Feedback

This is an official 'open' page for feedback to the 4CCC. Want to express what you think would be good for the cup? Please make a heading and do so here. I will attempt to at least address hot topics, thanks. --DrBorisG (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please only speak for yourself on this page, I don't want a bunch of posts dragged in here as 'evidence'

PES14

This is still a hot item. I urge patience and especially urge waiting to see how things are after we get a new Game Version / Yairpatch / Filerloader exe combo pack. Nevertheless, please let your opinions be known.

4chan League when? --Tr4pD00r (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Weight/Heart Abuse

I would like some tests done on weight to see if its a determining factor. Also, we use the middle heart option, but there isn't enough data for us to know if that's the best option to use, I'd like some tests done on that as well AmandaBynes (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

[12:44:18 AM] /c/rispy: Hey Boris, I ran a small sample of 5 games with no cards/playstyles, a generic flat 4-2-3-1 at all 10s and all heights at 180 for both teams, and tested min vs max weight. The results were as follows:

Fatties win 4-0 (this was probably >PEZ, since the anorexics had twice as many shots)

Draw 2-2

Anorexics win 2-1

Anorexics win 1-0

Draw 2-2

Most of the goals were cheeky last-minute ones or massive defensive howlers, which we have seen in the friendlies to be typical for games where two similar sides play against each other. Of course, we'll need a bigger sample (I can't export yet on my laptop, but I can pitch you my OF), but if teams whose players are 100 kg apart yield these results, I don't think weight abuse is a thing.

[12:45:22 AM] /c/rispy: I watched all of the games and observed no difference whatsoever in how easily players get dispossessed (the tackle stats agreed with this observation).

[12:46:45 AM] /c/rispy: Even the blowout was decided by the fat GK going full godmode and saving ~10 shots, which is something that has yet to happen again (so it probably has little to do with weight). --DrBorisG (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

5 games isn't enough, i'll look into it if i have time AmandaBynes (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Tournament structure

re: the usage of "heart", something I don't see being brought up is how sensitive the defensive positioning stat seems in regards to 77s (in that it had to be kicked up to 88s for everybody). Since heart seems to have taken over as the stat-adjusting variant with condition affecting stamina, and if we assume +10%/-10% swings are possible like in previous PEZ, we could be looking at anything from 79 def pos to 98 def pos out there. If advancing teams are all going to have great heart, are we going to see 0-0 peekays a bunch because everybody has ramped up to being defensive gods? (Meanwhile the golds don't get an equivalent boost because they're already at max stats, so that's an additional hidden defensive bonus.) This seems to be why there is a snowball effect involved with early victories in tournaments at the very least.

Maybe this is a problem, maybe it's overblown, but running the main Cup to find out which seems like a crappy way to do it.

So I would probably dump the tournament setting for now, set heart to normal and keep random conditioning to rotate the roster (you don't want to start 77s that will be gassed after 60 minutes because their conditioning is bad, etc). This will make us keep track of stats and suspensions offline (implying 14 has yellow cards) but we are kind of doing that already anyway.--Tottori (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we have the group stages in exhibition and then the knockouts in a tournament? AmandaBynes (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Big/Small/Dead teams

Got issues with the current 4CCC policy for teams of whatever category? Let it be known.

Rules

Got issues for how we're handling deadlines, double managing, the new rules for switching teams, or anything else? Say so here.

Idea for qualifiers

Let's consider this: Team 1-8 are qualifier teams, Team A-H are relegated babbies. 1, 2 and A are dead teams, and 3, 4 and B are teams with inactive managers. The idea is to have obligatory signups for the qualifiers, but only for the teams who failed to qualify last time. A sign up would be the team manager say the team wants to participate in the Qualifier talk page.

Since only the manager can sign up the team, this would mean Teams 1, 2, 3, 4 and A wouldn't participate, assuming teams 5-8 don't forget to sign up (B would participate because it's unfair for a team with a manager to go from Babby to dead, even if the manager isn't active).

This would:

• Easily let us see which teams are dead.
• In addition, warn us of teams with inactive managers, and alerts the team that they may need a new manager.
• Remove teams with no interest from circulation altogether, at least until they get a manager.

Problem 1: There's the chance that there's less than 8 teams signed up (counting the babbies) for the qualifiers, even if unlikely

Possible Solution: Put all the signed up teams in the Babbies automatically. Either do a small qualification round for the teams with inactive managers or select the highest ranked teams.

