I would want to be important, and in fact are even more important than the numbers on the cards we spend all year collecting.

    From what I experienced in the beta the first build brought varied playstyle considered build up and solid beatings from players who were better at playing this game than me. The second much faster build brought headless chickens, predictable overused build up patterns, mechanic abuse and solid beatings from people who were better at gaming this software than me.
  • Orison
    47625 posts FIFA Cover Star
    madwullie wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    What people don't realize is that good players will always adapt.

    Slow gameplay, fast gameplay, assisted, more manual, good players will remain above the rest in the long run (maybe after an adjustment period).

    It's about making the game fun and also reducing random moments that are able to decide one off games. Over 10 games, 30 games, 50 games the good player will always come out on top, but in a one off game he can lose to far inferior players to some random bs.

    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.

    I do realise that mate. I don't think if the game was made how I'd like it to be I'd suddenly be banging out elite finishes. I'm a gold 1/2 player. I'll always be a gold 1/2 player. It'd be nice to be a gold 1/2 player in a game that I enjoy all year because skills that I believe to be important in a football computer game (defending, passing, breaking down defences) are actually important and it doesn't become clear around January that strength, height and a willingness /ability to learn how to use mechanics/ exploits to an extremely skilled level are more important than what I would want to be important, and in fact are even more important than the numbers on the cards we spend all year collecting.

    From what I experienced in the beta the first build brought varied playstyle considered build up and solid beatings from players who were better at playing this game than me. The second much faster build brought headless chickens, predictable overused build up patterns, mechanic abuse and solid beatings from people who were better at gaming this software than me.

    The 2nd version of the beta had a far larger skill gap than the first one. The first version was way too slow. Even the 2nd version is arguably still too slow. It allows for people to hold the ball forever and it also makes drop back super op.
  • Benja190782
    1255 posts Professional
    edited August 24
    Orison wrote: »
    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.

    @Orison
    Let me get this straight. You actually like the fast ping pong passing and blind first time shots?
    In other words, you think the fun is taken out of the game, if it becomes harder to pass/shoot, as hitting the target with the right speed and angle is done completely by your own inputs?

    I don’t think full manual controls will change everything... I know it would.
    That’s why I’ve suggested multiple times, that EA should adjust it to semi-assisted, for people to get used to handle things on their own on the virtual football pitch in FIFA.
  • madwullie
    4149 posts National Call-Up
    Orison wrote: »
    madwullie wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    What people don't realize is that good players will always adapt.

    Slow gameplay, fast gameplay, assisted, more manual, good players will remain above the rest in the long run (maybe after an adjustment period).

    It's about making the game fun and also reducing random moments that are able to decide one off games. Over 10 games, 30 games, 50 games the good player will always come out on top, but in a one off game he can lose to far inferior players to some random bs.

    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.

    I do realise that mate. I don't think if the game was made how I'd like it to be I'd suddenly be banging out elite finishes. I'm a gold 1/2 player. I'll always be a gold 1/2 player. It'd be nice to be a gold 1/2 player in a game that I enjoy all year because skills that I believe to be important in a football computer game (defending, passing, breaking down defences) are actually important and it doesn't become clear around January that strength, height and a willingness /ability to learn how to use mechanics/ exploits to an extremely skilled level are more important than what I would want to be important, and in fact are even more important than the numbers on the cards we spend all year collecting.

    From what I experienced in the beta the first build brought varied playstyle considered build up and solid beatings from players who were better at playing this game than me. The second much faster build brought headless chickens, predictable overused build up patterns, mechanic abuse and solid beatings from people who were better at gaming this software than me.

    The 2nd version of the beta had a far larger skill gap than the first one. The first version was way too slow. Even the 2nd version is arguably still too slow. It allows for people to hold the ball forever and it also makes drop back super op.

    Drop back may have been op at the back but it was impossible to get upfield quickly enough using it. As it should be with drop back.

    There are ways to make it more difficult to keep possession rather than just cranking it up to the game we've been playing (and most have been hating) since September last year.

    It feels like they dipped their toes in the water of trying something new, got a few negative responses and shat themselves back to fifa 19. Which is hated.

    I would say the first version had varied skill gaps. The second version has 1 skill gap - how quickly you can press the buttons on a controller. It doesn't need to be this way, but while people are scared of change and having to spend a couple of weeks learning a new game, we will always be swerved up a slightly different version of the game most people hated last year, and hate it, and hate EA for releasing it. 🤷‍♂️
  • Orison
    47625 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Orison wrote: »
    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.

    @Orison
    Let me get this straight. You actually like the fast ping pong passing and blind first time shots?
    In other words, you think the fun is taken out of the game, if it becomes harder to pass/shoot, as hitting the target with the right speed and angle is done completely by your own inputs?

    I don’t think full manual controls will change everything... I know it would.
    That’s why I’ve suggested multiple times, that EA should adjust it to semi-assisted, for people to get used to handle things on their own on the virtual football pitch in FIFA.

    That's not what I said.

    But yes I much prefer a free flowing and fast paced game over one in which you turn 10x just to find a good passing angle for your manual pass. Manual passing would make the game so incredibly slow while people were trying to find good passing angles, it would be laughable.

    And then manual shooting goes with it. It could work in a very slow paced game in which you have time to aim and what not, it would never work in a fast paced game.

