Street soccer - proposition of change of style of tournaments.

No, no change the rules of Street Soccer. only change HOW we should play in it. Now we play in tournament one game with opponent. And luck has big influence.

How change it and NOT change the game?

We should play TWO game with the same dices.

Suppose that play player A and player B.

now player A is yellow and B red and they play one match.

i propose, that:

Player A is yellow in one game. Computer makes a number on dice and player A places his man on the field - like now. BUT after send - it is made SECOND game with player B as yellow and WItH THE SAME dice. Now B places and sends - this SECOND game. Next A - as red in second game - makes his move - and sends.

We have Fisrst game with 1st move of A and Second with move of B and A. So now player B will make first move in play First - sends - player A will move - and again system switch witch game is active.

Clou is in it, that

a) for both games diceas are the same (if in move 4 in game FIRST A as yellow has on dice 6 - then in move 4 in game SECOND player B as yellow has 6, too!!!)

b) when we want to look at game IN PROGRESS in Street soccer it should be impossible to see this game . In another case players will be able to cheat and look what number on dice will be in next move...

So now we play:

A 1 move - B 2 move -A 3 move - b 4 move...etc

I propose:

A 1 move in First game - B 1 Move in Second Game 9 with the same dice) ( and because FIRST is in progress b can not see HOW A places in First) - A 2 move in Second -( switch)- B 2 in First - A 3 in First - ( Switch) - B 3 in Second - A 4 in Second -(switch)-....

The dice in A 3 in First is the same as dice for B 3 in Second.

in such case nobody can complain that opponent has better dices - becouse in second game he has the same!!!!

Such parallel soccer will be more just.

Of course nobody can wee last move - in another situation one player could make "mirror"moves...

And second problem is how to points in such games.

if in one game A win 3-0 and in second B only 2-0 - than I

think 5-0 in first situation and 0-5 in second - in result draw 5-5 not necessary will just...

but it is another problem which should be discussed only if His Majesty Webmaster :) will think my idea is worthy some hours of work...

:)

That's a pretty good idea... but I'm not sure if it can be implemented that easily. I would also say that the match is played on aggregate. So if A wins both games, the match result is 5-0. If B wins both, then 0-5. If A wins 1 3-0 and B wins the other 2-0 (no overtimes!!) then A wins the match 3-2 (or 4-1?). If you bring overtimes into the equation then it gets a lot more complex.

I like Chris idea. It seems similar to the bridge team match played with the same cards (two pairs in the open room and another two pairs in the closed one). It would be clever elimination of luck factor, however I see also advantages of the current way which is close to real soccer match, where luck is important, but abilities are dominating.

I received this smart idea once before by email last year.

In the first turn you should make simultaneous moves to make that you don't copy the choices of the other.

It's a nice idea but I think implementation here is not easy and I think the matches/tournaments now are more appealing.

If you play the simultaneous matches you could consider it like in soccer that both teams play a match at their own stadium.

I agree that such paralel soccer is less o r even with no factor of luck. But every match is another - because you don't know what will be in next dice roll.

If it is hard to implement? I don't know... if soccer can have bigger amouint people in championship ( and this is good!) may be such changes taht game in progress is not visible for anybody except man who have to move and that is "switching" among two matches is not so difficult?

One is sure - if two matches are with different results than one of players shold be BETTER. Now it can happen that only he had more luck.. Of course in 10 matches better will won more plays... but sometimes it can be irrytating that you are better but opponent have 6's on dice in proper moment:)

I know, this is "taste" of this game. But similar as in bridge - there is "normal" counting and "sport" counting and tournaments of compare bridge...

Actually I do NOT agree with the statement that in this setting luck falls out of the game, it just takes another (maybe less influencing) form. I mean let's say until move 10 you take the same moves, then you move differently... one makes an attacking move the other a defensive. The next die-rolls decides (with luck, it is) which move was the best.... from there after you get different games and a lucky roll can be a bad in the other. (in one game red needs a 4-5-6 to safe the day, in other red needs an odd (1-3-5) to get in between the scoring line). Suppose you get a 4. The one red player is lucky, the other yellow player as well... this is actually the same player....

In my humble opinion it is a nice idea to consider, but I don't think it worth trying implementing. The big tournament setting, looks to me a better way to make sure luck is put aside in a certain sense. (Maybe it feels less like that but it is an instance of what I know as the statistical 'small law of big numbers'.)

I don't want such simultaneous matches on this site at the moment. But you could try it when you have the boardgame twice. :-) Then you will see that it doesn't change the luck factor so much. For example: the number of unused pips (like when you have a 6 and you do a move which was possible with a 2, then you don't 'use' 4 pips that turn) by a coach is normally more than the differense in total number of pips between the 2 coaches in a single match.

I like the rules as they are, but I would like a new type of tournament. Lg has the championship, mensual cup and rating tournaments.

As i love football I'd like to play as real football and I would like a tournament where everybody plays the CUP:

random matches and only the winner passes to next round.

I like a knock-out tournament much too. But that would take 3 years or so here.

So I don't see that happen here. We should come together somewhere for that. :-) Remco proposed the idea to play the European championship with 16 players, each for one country, in Portugaal (a small town near Rotterdam). (Could be good promotion for the game.)

In fact we could play such a tournament on this site by using the invitation-possibility here ...

(But then I like to use player's numbers/names for top-scorers- and assists-lists, which isn't possible here.)

bump