This is only a rough idea but I'd like to hear Boris' opinion on it. Powdinet (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I talked to you about this on the comfy stream but for the sake of writing it down - This is kind of what we're doing, we're just taking failure to make an export as a tacit version of failure to sign up. --DrBorisG (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New Friendlies Format Ideas

Since there's a lot of talk about cutting down the number of friendlies per year to reduce manager stress and clear up the timetable, I have a few ideas on that front

• 1 - Do them at the same Foetus/Babby Qualifiers, and exclude those teams that are participating in that cup. This reduces the total number of events and it means teams don't benefit in rankings by having the option to play extra games in a season (so Babby/Elite teams get their friendlies, Foetus teams get the Qualifiers, no team gets to play both)
• 2 - From what I heard, the current plan is to reduce the total number of Friendlies to two blocks per year, immediately before Elite cups. My idea is to instead stick to four blocks per year (before each main cup like usual), but limit competition to the teams not taking part in the upcoming cup. This would reduce manager stress so they can focus solely on the cup and not having to rush an export for the friendlies a few weeks before, and it would also ensure that the teams that aren't competing in that cup will still participate in some way and won't fall behind. Meanwhile, if Friendlies are reduced to just before Elite Cups, this means any team in the top 8 of that competition will have to wait 5-6 months before they have another official match which I think will lead to a big loss of interest for fans of all but the largest teams. Finally, as an added bonus, ping-pong teams get to participate in less friendlies so there's less chance of a mediocre team going up in the rankings just because they got to play extra games.

For reference, the number of friendly matches played per year (assuming no dead teams)

• 224 with the current system (two friendlies per team before every major cup)
• 192 with how we actually implement the current system (eight matches a day over six days four times a year)
• 144 with my suggested method
• 112 with the currently planned new system (two friendlies per team before Summer/Winter cups only)

Obviously, these are just rough ideas and have their own set of problems, but I think they go far towards fixing the current problems with Friendlies scheduling. NearlyEnoughDakka (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

EXPORT DEADLINE NEEDS TO CHANGE

Exports need to be done a day before the draw and posted. This will force managers to actually get of there arse and make one rather then wait til last hours of a deadline. SERIOUSLY HOW HARD IS IT FOR OTHER MANAGERS TO MAKE A DAMN EXPORT?!?!?!--SleepDeprivedAnon (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Exports being delivered on the day before the draw is something I agree with. --Powdinet (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you seem to understand that that is still a deadline and if teams miss the deadline that is already in place, teams will miss the deadline if it's moved to the day before the draw. --DawgamusPrime (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea doesn't fix that, true, but by doing it this way we can rearrange the pots before the draw and prevent situations where you have 2 pot 4 teams in a group. --Powdinet (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I need to know the groups before I made an export, it effects my formation, players, and sliders. If I made an export without knowing who i'm playing, it'll be random AmandaBynes (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

IDEA TO FIX THE ISSUE WITH TEAMS MISSING THE DEADLINE

The idea behind the no export and you're out rule was made to remove dead teams from the cup, however there is an issue with incompetent managers. My fix for this would to give the teams that miss the deadline a 24 hour grace period, where a manager (who isn't already part of the cup to help make sure it's someone actually from that board) can step up, get verified, and produce an export with 24 hours of the missed deadline. The manager that missed the deadline is removed from the team permanently unless the board invites them back as their manager. This will get rid of dead teams, and allow teams that have fan support a chance to participate should their manager fuck them over. --Retortelement (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Individual managers

Is somebody being a problem child? Let's discuss what to do about them. Bluntly, this section is not for being AB/whoever/, you need to be offering actual evidence of some sort.

Anything Else

If you have any other issues please make a catagory and post them here.

Boris talks about managers too much on air. (M3owmix, assuming that was him culling his own anon post.)

Yes, I agree, I've been working on that for a while, sorry if it's still a little too invasive. It's like using 'nil' for me, difficult to correct. --DrBorisG (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Statistics team

Reposting, resposting.

In order to somehow cut down the downtime between the games you should find a group of autists who would compile various statistics. The Cup has been around for a while now so we've got some history and as such you can bring up various things from the past. Basically stuff like '[team x] is 0-1-4 all time against [team y]' or 'the team that wins their first game in the group stages advances 78% of the time' etc. And the more awkward they get the better I'd say, like '[team z] wins 46% of their games played on Fridays' or something (when that's actually relevant of course). It raises the hype levels considerably and it gives the watchers something interesting to listen to while you figure out the sliders and whatnot. Ideally you'd have 3-5 of those for each match and the color commentators would simply read them.

A real team that would go and compile stuff like that before every game (if possible) would be great. If Boris would throw the idea out there in /4ccg/ I think somebody would get that done. And, you know, if somebody shows up - great, if not - you're in the same position you are in right now. Literally nothing to lose.