Karma Ball question (Push)
Moderators: Jay2k1, DavidM, The_One
-
- Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 14-04-2004 12:19
- Catalyst88
- Posts: 707
- Joined: 18-03-2003 12:02
yup, it's the inconsistencies that make you wonder if a mistake is actually your fault or the game's.
I've seen enough replays to know that often a ball looks like it's going through you but on the replay it doesn't.
So the logical extension of that would be to increase the catch radius... at least for keeps only.
I would rather have goals harder to score than the reverse. Just my opinion of course...
*dons flame retardant jacket*
I've seen enough replays to know that often a ball looks like it's going through you but on the replay it doesn't.
So the logical extension of that would be to increase the catch radius... at least for keeps only.
I would rather have goals harder to score than the reverse. Just my opinion of course...
*dons flame retardant jacket*
-
- Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 14-04-2004 12:19
`Ghost` wrote: ill wait for the keeper advantages I have already noticed players outfield pick the ball up if they touch the rings, keepers do not
It's called latency o_O
One of the fundamental DB changes.
It would be unfair for keepers to have the same pickup radius all the time
Some shots are not meant to be saved (say hi to defence)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 794
- Joined: 09-03-2003 20:41
think about the same thing in soccer, if an attacker hits the cross bar and the post and the same time on the inside and it goes in that is a shot that can not be saved unless the keeper is in the exact right possition and reacts fast. this is pretty much the same idea
what you really saying is that the keeper should have the advantage, but just as it would not be fair if there was a way that a player could score every time no matter how good the keeper is, it is just as unfair to for a keeper to be able to save every ball no matter how good the shot is. see what i mean?
what you really saying is that the keeper should have the advantage, but just as it would not be fair if there was a way that a player could score every time no matter how good the keeper is, it is just as unfair to for a keeper to be able to save every ball no matter how good the shot is. see what i mean?
Last edited by theberkin8or on 16-12-2004 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
a few points:
(1) i don't like the idea of the keeper not being to save a shot even if he was dead on.... on those shots where it's the defence's fault.. and its a real close range volley.. let the keeper radius be VERY small.. but let it be there... it gives the players hope that they might save the shot in that one in a 1 in a 20 chance.. also gives the attacker some fear so that theyll try to switch directions a bit... hope is a powerful thing.
(2) i was never around when dribbling was possible... im not sure what happened.. but what i am speculating is.. in public matches.. ego whore would get the ball.. and dribble (push) it all the way to the other side and then ego shoot it... without passing tothe noobs.. is this is a possible scenario?
(1) i don't like the idea of the keeper not being to save a shot even if he was dead on.... on those shots where it's the defence's fault.. and its a real close range volley.. let the keeper radius be VERY small.. but let it be there... it gives the players hope that they might save the shot in that one in a 1 in a 20 chance.. also gives the attacker some fear so that theyll try to switch directions a bit... hope is a powerful thing.
(2) i was never around when dribbling was possible... im not sure what happened.. but what i am speculating is.. in public matches.. ego whore would get the ball.. and dribble (push) it all the way to the other side and then ego shoot it... without passing tothe noobs.. is this is a possible scenario?