HTs on Global/Hattrick Rules
| From: | HT-Klas | (7831771.38) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 18.01.2007 at 21:23 | ||
| In reply to (7831762.952)
Dear HTs, I have heard that it is forbidden to play multiple friendlies against one team. Is this true? (I can't find it in the rules, so if it's indeed true, you might want to add it.) No, that is not forbidden. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.59) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 05.02.2007 at 17:57 | ||
| Reply to (7831762.118)
Without wanting to question your neutrality, which nevertheless my subconscience does, it always brought my attention how "politics is not allowed" and yet everyday I see many politically left-wing team names / arena names being allowed or not being removed/changed, even of dictatorships such as communism, where as the other "wing" of politics is permanently forbidden to the smallest appearance/sign. Political names are ok, but political discussions on the conferences are not - so I think you (and maybe others too) have misunderstood things. In fact, we would love to allow political discussions on the general forums too. Unfortunately it looks like subjects like that can't be discussed in a sensible and respectable way on general forums, so we had to put an end to it (hence the conference rule). Political discussions are however allowed within federations. There are however some rules about names which could be considered to border to politics. But, quite naturally imho, we don't allow names which could be linked to nazism, fascism or rascism for example. One can say that we allow political names as long as they can be considered human. For example FC Communism is ok, but FC Stalin is not. If you spot a name which you don't find appropriate, please report it to the GMs (Help --> Contact us). | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.96) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 03.07.2007, at 16:26 | ||
| Reply to (8995830.238)
Do you think God exists? I'm not allowed to discuss religous matters on the conferences. :) Is it possible for you to talk openly about how you perceive the transfer market "problem" and possible solutions? Sure it is, I've done so a little bit in this thread. That said, I think this whole particular matter (the state of the economy) will fit better on editorial space. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.99) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 22.08.2007 at 17:03 | ||
| Back again after summer holidays, which unfortunately wasn't announced as it should've been. Sorry about that.
Reply to (8995830.344) What about the bidprices for such a special player ? For example : 2) What about a player with a famous name (singer, footballer, ...) ? The rules are quite clear on this point: "all bids should be in relevance to what could be considered reasonable for the player in question". How do we interpret this then, because what's reasonable for you may not be reasonable for me - something your first example pretty much shows. Cause I wouldn't pay anything for no-skilled player with your name, but you may. But in fact this isn't really that hard as it looks, except for one thing which I'll save to last. But if you pay more than the market consider being normal it's an overbid. It's the GMs who make sure this rule is followed. One can say there are two types of overbids, those where no cheating are involved and those where cheating (giving favours to another team, which often is managed by the same person for some reason...) are involved. Your examples are both of the first type. and what GMs do in that case is to do what they always do: They look at the market and check what this kind of player is normally worth. Now, if the player is worth 0 noone will care if you buy him for 1-2000€. I guess noone will care even if you buy him for 10000€. What's really interesting here is that anyone selling a 'nobody' shouldn't benefit just because of his name, hence why GMs deduct money from the seller if it's an overbid. So in theory you can pay how much you want for such a player, as the seller don't benefit from it. Paying that much for a player like that would however be pretty stupid of course. The other type of overbids, where cheating is involved, require other actions (lock and fines etc) from GMs. Those cases are often pretty obvious and fairly easy to handle. What's so hard then? The hard thing is for GMs to evaluate transfer price adjustments, cause the seller may be somewhat angry as someone takes "his" money. It's also pretty hard to say exact how much a player is worth. It's wise as a seller in an overbid case to report this directly to the GMs, for two reasons: Less frustration and more importantantly that a lack of report may add some suspicion to the case. In the GM organization there are however persons who constantly follow the transfer market who help out in cases like this. And even if you'll never know exactly how much a player is worth we can always come pretty close, and GMs are rather kind when doing these eveluations. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.116) as reply to (7831771.96) | |
| To: Everyone | 25.09.2007 at 15:34 | ||
| Reply to (8995830.496)
When will the rules - e.g. (gamerules.asp?find=training) - be updated? As a matter of fact the rules are in need of a complete rewrite, but as you point out the training chapter is in desperate need because of the stamina change. I'll make sure to start with that chapter early next week when I'm back in town again. (This means I'll be offline for a few days, new questions will be answered next week again) | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.4) as reply to (11867073.2) | |
| To: dijkmans | 17.9.2008 at 11:18 | ||
| I hope the 'rules on one page' will be back soon.
