FIFA 20 - FAST VS SLOW GAMEPLAY DEBATE

Comments

  • Benja190782
    1418 posts Play-Off Hero
    ^^
    Spot on!

    @Orison definitely wants the assisted controls so he can ping pong pass in blind...
  • Orison
    48744 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Pablofsi08 wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    The arcade game is better to play, better to watch, easier to access and therefore easier to sell.

    By wording it that way you are basically arguing that the game should be as fast as possible :trollface: A simulation really has no place in competitive gaming or in attracting players and viewers. Simulations are a slow paced niche product.

    Better to play for ETs with three fingers. Pros can still execute commands at the same speed and with almost the same precision they get with assisted controls, without them. We don't need them, they break the game in favor of casuals (but this would hurt EA's sales and that's why it isn't in the game even though they are trying to push forward a competitive scene for it) and the fact that you actually want assisted controls is just sad and shows your level of understanding and scruples.

    I have no doubt that I would be as good in a manual game. I have also no doubt that pros would still be pros in a manual game and bad players would remain bad players.

    But I also know that a manual game would be super tedious to play and would wear you out in no time. Good luck trying to play 30 games of WL on full manual.
  • Pablofsi08
    407 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited August 25
    @Orison @3MenandaBebe @deang07 and everybody else should read this true story of FIFA.

    We should change the title if people don’t understand the problem. It’s literally “simulation vs. arcade” instead of “fast vs. slow” gameplay.

    The true story goes like this: the sim fans are telling the arcade fans, to realise that their arcade gameplay, doesn’t require the same amount of skill, as a hardcore simulation would. Because in the arcade game you get help with all your inputs, as passing, shooting and crossing is assisted to help you aim and adjust power correctly.

    The main problem is that the arcade players are still rewarded, in-game, for doing fast 180 degree blind ping pong passes and shooting blind shots on target. The arcade players then brag about how quick reactions they got, but won’t realise that they are actually exposed, as they doesn’t control these inputs themself. The arcade fans ignore the fact that they are assisted, and tells the sim fans to “git gud” and practice on their reaction time. The arcade fans want the gameplay speed to be even faster to hide their missing skills, as they simply can’t outsmart their opponents by pure vision, tactical awareness and football knowledge. They doesn’t know how to score goals other than spamming their buttons and rely on reaction time.

    The sim fans laugh, as they basically got the same reaction time, and some of them even better reaction time, than the arcade players. All the sim fans wish for is an authentic football experience, where the winner is the one, with true skills of tactical awareness, football knowledge and vision/composure as a FIFA player. The sim fans encourage the developers to make the core gameplay less assisted, as the sim fans know, they can beat every arcade fan out there, as they are Masters of vision and can outsmart their opponents very very easy.

    Especially if the defending is hardcore manual controlled. Which leads the sim fans back to FIFA 18 and the first 14 days after release. Because before the patch was out the sim fans saw how exposed the arcade fans were, without assists in defence. The problem was that the arcade fans were still heavyly assisted in attack, so they could still play fast ping pong passing and get rewarded for it.

    The sim fans was yelling to the developers to quickly remove the passing assists and shooting assists, as the gameplay at FIFA 18’s release day was the best they have ever experienced in FIFA.

    The developers wouldn’t listen, because they were affraid to loose their arcade fans, even tho many of the arcade players already loved FIFA 18 at release.

    But the risk was too big... and the gameplay have never changed since.

    Benjamin, Denmark.

    “FIFA 20 will not change it either”


    I like your ideas and the composition of em besides the English. I gotta add two things:

    This debate is fake. This should not be about fast vs slow or simulator versus arcade. Fifa should be something in between arcade and simulator. Why? because:

    - You can't reduce speed to a point where it's uninteresting
    - At the same time, you can't sustain assisted controls continue being in this game for too much longer if you wanna push a competitive scene for it

    So what does EA do to offer a satisfactory gameplay? Remove assisted controls, fix broken stuff, balance bounces, keep good AI defensive positioning to complement fully manual defense (yes, L2 + X needs to be removed), fix finesse shots, el tornado, la croqueta, remove the restriction to chain different skill moves (and apply it only to skills that have the potential to become abusable, like la croqueta), remove timed finishing (it's useless by now and only helps casuals), keep passing speed as it is right now but apply a forced semi-assisted only control on it, same for shots, nerf first time shots, further reward manual defending, further nerf AI defending, and remove that weird lag in between switching players with the right stick.

