- 主题
- 回帖
- 0
- 精华
- 注册时间
- 2005-5-24
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 爆棚声望
-
- PGB
-
|
<FONT size=4><STRONG>Why Comebacks Happen<br></STRONG>为什么大逆转会发生</FONT><B><br></B><FONT size=4>I believe that the 'comeback bug' is an unfortunate side effect of SI's attampts to eradicate the succes of 'super-tactics' and not a huge game engine flaw as some are suggesting. Indeed, the possibility of a 'super-tactic' would indicate flawed AI, as it is unable to cope with a specific set of instructions, no matter how illogical they may be in real football terms. I can give a few examples. I would clean up in FM05 with an ultra-narrow/slow/short tactic. Others employed forum super tactics (PassnMove, <st1:date Month="4" Day="2" Year="2004">4-4-2</st1:date> Domination, Supernova etc) that guaranteed big scoring wins. There is also the 'super-corner' routine that sets 8 players on the far post and one outside area that results in multituds of goals.<br>我认为“逆转bug”是Si为了根除所谓的“超级战术”而出现的，而不是有些人说的由于游戏引擎过大所导致的。确实，超级战术的可能性证明电脑智能的缺陷，因为它不可能去对付一个非常精确的战术设置，无论这个战术在实际的足球世界中如何不合理。举一些例子，我整理过FM05的一些战术（极少利用宽度、节奏慢、短传的战术，其他论坛的统治442，超级nova等等战术）这些战术都能保证大比分胜利。也还有所谓的超级角球战术，就是8个球员在后门柱，一个在禁区外这样的设置。<br>Did people hugely complain about these being 'game engine flaws'? No, because we are human and we like to win. I never used any of the downloadable tactics, but mine was just as 'super' as those and would not work in real life. SI's response to the success of the super tactic is to program a set of variables that could beat a variety of tactical systems. They would especially pick apart any flawed or unrealistic tactical setups and any team employing them would be havily punished. I will explain how I have come to this conclusion, and what I think can be done.<br>有人抱怨这些人为利用游戏引擎缺陷的战术吗？没有，因为我们都是人，我们喜欢胜利，我从未用过这些战术，但是，我的战术也是可以称为超级战术，也是绝对不可能在现实中发生的。SI对超级战术的出现的反应就是编出一套包含很多变量，可以应对各种战术的系统，它可以粉碎一切不现实或有缺陷的战术设置，使用这些战术的球队会得到重重的惩罚。下面我解释一下我怎么得出这个结论，我所想的都是已经经过实践的。<br>Buxton, one of the FM05 tactical magicians, started to become involved with the Tactical Theorems thread after ignoring it previously. He, like so many of you, had been extremely frustrated with FM06, to the extent he wasn't enjoying it at all. We entered a dialogue and he switched to a system similar to the one TT&F suggests, and immediately started having success at <st1:City><st1:place>Barcelona</st1:place></st1:City>. However, he still found it difficult to break down small teams with massed defences (logical, as that is difficult in real life) and would get hit on the break or revert to the long ball disaster many of us have experienced. He asked us to look at how we could approach breaking down such a system.<br>Buxton是FM05的战术大师，开始玩06的时候非常艰难，他沿用了原先的战术思路，忽视了之前所提到的SI的系统会对超级战术进行惩罚。结果遭受严重挫折。之后他就再也不用了。他沿用了“TT&F”所建议的一套设置，马上在巴萨收到成效，可是，他仍旧发现难以破小球队的密集防守战术，而且经常被反击得分或者远射得分（这是合理的，现实中也是如此）。他的经历让我们有了寻找在06这个系统下破密集防守的想法。<br>I rarely came up against that kind of thing in my game, as I am in LLM, but I found a match where it was happening, and tested some theories. It was a perfect match for the test, for although they employed a 10-men behind the ball system, they were, player for player, better than me. I found that I had to abandon some of our theories, especially the 5x5 Defensive Line Theory in order to succeed. I discovered that you had to spread your team to win a match of this type. I dropped my defensive line deep, in oppostion of 5x5 Theory, and widened my formation, employed a slow-tempo passing