They will. We will just want to make sure everything is ok first (there might still be some small moves/changes to do after the release), before we do that page. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.13) as reply to (11867073.12) | |
| To: torkelherr | 17.9.2008 at 11:51 | ||
| @tjecken: is there a possibility to have the old rules in the choosen language at hattrick, for example under community -> history?
Nope. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.14) as reply to (11867073.5) | |
| To: Torn_ | 17.9.2008 at 11:52 | ||
| I noticed you have partially cleared up what factor determines the effectiveness of a certain tactic level - the average "main skill" of the players on the pitch.
However, what is a "main skill"? Is it the highest skill of the player (excluding SP/stamina and including or excluding passing), or is it the most important skill for the position he plays that match in? For example, if I use an offensive central defender with disastrous defending and titanic playmaking, is his "main skill" disastrous or titanic? It's not clear enough, you're right. I'll fix. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.16) as reply to (11867073.12) | |
| To: torkelherr | 17.9.2008 at 11:57 | ||
| About the history, there will naturally be a line about the new rules and that classical sentences like "Football's not only numbers and mathematics. It's about psychology as well" are forever buried. :) | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.31) as reply to (11867073.17) | |
| To: myamlak | 17.9.2008 at 13:15 | ||
| I see that Psychology chapter has been reorganized a lot comparing to old rules. Even the sentence about confidence and ratings was a bit modified. It says in current form:
Team confidence is reflected in the attack sector ratings. Does it mean that it will be truly reflected in attack ratings from now on? No, that ME change/fix/whatever is still not done. Confidence is however reflected in the ratings, not just the whole effect. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.34) as reply to (11867073.20) | |
| To: Seviath | 17.9.2008 at 13:19 | ||
| This is really a pity to me, I liked this way of writing the rules, I find it very "roleplaying", in the same way as I like to see my players skills with words rather that with numbers. I just hope this is not a sign that you are going towards this direction.
Eh, I think you better read that old sentence again. At least I fail to see the close relation between football and mathematics. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.35) as reply to (11867073.32) | |
| To: Seran | 17.9.2008 at 13:23 | ||
| Still 1 question about the tactics: Has Creative Play been enhanced now? In other words, has it been made more effective already?
No. As it says in the MyHT message, nothing has changed in the game. We've just improved the manual. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.43) as reply to (11867073.5) | |
| To: Torn_ | 17.9.2008 at 13:51 | ||
| I noticed you have partially cleared up what factor determines the effectiveness of a certain tactic level - the average "main skill" of the players on the pitch.
However, what is a "main skill"? Is it the highest skill of the player (excluding SP/stamina and including or excluding passing), or is it the most important skill for the position he plays that match in? For example, if I use an offensive central defender with disastrous defending and titanic playmaking, is his "main skill" disastrous or titanic? Added a explaining part now, but it will take some time before the LAs have made the changes to all language versions. This is the master text for info: Secondly, the effect of your tactical skill is also depending on the main skill of your players and your opponent's players. The main skill is the most important skill for a certain position on the pitch, see the Players: Skills chapter for more info. This means a "solid" tactical rating will for example be more effective if your (and your opponent's) players' average main skill is "solid" than if the average main skill is "titanic". | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.45) as reply to (11867073.29) | |
| To: Lolo_Irie | 17.9.2008 at 13:55 | ||
| the link "Appendix 1. The Hattrick Week" is not working like required...
A second click is required to access this info. It's actually always been like that (at least for as long as I can remember). But I agree, it can be improved. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.46) as reply to (11867073.30) | |
| To: Torn_ | 17.9.2008 at 13:58 | ||
| While I'm at it, I see the rules are still ambiguous about the % modification of attack distribution for AIM and AOW. It gives % figures without saying whether they are absolute or relative.
For example: A 40% increase of 50% is 90% in absolute terms but A 40% increase of 50% is 70% in relative terms In general, IMO percentage figures have always been presented in such sloppy manners in HT. I would appreciate if you could make more of an effort to be clear about what is the base whenever you write a % figure. It's relative terms. Perhaps it can be added, but then we would also be aware about that many (most?) people have no clue about what "relative" really means. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.50) as reply to (11867073.38) | |
| To: Seviath | 17.9.2008 at 14:04 | ||
| Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but I what I get is that you are not going to use anymore sentences like that.