    You cannot remove AI assistance on players you are not controlling though, since you need another AI controlled player to cover space that you are not controlling on 1v1s.
  • 3MenandaBebe
    2652 posts Fans' Favourite
    To be a simulator, each half needs to be 45 mins real time and the pitch needs to be way bigger
  • Pablofsi08
    407 posts Sunday League Hero
    Orison wrote: »
    Pablofsi08 wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    The arcade game is better to play, better to watch, easier to access and therefore easier to sell.

    By wording it that way you are basically arguing that the game should be as fast as possible :trollface: A simulation really has no place in competitive gaming or in attracting players and viewers. Simulations are a slow paced niche product.

    Better to play for ETs with three fingers. Pros can still execute commands at the same speed and with almost the same precision they get with assisted controls, without them. We don't need them, they break the game in favor of casuals (but this would hurt EA's sales and that's why it isn't in the game even though they are trying to push forward a competitive scene for it) and the fact that you actually want assisted controls is just sad and shows your level of understanding and scruples.

    I have no doubt that I would be as good in a manual game. I have also no doubt that pros would still be pros in a manual game and bad players would remain bad players.

    But I also know that a manual game would be super tedious to play and would wear you out in no time. Good luck trying to play 30 games of WL on full manual.

    I already do. I always point at the right direction when passing, and I've played over 90 games in a weekend. I'm doing fine. Pros should you fine as well.

    It's just a matter of changing an habit. When your muscle memory learns that you no longer need to focus on it. Semi-assisted I will take is easier on your fingers, but fully manual I will take as well if EA implement it. I'm prepared for it. Is everyone involved discussing in favor of auto, prepared for it? they should be. Otherwise they can't really say they know how to play this game.

    I haven't in any other competitive game seen the amount of automation (especially defensively) as I've seen in this game and it's atrociously sad.

    The speed at which you can circulate the ball wouldn't change at all.
  • forearms
    4830 posts National Call-Up
    Orison wrote: »
    Pablofsi08 wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    The arcade game is better to play, better to watch, easier to access and therefore easier to sell.

    By wording it that way you are basically arguing that the game should be as fast as possible :trollface: A simulation really has no place in competitive gaming or in attracting players and viewers. Simulations are a slow paced niche product.

    Better to play for ETs with three fingers. Pros can still execute commands at the same speed and with almost the same precision they get with assisted controls, without them. We don't need them, they break the game in favor of casuals (but this would hurt EA's sales and that's why it isn't in the game even though they are trying to push forward a competitive scene for it) and the fact that you actually want assisted controls is just sad and shows your level of understanding and scruples.

    I have no doubt that I would be as good in a manual game. I have also no doubt that pros would still be pros in a manual game and bad players would remain bad players.

    But I also know that a manual game would be super tedious to play and would wear you out in no time. Good luck trying to play 30 games of WL on full manual.

    I've maintained for years that all competitive modes should be manual. The point of competition is to determine who is better. CPU assists do nothing to determine that. The game is already so heavily influenced by actions the CPU decides for the players.

    I posted this already in another forum:
    forearms wrote: »
    DarkMac wrote: »
    The assist it's not the problem. The problem is the way EA handles balance of the gameplay. It's stupid to slow someone's players or to make them hit the post 3 times in the same occasion, just because you won to many in a row. Make the game difficult to play, don't just lower the players attributes just because you have no idea how to develop a fair-play gameplay. You are saying that EA respects fair-play.... That's the total opposite. It's fair-play to let people win if they are better, it's not fair-play at all to limit someone's capabilities just because you prefer it this way instead of rethinking the game-play. I know you care only about money and it's cheaper for you this way, but at least don't call yourself fair-play or don't even try to say that you are fair-play. It's nothing fair in the way you threat users!
    This needs to be change, the EA attitude about their users/buyers!

    The AI determines everything right now. Let's examine the decisions the CPU makes just on a single shot and the aftermath of that event.

    1)Exactly where the shot goes, and the path it takes to get there.
    2)Whether the defender blocks or steps over/around the shot.
    3)The goalkeeper animation. It chooses how they dive, where they dive and if they choose to (magically) pull their hands back just enough to let the ball narrowly fly by their reach. It chooses if the GK catches, or parries the shot as well.
    4)If there is a rebound, where it goes, and the path and pace it takes to get there.
    5)The positioning of the AI controlled players to either be in advantageous or detrimental position for the rebound. Both offense and defense.
    6)The distance and trajectory of any attempted clearance.
    7)Which player wins the battle if multiple players are going for the ball on a contested clearance, ie. who rises above the others, and how.