game (again, going against some of our theories which believe high-tempo is better for attack) with both front men and a MC holding up the ball. The theory was I would allow players time to get into position, and I shouldn't compact the pitch with a high defensive line as space was paramount. What it meant was that the defensive line was out of synch with the rest of the formation, but it didn't matter, because the opposition weren't trying to flood the midfield or attack except via two-man breaks. I achieved a fair degree of success in breaking down a massed defence doing this.<br>我很少提及在我游戏中发生的同样事情，但我发现比赛从哪开始，而且检验一些理论，测试理论的比赛是非常完美的，即使是十个人都在防守的阵型，他们阵型非常严密，比我的还好。我发现有些理论必须摒弃，尤其是5X5理论。我发现要在这一类型的比赛中获胜就必须展开队伍阵型。我把防线回收，扩展阵型，（为了反驳5X5理论）沿用慢节奏的传球（同样为了反驳快节奏更有利于进攻），用两个前锋跟一个MC控球。这个理论在于我给球员时间去落位。我不把防线压上的原因在于空间是非常重要的，虽然有可能造成阵型脱节但是不要紧，对方不可能压过中场或者进攻超过两个人的反击。所以在破密集防守方面我取得了一定成功。<br>However, this system will get destroyed if a team starts to flood the midfield. In that situation you will have a deep sitting defensive line, full-backs pushing, with no midfield cover. The opposition will get their midfield between your MCs and DCs and will undoubtedly score. So, you need to compact your formation to stop it happening. Our basic theories are based on a compact and difficult to break down system, so switching to a counter attacking version of one of our setups tends to tighten things up once the opposition start to push forward, and you will likely score again on the break and kill the match off. <br>但是，如果队伍开始压过中场的话，这个阵型就会被破坏，在你将防线后撤，中场又全力进攻，防线缺乏中场保护的情况下，对方会将他们的中场置于你的中场球员和后卫之间的空档，得分也就不难了。所以你必须让阵型紧凑来阻止这种情况发生，我们的理论是基于一个紧凑和难以打乱的阵型，所以一旦当对手开始进攻的时候就要改变战术，设置快速反击和贴身防守。<br>Here, we are looking at two tactical systems that must be employed when facing two very different tactcial setups. One is to break down a stubborn foe, the other is a solid formation that is both difficult to break down, but also creates chances. However, the first system, although great at creating chances against poor teams, or massed defences, is easily attackable once the other team starts to push forward and actually tries to play football. The second system, although good against most teams, falls down against a massed defence, and you are vunerable on the break. SI have obviously looked at how super tactics work, and programmed in an AI reaction to a variety of formation types, and created opposing tactics to break down all forms of 'supertactism.' It does seem that the 'comeback bug' is an unfortunate side effect of this. <br>这里，当我们面对两种不同的战术设置时，就必须采取不同的战术体系。一种是全力进攻以对付密集防守的对手，一种是让阵型难以被对手打乱，同时也能创造机会。可是，第一种体系，虽然在对弱队或者密集防守时容易创造机会，但一旦对方改变战术反攻，也容易被对方得分，第二种体系，虽然适合对付大多数球队，但是很难破密集防守。SI注意到超级战术的原理，开发出一套程序来应对。让电脑可以创造战术去破超级战术。所以大逆转就是这样产生的。<BR line-break?>I agree that a poor team shouldn't be able to comeback against a big team from 3 goals down. However, I believe if the user employs an illogical tactical system, he should be punished for it, not rewarded, as the 'supertacticians' tended to be, This is what I think the 'comeback bug' is doing; ensuring illogical systems DO NOT work. It also means that an open pitch, ultra-attacking system is hugely risky to keep on employing against a compact, pushing team that is trying to get back in a match, as it would be in real life. It means a manager must have a set of tactical systems to employ for a variety of situations/teams. I think that is a massive, massive step forwards in terms of realism and game-play. One tactical system = a lot of frustration and defeats. A mulitude of systems to be employed at the right time, although not guaranteeing success, will hinder failure. <br>我同意一支弱队不应该能在对一支强队的时候，在落后三球时还能扳平或反超。可是，我相信，如果玩家采取超级战术的话，他会得到惩罚。这就是我认为“逆转bug”的工作原理，就是保证非常规的战术不起作用。这样也就意味着在对付阵型紧凑，没有全力密集防守，要压上扳回比分的队伍时，开放的，全力进攻的战术需要冒着极大的风险，就像在现实中一样。这意味着一个教练必须有一整套战术体系去应付各种情况和各种队伍。我想那就是根据实际情况一步一个脚印去走。一套战术体系是伴随着许多挫折跟失败，在合适的时间用合适的战术，虽然不一定能确保胜利，但是可以防止以后的失败。<br></FONT>