The manual is much more straight-forward, yes. Most of the times I think it's a good thing, but one downside is that some "charm" may get lost. I've tried to include some sentences to add realism/charm, but perhaps not enough as it's easy to become a little bit too practical. That said, I don't think there were that many sentences like that in the old rules which haven't been replaced actually. No guarantees though. :) | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.55) as reply to (11867073.39) | |
| To: Sassenmann | 17.9.2008 at 14:08 | ||
| No offensive, insulting, derogatory or discriminating names/logos (to group or other), including racist, fascist and terror org. symbols and similar.
Thanks for including this. I guess further actions will be taken soon? Whatever: This is a very helpful step into the right direction. Thumbs up! Depends on how you interpret "soon" (How soon is now?, as Morrissey put it). It's definitely on the to-do-list, but that list also contains a lot of other things. And right now, we're pretty much occupied in the dotnetification and new design projects, and a new "name system" will at least have to wait for those two gigantic projects to be completed. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.56) as reply to (11867073.42) | |
| To: arrosa | 17.9.2008 at 14:10 | ||
| "Indirect set pieces (friendlies only, available in official matches from Oct 2008)
To defend you use (in order of importance) your outfielders’ average defending, their average set pieces, your goalkeeper’s goalkeeping, and his set pieces."
It is related to scoring and set pieces of all players is i well remember. Can you confirm and updates the rules accordingly please? thx For some reason, a text is missing. There will be a new code release tomorrow, and the text will be included in that release. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.60) as reply to (11867073.18) | |
| To: skyfirex | 17.9.2008 at 14:15 | ||
| The game, however, keeps adding a modifier throughout the match.
does this means that the % of chances in the middle actually increases throughout of the game? I doubt so as that wouldn't make sense. It's the same modifier, so the chance doesn't increase. That said, this sentence is really not important and is now removed in the master version (it was actually included in the old rules too). | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.61) as reply to (11867073.25) | |
| To: skyfirex | 17.9.2008 at 14:17 | ||
| I know that, but in this case (i don't remember this being in the old rules) they are kind of explicitly stating roughly how form affect skills.
It was in the old rules too. The info doesn't exactly say how things work, but they give you a good hint. As it should be. 1. There is no more mention of midfield being linked to SE (so is there or not? :P) Hmm, must be another "forgotten" text. I'll have a look and include it for tomorrow's code release. 2. There is no mention about the 2 formation which are not as easy to maintain experience in as compared to the other legal formations. I think those 2 were 4-3-3 and 3-4-3 ? If I remember correctly now (was sometime ago I wrote that chapter now), the differencies (if any) are so small that they're not worth to mention. I'll have a look though. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.66) as reply to (11867073.64) | |
| To: illik | 17.9.2008 at 14:46 | ||
| According to the (dutch) manual, specialists cost 1500. I feel ripped off since mine are asking 1800! I was already wondering where they got their brand new ferrari's from....
It's a hard coded value which the developer claims have changed 2-3 times now. It's now changed (again?), and the actual change will happen together with the code release tomorrow. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.84) as reply to (11867073.78) | |
| To: jacek_BTL | 17.9.2008 at 16:16 | ||
| 1) Why does player skill have *anything* to do with how effective tactics really are?
Because if effectiveness of tactics would be the same for anyone, then they would either not work at all for weaker teams or be too powerful for top teams. Exactly. It's a way to simulate that a higher tactical level is needed in higher divisions than in lower ones. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.118) as reply to (11867073.87) | |
| To: Ratsia | 18.9.2008 at 09:33 | ||
| The way you describe it now is a bit confusing as it seems to implicitly suggest that it would be the skill levels that matter, not the performance of the players. Does this mean that you ignore form, experience and special events when computing the efficiency? Or does the usual "they affect everything" apply, even though you explicitly talk about the skill level?
It is the skill level, not performance. It may not the most perfect way of doing such a mechanism, but frankly it is a simple design which does the trick fairly well. The old way of describing this (it was in the old rules too, just not at a fantastic place) was "To qualify for "exceptional", more is required of teams in a top level game than in a Division IV meet, and the same relative level is taken into account for the other tactic types as well.". This is an easier way of describing this mechanism, but given the reactions in here it was not enough as noone seem to have understood it at all. That said, I do think that the current phrasing is a bit too technical, so I might tweak it a bit to make it sound better (and perhaps easier to understand). | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (11867073.161) as reply to (11867073.150) | |
| To: Chemical_boy | 23.9.2008 at 10:40 | ||
| So, what is an illegal good here?
We follow what the UN (and similar global organizations) says more or less, for example the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. | |||