    The users input a couple button presses, but how much and what those users control is pretty limited. At the very minimum, manual controls would allow a couple events to be user influenced.
  • Pablofsi08
    407 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited August 25
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Pablofsi08 wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    The arcade game is better to play, better to watch, easier to access and therefore easier to sell.

    By wording it that way you are basically arguing that the game should be as fast as possible :trollface: A simulation really has no place in competitive gaming or in attracting players and viewers. Simulations are a slow paced niche product.

    Better to play for ETs with three fingers. Pros can still execute commands at the same speed and with almost the same precision they get with assisted controls, without them. We don't need them, they break the game in favor of casuals (but this would hurt EA's sales and that's why it isn't in the game even though they are trying to push forward a competitive scene for it) and the fact that you actually want assisted controls is just sad and shows your level of understanding and scruples.

    I have no doubt that I would be as good in a manual game. I have also no doubt that pros would still be pros in a manual game and bad players would remain bad players.

    But I also know that a manual game would be super tedious to play and would wear you out in no time. Good luck trying to play 30 games of WL on full manual.

    I've maintained for years that all competitive modes should be manual. The point of competition is to determine who is better. CPU assists do nothing to determine that. The game is already so heavily influenced by actions the CPU decides for the players.

    I posted this already in another forum:
    forearms wrote: »
    DarkMac wrote: »
    The assist it's not the problem. The problem is the way EA handles balance of the gameplay. It's stupid to slow someone's players or to make them hit the post 3 times in the same occasion, just because you won to many in a row. Make the game difficult to play, don't just lower the players attributes just because you have no idea how to develop a fair-play gameplay. You are saying that EA respects fair-play.... That's the total opposite. It's fair-play to let people win if they are better, it's not fair-play at all to limit someone's capabilities just because you prefer it this way instead of rethinking the game-play. I know you care only about money and it's cheaper for you this way, but at least don't call yourself fair-play or don't even try to say that you are fair-play. It's nothing fair in the way you threat users!
    This needs to be change, the EA attitude about their users/buyers!

    The AI determines everything right now. Let's examine the decisions the CPU makes just on a single shot and the aftermath of that event.

    1)Exactly where the shot goes, and the path it takes to get there.
    2)Whether the defender blocks or steps over/around the shot.
    3)The goalkeeper animation. It chooses how they dive, where they dive and if they choose to (magically) pull their hands back just enough to let the ball narrowly fly by their reach. It chooses if the GK catches, or parries the shot as well.
    4)If there is a rebound, where it goes, and the path and pace it takes to get there.
    5)The positioning of the AI controlled players to either be in advantageous or detrimental position for the rebound. Both offense and defense.
    6)The distance and trajectory of any attempted clearance.
    7)Which player wins the battle if multiple players are going for the ball on a contested clearance, ie. who rises above the others, and how.


    The users input a couple button presses, but how much and what those users control is pretty limited. At the very minimum, manual controls would allow a couple events to be user influenced.

    Yeah but let's be frank, you would need a very low input delay affecting your actions in order to do all that (except GKs which need to stay always automatic) effectively otherwise millions of guys would be making stupid mistakes that would lead to goals against, and that can only be achieved by having P2P netcode instead of servers netcode. My biggest gripe with this game. P2P is the only way to remove all the massive delay most users get in this game. As long as P2P doesn't replace servers or is at least given as an option to them this whole discussion is useless because nothing in the gameplay really matters if input delay is behind ruining it all.
  • Benja190782
    1418 posts Play-Off Hero
    edited August 25
    @Pablofsi08

    Sorry for the bad english, lol. I’m Danish so it’s not always that easy to explain things.

    Anyway, I’m fully aware that the default gameplay speed shouldn’t be too slow. I just believe we can play FIFA in an authentic pace as seen on tv. (Like PES does it actually) and at the same time experience a bloody good game of football.

    What I don’t wanna see, is how players like @Orison can exploit ping pong passing and broken first time shots, just by their fancy “quick reactions” as they proudly claim they are the better player.

    I mean the way @Orison puts it.
    It sounds almost like he thinks normal football is boring to watch on tv.
    We could basically lose to a bunch of First Person shooter freaks, that doesn’t even care about football at all. Only because these insane assists are helping them.

    That’s the main problem. We all want responsive controls btw. But I wanna force Orison and all the other fast speed freaks to score normal football goals, not broken exploited goals like blind first time shots, etc.

