Subject: Questions & Answers

No, random is the main factor for random. If a shot is taken, there is a chance it will go in, etc.

But winning tactics usually gets you more shots, which means you get more chances to score.

Well tactic will logically did that in a perfect world.
They are not reducing tactic because they just felt like it. I think it's because of bigger possibility of random results, and also "I personally believe" that tactic brings more of it "such as".

we are not going to reduce the effectiveness of tactics. we are going to reduce the effectiveness of hitting the counter-tactic

the reason why we want to reduce the effect of "counter-tactics" is because we want to implement new influences for each tactic.

that means that some styles of play will be more beneficial for your team and you will have to make the decision whether you want to counter the opponent or whether you want to play on your strengths.

there are no random results. how many times do I have to repeat this?

Ok, not random results, but less probable.

Sometimes it's easier to say random result, when result is given by great influence of things that are not making any sense.

I very much like this. In hockey it is always a fine balance of playing to your strength and adjusting to your opponent. It doesn't make sense if you have a team full of Kovalchuks just to play Defensive because you're playing another offensive team. Please implement this soon! I love the way tactics and tactical influence is for soccer

Less probable doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Even the best goalies in the world can get blasted for 11 goals (Patrick Roy?)

I look forward to this, might make sense to have more than the "cookie cutter" training build for players depending on your tactic you decide to build your team around.

When one team makes so many less probable results in one season, it sure is question does it makes any sense.

Again, just because your team doesn't win doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And if you're referring to your team, I don't think being in 3rd place in your top division is really anything to be whining about

here is something to ponder. The NHL celebrated its 50,000th game last Saturday. That is since 1917 so it took them 93 years. Here on PPM we get over 20,000 games on a league day. That means we reach 50k in 3 days. It also means that we get plenty more fluky results on PPM than in real life. Can anyone say for sure that there have been more fluky results on PPM in 3 days than in a 93 year history of NHL?

I like the result of tactics, in I.1 USA how on earth else could you beat leggys team? If you don't hit tactics AND your goalie is red hot even now you're in for a long night. If they reduce tactics influence it takes half the skill of the game away, just save your money and build like an automaton moron. If anything increase the tactic nuance and make it have a larger impact (By nuance I mean by line tactics etc so that you can set lines to dominate other lines and so on)

Don't dumb down anything in a game like this, only make it more finite and dynamic.

3rd in I.1? Probably doesn't make sense, or does it?

i agree of course. that's why we are gonna add more tactical options.