HTML 'poly 5-a-side football THE GAME

[Spaced Cowboy]

Okay, now that I have your attention, here come the questions:

Seems like you made a few typos (no really, Spaced)

Shouldn't the long hard (in tactics, fools) result be +10 attack (RPS).

Also you need to have (in playing the match) total possession=....not total attack (C&P)

Also, fitness, come on now Mr. types-a-lot

[Jamski]

Shouldn't the long hard (in tactics, fools) result be +10 attack (RPS).

Correct. Well spotted I'll edit that.

Also you need to have (in playing the match) total possession=....not total attack (C&P)

Bingo. I'm guessing you understand the rules I'll edit that too.

Fitness... I'm not sure of the constant yet. Should fitness go down 1 point each half, or each match? I think each half, then it makes sense to make a substitution after halftime.

Fitness is regained by missing a whole match. A player whos fitness reaches 0 cannot play.

What do you think? Add them in?

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Jamski you are an RPS god. If you applied half as much ingenuity to real life as you do to designing spam inducing forum games you'd be a millionaire for sure.

I love it, though since I am a balance nazi I'll probably weigh in with some thoughts when it's all clear in my head.

[Jamski]

Jamski you are an RPS god. If you applied half as much ingenuity to real life as you do to designing spam inducing forum games you'd be a millionaire for sure.

From you, this is real praise Thankyou. I hope there's a market for these things somewhere...

I'm sure you've already thought of having no defenders, packing the midfield with 4 players to always get the ball (defense won't matter then), and putting one star striker up front. Very vunerable to counter attacking though. And wait till you see the wild cards

(BTW, corrected and edited the rules, added part 6 too)

-Jam

[Spaced Cowboy]

Jam,

How many halves or quarters are in a real soccer game? (2 halves, but there are not quarters??)

I like the fitness thing, very good.

Perhaps in keeping with the glad style. 100 points per half? for the RR, 2 sets of 100 for the semis, and 3-4 sets of 100 for the finals.

[Zopperoni]

There are no quarters in football. It'd look awkward if play was stopped after 22 minutes and 30 seconds.

[Urban Ranger]

What are these special tactics? Would you have specialists like dead ball (free kick) specialists? What about having the winning team make more money? Also, shouldn't Defense work the same way as Attack? That is, if the Attack is 1/2 or less than Defense, one goal is scored on the counterattack. If the Attack is 1/3 or less than Defense, 2 goals are scored on the counterattack, etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Alternative Rules

What about this?

For each multiple of X points (3, 5, etc.) in Possession, that side gets one Scoring Chance, with their Attack compared against the Defense of the other team. If the Attack is twice or higher than the Defense, one goal is scored. If the Attack is 1/2 or less than the Defense, one goal is scored by the other team on the counterattack.

Also, anything on tactics?

[Jamski]

Nah, getting massive possession in midfield won't give you any more scoring chances. Playing keep-ball doesn't move the game forward. Simply having more possession will give you the chance to attack instead of defend for that round.

And counter-attack should, I feel, be restricted to one goal, otherwise there's no compulsion to attack.

Perhaps in keeping with the glad style. 100 points per half? for the RR, 2 sets of 100 for the semis, and 3-4 sets of 100 for the finals.

I thought 100 points split into 3 rounds for the first half, and repeat for the second half. (see part 4, above) each round would then represent about 15 minutes of play.

Special tactics and star players are the icing on the cake, and will be added later.

-Jam

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jamski
Nah, getting massive possession in midfield won't give you any more scoring chances. Playing keep-ball doesn't move the game forward. Simply having more possession will give you the chance to attack instead of defend for that round.

I am not sure. Controlling the midfield seems to be quite important in a football game. Having the ball on your sides means you can move it forward -- thus more chances of getting goals.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jamski
And counter-attack should, I feel, be restricted to one goal, otherwise there's no compulsion to attack.

That's why I suggested winner gets more $$$.

[Frozzy]

Count me out of the new game... I'm not sure I'll have time to contribute while ironing out the bugs in my American Football game.

[Jamski]

I am not sure. Controlling the midfield seems to be quite important in a football game. Having the ball on your sides means you can move it forward -- thus more chances of getting goals.

Indeed. Having the ball in these rules means you have A chance of scoring a goal. But if you want to score from this chance you have to put points in attack. Playing keep-ball doesn't bring anything except possession.

That's why I suggested winner gets more $$$.

Always a bad idea to make the winners get stronger. Then the winners always win, and the losers can never catch up.

-Jam

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jamski
Indeed. Having the ball in these rules means you have A chance of scoring a goal.

That's a bit low.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Jamski
But if you want to score from this chance you have to put points in attack. Playing keep-ball doesn't bring anything except possession.{/quote]

A high control of the midfield + moderate attack usually end up in more goals scored than low control of the midfield + high attack.

Originally posted by Jamski
Always a bad idea to make the winners get stronger. Then the winners always win, and the losers can never catch up.

The winner doesn't necessarily always win. More $$$ only translate into players with higher stats.

BTW, how does a player lose health?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jamski
Always a bad idea to make the winners get stronger. Then the winners always win, and the losers can never catch up.

-Jam

I'm in agreement on this. Rewarding the early winners is a bad plan.