    They need to work for their goals. Instead they have EA holding their hand with assists.
  • Orison
    48744 posts FIFA Cover Star
    edited August 25
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.
  • Pablofsi08
    407 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited August 25
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    Randomness happens when a kid gets three bounces after shots in two plays with just straightforward passes and dribbles that were stopped during the build up, but due to stupid bounces the ball returned to him and he barely but scored 2 goals, being completely dominated all match yet you could only score twice like him because the bounces didn't go right for you for some **** reason even though you clearly dominate in amount of attack opportunities, then he beats you on penalties. That's what your "let's allow first intention passes and lightning fast build up to be a superior choice" mentality causes in the end.
  • forearms
    4830 posts National Call-Up
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.
  • madwullie
    4411 posts National Call-Up
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.

    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️
  • Empyrium7
    2763 posts Fans' Favourite
    madwullie wrote: »
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.

    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️

    Boring only for people who don't like football and just want to play a video game.
  • 3MenandaBebe
    2652 posts Fans' Favourite
    madwullie wrote: »
    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️

    @madwullie
    Boring if you can’t play football yes... It sure would get boring and frustrating if you constantly were trying to spam the pass button, but there was no assists to help you hit your teammate, so the ball would end up at your opponents feets all the time.

    How about those people took the time to actually learn to play football and enjoy the beautiful game it is, instead of constantly searching for exploits, like ping pong passing and broken first time shots.

    It’s the ONLY reason why these well known noobs would prefer fast assisted gameplay.
    They think they are so specially gifted with their fast reactions, so it makes them really badass, that they can spam all those buttons in a matter of milliseconds.

    But infact they got absolutely no clue how to break down a defence in FIFA. It’s pathetic to be honest!

    Fast and assisted is not the same.

    Most who people who want fast want the assistance to be almost non existent.

    That increases skill gap. Slow game play is for noobs
  • Benja190782
    1418 posts Play-Off Hero
    @3MenandaBebe try and tell that to @Orison LOL!
  • Orison
    48744 posts FIFA Cover Star
    And what is manual+tragic con? :trollface:
  • forearms
    4830 posts National Call-Up
    madwullie wrote: »
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.

    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️

    Cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.
  • Empyrium7
    2763 posts Fans' Favourite
    forearms wrote: »
    madwullie wrote: »
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.

    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️

    Cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.

    Sarcasm I would think
  • madwullie
    4411 posts National Call-Up
    forearms wrote: »
    madwullie wrote: »
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.

    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️

    Cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.

    Not being sarcastic, just saying what their argument is in response to it being more manual.

    Personally I'd like it more manual too
  • Empyrium7
    2763 posts Fans' Favourite
    my opinion on manual/assisted passing and shooting

    for passing, it should be 100% manual. you have an analog stick that gives you 360 degrees for passing options.

    but for shooting, it should be semi-assisted
    the angle for shooting at a goal is tight (it varies approximately from 10-30 degrees depending on your player position.

    imagine you are running in the middle towards a goal to your right side. to shoot at the goal you need to aim the analog thumb between (345-15) degrees where

    15 degrees will shot on the left side and 345 on the right side.
    this is just an approximate number.
    so if a player pressed the shot button at a 0 degree angle - the GK should save it (middle shot)
    any where between 0 and 15 should go to the left side where 15 degrees should give the best possible angle.
    same for 345 but on the left

    let's say a player took a shot between 15-30 degrees - it still should be on the goal with semi-assisted shooting
    any angle lets say bigger than 30, the ball should go wide.

    since the angle for shooting is way tighter than passing. I think shooting should not be fully assisted nor fully manual.

  • Orison
    48744 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Empyrium7 wrote: »
    my opinion on manual/assisted passing and shooting

    for passing, it should be 100% manual. you have an analog stick that gives you 360 degrees for passing options.

    but for shooting, it should be semi-assisted
    the angle for shooting at a goal is tight (it varies approximately from 10-30 degrees depending on your player position.

    imagine you are running in the middle towards a goal to your right side. to shoot at the goal you need to aim the analog thumb between (345-15) degrees where

    15 degrees will shot on the left side and 345 on the right side.
    this is just an approximate number.
    so if a player pressed the shot button at a 0 degree angle - the GK should save it (middle shot)
    any where between 0 and 15 should go to the left side where 15 degrees should give the best possible angle.
    same for 345 but on the left

    let's say a player took a shot between 15-30 degrees - it still should be on the goal with semi-assisted shooting
    any angle lets say bigger than 30, the ball should go wide.

    since the angle for shooting is way tighter than passing. I think shooting should not be fully assisted nor fully manual.