<P><FONT size=4>The 'comeback bug' may have to be slightly tweaked, but I hope it isn't too much, as it is the tactical intracacies of the current game that have a fair few of us drooling at its improvement. The down-tweaking of AI logic will, in my opinion, hurt the game. I agree that it would be nice to have a few AI managers try to shut up shop and not get embarrassed when 3-0 down, but I don't want many of them to do that. I would prefer them to at least get their team trying to play football, so I can employ a different system to stop them.<br>这段没什么战术的内容，大意是说“逆转bug”也许会得到SI的控制，但是作者不希望电脑大比分之下放弃比赛，还是要尽力争取逆转。这样才会让游戏更有趣味。<br>Saying that, I do still (sorry PaulC) have an issue with man-marking. I would like to employ it, but think it is hugely flawed, and that a man-marking system will make comebacks more likely, so until I see an improvement or announcement that it has been changed for 6.0.2, will continue with zonal. I think AI teams do have an advantage in that they can micro-manage man-marking, whereas we cannot (we can, but boy is it hard work and frustrating). Other than that, it is a pretty fair playing field, and the introduction of neccessary tactical swtching a huge plus from previous games.<br><FONT face=宋体>说到这里，我还要说说</FONT>SI<FONT face=宋体>设计的盯人，虽然我喜欢盯人，但是还是有缺陷，就是这个盯人系统让大逆转变得可能性更大。所以如果</FONT>6.02<FONT face=宋体>没有改进的话我还是会用区域防守。我觉得电脑的队伍在微控盯人方面比我们有优势。</FONT><br>To sum up, comebacks will happen if you do the wrong thing. Pretty unrealistic they may be, but then again, how many real life managers do the wrong thing when they are 3-0 up. Not many I'm sure, or they will soon be out of a job. I read Paul's example of a manager taking off three players at half-time for a rest, yet leaving two exhausted FCs on the pitch. Hello! That is obviously bad management. Furthermore, the defender hitting a ball across his own box, or standing around and doing nothing,is how the AI reacts to poor instructions. I don't see it any more (although I did) so it must be user error, and not game engine flaws. I don't see that as flawed logic. If I have stopped it, as have many of the contributors to TT&F, then surely everyone can. It is not as if I have never seen it happen, I have, but I have reacted to it and solved it. In terms of an instant fix, I do suggest scrapping man-marking and heavy closing down across the pitch, as they will hurt any formation.<br><FONT face=宋体>总的来说，大逆转发生在你犯错的情况下，虽然相当不合理，但是在现实中也有许多教练在大比分领先是犯错，我见过一个例子，一个教练在中场休息时换下三个球员。留下两个筋疲力尽的前锋。此外，还有后卫乌龙，站着看，不盯人等等。那么电脑会怎么处理玩家出现的错误呢？所以大逆转是玩家犯错，而不是游戏引擎问题，作为建议，我不推荐采取盯人防守跟过分贴身紧逼。因为它们会破坏阵型。</FONT><br>I hope this is seen as a logical argument towards solving a problem and not someone defending the game to the hilt despite all evidence. I believe there are some minor flaws and one major one, but it is still highly playable and rewarding. It just takes time to adjust.<o:p></o:p></FONT></P><FONT size=4>这段是希望大家指正的谦虚话，就不翻译了。<br><BR line-break?></FONT>
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-12-2 2:02:59编辑过]
|
|
楼主: zeusyuan
发表于 2005-12-2 05:54
楼主