    I don't want a slower game (which would happen with manual or semi manual controls), I want a faster one. The skill gap shouldn't be in holding the ball forever trying to pick the safest option. It should be in making the right decisions quickly. It's a video game, not a boredom simulator.
  • RadioShaq
    14886 posts Moderator
    Slow or fast doesn’t even really matter. It’s possession and passing that is to easy. I don’t think I’ve ever thought in any of the fifas it was hard to hold 70-80 percent possession. That includes the older ping pong lby years.
  • Covkilla91mob
    230 posts Sunday League Hero
    RadioShaq wrote: »
    Slow or fast doesn’t even really matter. It’s possession and passing that is to easy. I don’t think I’ve ever thought in any of the fifas it was hard to hold 70-80 percent possession. That includes the older ping pong lby years.

    Imo possesion is most skillful play as it requires composed play and little error leads to counters and there always easy compared to build up except 18 which had good finishing and passing that made sense and runs .

    19 feels like it's on rails and each game has very linear runs imo,I had nice tactics on fifa that was just right for my style of play .

    Now tactics have less detail and make games more boring and AI runs and movement feels so repetitive .

    Also speed does matter as slow gameplay never helps in 12min games we want real aspects but slight speed will help skill gap and it must be responsive and if we have good net reward it not allow bad net to ruin it for us.

    I might seem selfish and i am with net as it's so wrong how fifa allow 4g to play lol esports ready much .
  • Pablofsi08
    392 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited August 24
    Orison wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    People like @Benja190782 think full manual will change everything, others think making the game "realistic" will change everything. Reality is that it wouldn't change anything apart from ruining the game from a fun perspective. It would take the fun out of the game, but the good players who continued playing would still end up winning as they do each and every year.

    @Orison
    Let me get this straight. You actually like the fast ping pong passing and blind first time shots?
    In other words, you think the fun is taken out of the game, if it becomes harder to pass/shoot, as hitting the target with the right speed and angle is done completely by your own inputs?

    I don’t think full manual controls will change everything... I know it would.
    That’s why I’ve suggested multiple times, that EA should adjust it to semi-assisted, for people to get used to handle things on their own on the virtual football pitch in FIFA.

    That's not what I said.

    But yes I much prefer a free flowing and fast paced game over one in which you turn 10x just to find a good passing angle for your manual pass. Manual passing would make the game so incredibly slow while people were trying to find good passing angles, it would be laughable.

    And then manual shooting goes with it. It could work in a very slow paced game in which you have time to aim and what not, it would never work in a fast paced game.

    I don't want a slower game (which would happen with manual or semi manual controls), I want a faster one. The skill gap shouldn't be in holding the ball forever trying to pick the safest option. It should be in making the right decisions quickly. It's a video game, not a boredom simulator.

    Now I realize you have a pretty bad analysis ability. Do you seriously think that pros wouldn't be able to play nad pass as fast as they do right now with fully manual unassisted passes?

    A free flowing. Does this mean that if people can intercept your first intention first touch first option passes the game isn't fun for you anymore because you cannot deploy one dimensional plays? Seriously.

    "I don't want a slower game (which would happen with manual or semi manual controls)"

    If things were to be decided after reading this guy's opinion this game should become full manual controls.

    "I don't want a slower game (which would happen with manual or semi manual controls), I want a faster one. The skill gap shouldn't be in holding the ball forever trying to pick the safest option. It should be in making the right decisions quickly. It's a video game, not a boredom simulator."

    You don't understand depth aspects, in fact your idea of a gameplay lacks completely any depth, and the skill gap should be in everything, not just slow or fast build up. That's why I strongly believe both pass speeds should be viable in this game.

    I already told you many times that your quick first touch decisions lead to linear and one dimensional, easy to intercept, adapt and foresee plays.

    "And then manual shooting goes with it. It could work in a very slow paced game in which you have time to aim and what not, it would never work in a fast paced game."

    Pro players aim and very well at the current Fifa 19 speed so what are you talking about, I'm sorry?
  • bberger
    5163 posts Big Money Move
    I will never understand how someone can think assisted shooting requires more skill than at least semi shooting.

    It doesn't need to be full manual, but semi should be the bare minimum in competitive modes.

    At least force the players to look/aim in the direction of your teammate / the goal. It would prevent so many stupid blind passes and 180° goals..

    There is no skill involved in blindly pressing a button. None. Zero.
  • Pablofsi08
    392 posts Sunday League Hero
    bberger wrote: »
    I will never understand how someone can think assisted shooting requires more skill than at least semi shooting.

    It doesn't need to be full manual, but semi should be the bare minimum in competitive modes.

    At least force the players to look/aim in the direction of your teammate / the goal. It would prevent so many stupid blind passes and 180° goals..

    There is no skill involved in blindly pressing a button. None. Zero.

    Yeah, haha, the guy we know has the most horrible possible opinions.
  • QuidoFrontiere
    223 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Fast gameplay = higher skill gap and would be more fun even with being possesion based player I loved fast game as my reactions are good ,Like I can tell my reactions are good as I'm genetically gifted there.

    On csgo I could still got my fast flicks and other fast games I'm still there.

    For me fast = skill and many agreed this according to pro analyses.


    Slow means more bad gameplay in delay and less room for reaction skill ,some people are just born slow and can't help it no matter what they do they will want a slow game .

    Now to me 17 and 18 had best reaction based game as turning was smooth and dribbling and passing and defence off ball was not easy like 19 and 20 if the delay stays.

    But good football gameplay should not depend on reactions but rather on smartness of buildup...

Sign In or Register to comment.