    But you are trying to pass to one specific person so the angle is super tight?
  • Thefranchise92
    3743 posts National Call-Up
    You can still break down a defence. Everyone knows how scummy the game gets. Make it slow and manual and then like fifa 17 you would have no way of breaking down ptb or chasing ans properly pressing.it would lead to more random results as someone could hold possession and score 1 goal and sit back and soak it up
  • Empyrium7
    2763 posts Fans' Favourite
    Orison wrote: »
    Empyrium7 wrote: »
    my opinion on manual/assisted passing and shooting

    for passing, it should be 100% manual. you have an analog stick that gives you 360 degrees for passing options.

    but for shooting, it should be semi-assisted
    the angle for shooting at a goal is tight (it varies approximately from 10-30 degrees depending on your player position.

    imagine you are running in the middle towards a goal to your right side. to shoot at the goal you need to aim the analog thumb between (345-15) degrees where

    15 degrees will shot on the left side and 345 on the right side.
    this is just an approximate number.
    so if a player pressed the shot button at a 0 degree angle - the GK should save it (middle shot)
    any where between 0 and 15 should go to the left side where 15 degrees should give the best possible angle.
    same for 345 but on the left

    let's say a player took a shot between 15-30 degrees - it still should be on the goal with semi-assisted shooting
    any angle lets say bigger than 30, the ball should go wide.

    since the angle for shooting is way tighter than passing. I think shooting should not be fully assisted nor fully manual.

    But you are trying to pass to one specific person so the angle is super tight?

    Not really, it really hard to describe what I'm trying to say in words and my English doesn't help. but when you have a player you want to pass to. with the analog thumb, you will have more than one option.
    1) to aim directly at the player.
    2) to aim a bit behind the player if you want your player to get back a little bit.
    3) to aim a bit in front of the player for a pass for a run.

  • forearms
    4830 posts National Call-Up
    madwullie wrote: »
    forearms wrote: »
    madwullie wrote: »
    forearms wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    No @Benja190782 .

    I frankly don't want any game of Fifa look like a game of football. It's impossible to do that within a 12min game, you have to speed things up. Go and watch Atletico's game from today. God help us if Fifa ever looked like a realistic game.

    What I want is a skillbased game in which the better player wins, because he's better at the game. Good players will always exploit what the game gives to them. Doesn't matter if that's first time shooting, low drivens or any other mechanic. Good players learn it, good player use it, good players win.

    You are too focused on Fifa 19s mechanics. We can all agree that most of them are pretty tragic. But there is still a skill gap in using them. And if I have the choice between skill gap and realism then I would sacrifice realism any day of the week. Arguing that I want a skillbased game doesn't mean that I want Fifa 19. I would change loads of things if I could. But yes it means that I don't want a game that included randomness in the name of realism.

    The game is far too random as it is though? I dont think a single person would claim it's in the name of realism. In fact I know what words they would use to describe said randomness.

    I dont understand some of your rationale. You dont want manual controls: passing and shooting, but they would eliminate some of the randomness that CPU assists give. You also claim that pros would still be good players with manual controls, as would yourself, and bad players would still be bad. That looks like it helps establish an actual skillgap. What's the problem then? That sounds like a good endorsement for manual controls.

    I posted earlier how many things the CPU decides on just one event in game. Why would it be a bad thing to lessen that impact, while simultaneously increasing user input influence. Manual controls would also help slow the frenetic pace of the game as one could no longer just blindly spam passes up the pitch at such high speeds.

    The argument is that too much manual control would make it boring 🤷‍♂️

    Cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.

    Not being sarcastic, just saying what their argument is in response to it being more manual.

    Personally I'd like it more manual too

    Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes it's hard to pick up intent when reading posts on the internet.
  • Pablofsi08
    407 posts Sunday League Hero
    Orison wrote: »
    Empyrium7 wrote: »
    my opinion on manual/assisted passing and shooting

    for passing, it should be 100% manual. you have an analog stick that gives you 360 degrees for passing options.

    but for shooting, it should be semi-assisted
    the angle for shooting at a goal is tight (it varies approximately from 10-30 degrees depending on your player position.

    imagine you are running in the middle towards a goal to your right side. to shoot at the goal you need to aim the analog thumb between (345-15) degrees where

    15 degrees will shot on the left side and 345 on the right side.
    this is just an approximate number.
    so if a player pressed the shot button at a 0 degree angle - the GK should save it (middle shot)
    any where between 0 and 15 should go to the left side where 15 degrees should give the best possible angle.
    same for 345 but on the left

    let's say a player took a shot between 15-30 degrees - it still should be on the goal with semi-assisted shooting
    any angle lets say bigger than 30, the ball should go wide.

    since the angle for shooting is way tighter than passing. I think shooting should not be fully assisted nor fully manual.

