Feed Me Haxball

idiots

how did you confirm the awareness of others? What does that even mean?

Well 2 days ago CRonaldo banned me from an fs because i violated the 3 def rule - However it seemed to me that i was just interfering in the midfield battle (therefore not breaking the 3 man rule)

I think the only alteration the 3 man def rule needs is if you attack with 4 like with your gk and you pass it to him around the midfield area then striker should be able to intervene.

original hbc rule said that pedy.as soon as the 4th player was attacking the other team was allowed to do 4 def (4vs4 situation) and the 3 def rule wasn't applying anymore.
and it's absolutely true that everbody seems to have another interpretation of 3 def. it's beyond ridiculous if ppl complain at halfway line when u intervene.

4v4 is a dumb map anyway

Chillmaz wrote:original hbc rule said that pedy.as soon as the 4th player was attacking the other team was allowed to do 4 def (4vs4 situation) and the 3 def rule wasn't applying anymore.
and it's absolutely true that everbody seems to have another interpretation of 3 def. it's beyond ridiculous if ppl complain at halfway line when u intervene.

use mads map for league, sorted.

Pat wrote:use mads map for league, sorted.

No, that map is shit

i dont understand how #2 is disallowed in the spoiler? it is perfectly legal to intercept that ball, no matter how you look at it

Love London wrote:

Pat wrote:use mads map for league, sorted.

No, that map is shit

why?

Love London wrote:

Pat wrote:use mads map for league, sorted.

No, that map is shit

because it reminds you until where u can do 3 def? just saying shit is stupid. arguments pls

you say shit, because the map is demanding another gamestyle and you're not used to a different gamestyle. that's not an argument.

back in the past when there were no restricting rules about defensive behaviour, ppl complained about the new rule "3 def" too, because no one was used to the new gamestyle.
but with time passing by ppl got used to it and now they started creating their own 3 def rule.

none of you cant deny everybody has his own interpretation of 3 def. some are talking about ball possession, others about attacking zone. apparently 3 def would still apply if gk attacked.
3 def was originally created to avoid a crowded area and having 4 gks in goal. its simple as it is. as soon as the blue gk attacks, it turns into a 3vs4 situation and it would be unfair to the deffending team so the red striker is allowed to help in defense to get an equal number , 4vs4 (no more 3 def in this situation, that has been always like that)

there are some simple solutions:

-removing 3 def completely and we go back to 4 gk-in-goal-gamestyle
-3 def with a striker being all the time at opponents half
-big easy

these options are simple, but i can imagine there would be a huge protest about any of these changes.

adding new rules and/or editting some existing rules regarding 3 def:

-draw a line/curve to remind ppl there is an "attacking" zone
(its just there is a fixed viewable attacking area now and no more dynamic line)

obv this change would also ask for ppl's patience and time. it wouldnt work out "perfectly" from one day to another. admins would have to appeal to your common sense and your fairness. also would ask you not to protest every time because of that 1 pixel, but meh cant avoid that probably if people are chasing success only.

Why is this being brought up again since there's no issues with how we're currently playing right now?

hey guys lets move to hearthstone so we dont have to deal with complicated rules

or the ST just stays away from DM, no interference unless attacking teams possession is lost..if their GK gets involved and DM passes backwards to him, thats interceptable by the ST, but if he passes straight up/down or forward and the GK is that far forward, then the ST has to stay away and always behind the DM..

if the GK wants to play like 4v3 and push really far forward, just have your ST cherrypick and get an easy goal off a deflection, simple.

dora da gora wrote:or the ST just stays away from DM, no interference unless attacking teams possession is lost..

thats the part(ball possession) which complicates the rule. technically attacking could start at their own half and the striker wouldnt be allowed to intervene gg

dora da gora wrote:i dont understand how #2 is disallowed in the spoiler? it is perfectly legal to intercept that ball, no matter how you look at it

#2 is an example of my suggested alteration of correctly defined rules.

the current rules in this situation have a glitch, different approaches that can't coexist together; making it into a lawless grey area.

there are no existing boundaries or ways to tell if its an attacking gk or not. The only consistent and legit way to set up rules would be to allow the st to block the gk in all scenarios (the line change would revert this).


the 2 main aspects of my alteration idea:

actually rules that covers everything unlike the current ones.
The gk/st have the option to get more involved.

dora da gora wrote:or the ST just stays away from DM, no interference unless attacking teams possession is lost..if their GK gets involved and DM passes backwards to him, thats interceptable by the ST, but if he passes straight up/down or forward and the GK is that far forward, then the ST has to stay away and always behind the DM..

if the GK wants to play like 4v3 and push really far forward, just have your ST cherrypick and get an easy goal off a deflection, simple.

If I understand you correct; you are pretty much explaining the consequences of the alterated rules.

But the way you put it with does not work from a logic perspective, unless if you force players to be marked as a certain position without rotation (how do you know whos the gk of the exact moment; it requires many additional complicated rules).

Wouldn't it be pretty boring for the striker if he had to stay in the opponents half the whole time? :S regarding Chill's post

Nobody attacks with their GK anyway.

If it ain't broke don't fit it. There is only occasional arguements about 4 man when there is defence/attack transition. If it were made explicit about what would mean that the rule is violated (in terms of where the dm is turning and amount of control over the ball) then that should eradicate that problem.

and if you're gna put a line/curve in like the one that mad has (if at all) dont make it a curve cos then the top and bottom walls of the map are tiny in the attacking area and most spamming/backpassing is done on those walls. Make it a line about where the furthest point of the curve stretches to, as soon as the ball leaves that line the ST can get involved. I don't think any GK will move as far as the attacking 'zone' line anyway unless your name is jai, so I dont think there would be too many problems.

I'm sure you will be pleased to hear I have the very map to fit all of these wonderful criteria which I made myself

http://haxballmaps.com/map/8446



I think if you download the map and play on it for a bit, you will realise that the lines are probably in the right place, as far as I'm concerned they are a healthy distance away from the 'bylines' which gives plenty but not too much space for the DM to function properly. Also, with normal Big there is always the problem of knowing when the ST can intervene but here, like with Mad's curve, as soon as the ball goes past those lines, the ST can intervene with play. If GK goes past the lines, he is a complete crackpot and don't worry about intervening at all.

Pls improve my idea but I think the base is pretty solid.

mlfaijati wrote:Nobody attacks with their GK anyway.

If it ain't broke don't fit it. There is only occasional arguements about 4 man when there is defence/attack transition. If it were made explicit about what would mean that the rule is violated (in terms of where the dm is turning and amount of control over the ball) then that should eradicate that problem.

Maybe it would be more common to attack with the GK if the rules weren't all messed up and broken.

-

But the attacking GK clarification is just one of the many pros with this alteration. It is way better than the current rules from a theoretical perspective. I can not say if it is more fun to play or not, but my hypothesis is that it would be once everyone got the hang of it.

The things that are stopping this idea from being tested out are peoples attitudes and their limited intelligence.

If this idea didn't come from someone like me; the outcome could have been way greater.

wow naho i didnt know your english was so good