    But you are trying to pass to one specific person so the angle is super tight?

    That player has a huge hitbox his feet can take the ball with.
  • Retropoe82
    444 posts An Exciting Prospect
    This is a debate. Fast or slow.. how about balanced.

    Eg. A player with 99 pace should be a player with 99 pace. If his shotting is 74 it should act like its 74.

    Eg. If you had musa up against maguire. Yeah ok musa may skin him for pace. But his shooting may see his shot be at the keeper or wide. Same as maguire may react quicker turn then with his huge frame get a leg in as he does.

    Thats where ea need to think. Not abuse but what would happen.

    Say if its cr7 bearing down goal an nacho fernandez was in his way.. tbh 90% ronni would be an should be goal bound. Minimal skills. Just pure pace an power.

    Other hand messi vs van dijk. Messi very skillfully an nimble 90% would, should take it skillfully around virgil an bare down at goal, same as nacho vs messi. Messi simlar build is that nimble an reacts so well minimal skill should easily do him an bare down on goal.

    Thats real life
    Not shimmy all way to the 6yrd line for a tap in.

    Its a player devide an should be based on there stats. Not by the amount of skill stars they have.

    Would be a hell of alot more balanced an in truth i think its the aim as in 19 this yr ea have tried/pushed this yr.

    Skill/ mechanic abusers are bein found out. Hence the changes. An finally its about time players. Passers tacticians are bein recognised.
  • madwullie
    4411 posts National Call-Up
    Retropoe82 wrote: »
    This is a debate. Fast or slow.. how about balanced.

    Eg. A player with 99 pace should be a player with 99 pace. If his shotting is 74 it should act like its 74.

    Eg. If you had musa up against maguire. Yeah ok musa may skin him for pace. But his shooting may see his shot be at the keeper or wide. Same as maguire may react quicker turn then with his huge frame get a leg in as he does.

    Thats where ea need to think. Not abuse but what would happen.

    Say if its cr7 bearing down goal an nacho fernandez was in his way.. tbh 90% ronni would be an should be goal bound. Minimal skills. Just pure pace an power.

    Other hand messi vs van dijk. Messi very skillfully an nimble 90% would, should take it skillfully around virgil an bare down at goal, same as nacho vs messi. Messi simlar build is that nimble an reacts so well minimal skill should easily do him an bare down on goal.

    Thats real life
    Not shimmy all way to the 6yrd line for a tap in.

    Its a player devide an should be based on there stats. Not by the amount of skill stars they have.

    Would be a hell of alot more balanced an in truth i think its the aim as in 19 this yr ea have tried/pushed this yr.

    Skill/ mechanic abusers are bein found out. Hence the changes. An finally its about time players. Passers tacticians are bein recognised.

    This would be the ideal, but in the musa example people are going to watch the arrow on the replay then complain the shot was pointed in the corner and it went straight at the keeper.
  • zeultuturor
    615 posts An Exciting Prospect
    if you are so much worse on assisted fifa that causes no skill gap just imagine how much a skill gap would make you cry. ea knows you suck which is why they dont change it. it s not because of the good players. when your record goes 50 1200 and you wont even know what to blame anymore, you will just quit the franchise. when your record is 600 600 because the game lets you win against 600 people, you will just cry about those 50 games you lost against worse players and keep on playing. the assisted gameplay is not for tekkz, it s for you and you better pray they wont change it.
    **** mechanics like random back to goal first time shots, some op skill moves, volleys and headers have nothing to do with skill indeed, but that doesnt mean you have to use them to win. i played to a max of elite1 this year without volleys, crossing or abusing skill moves while manually defending. i indeed used stupid first time shots but pretty much only if my opponent forces me too by playing 11 men in the box which doesnt allow me to do anything else except for tornado crosses which i simply wont ever do. if i can do it while being such a **** player like you people claim, i am sure every trash crying should be able to. most of you kids never kicked a ball. hell, some are probably obese from sitting on their arse playing video games and eating trash food all day. most of you play fifa on tuesday nights and look up flashscores to see what players to invest on for the next totw, but yet you know football so well just because it fits your agenda
Sign In or Register to comment.