PES 2018 PlayStation & Xbox Discussion Thread

Chris Davies said:
Nice, thanks for posting this! I wonder if tactics are locked because they're still tuning.
Click to expand...

Game is already finished, discs already burnt and in Konami's boxes ready to fly out worldwide. It takes lot of planning to get the game in stores ready everywhere for a certain date. Gamescom build is Release Build (I'm sure about that). So they are probably locked so people won't be wasting too much time messing with them while others are waiting in line.
 
Hardcore fans here, hardcore fans there, hardcore fans everywhere...every thinks he is an hardcore fan...

What am in? A softcore fan?

Seriously....

@ Chris Davies: no problem, my friend...you are doing a good job as mod.
 
man, i'm looking forward to tonights match at anfield. i'm german but my fav english team is liverpool (for years)! so this time i'm not with the german team (like i used to when they play qualifier against foreign teams). tonight i want to see the reds rollin'!! 4:1!!
sorry for ot, but i'm so soccer hyped right now. bundesliga started, CL qualifiers running, PES on the horizon...

Auba at konami's booth at gamescom:
https://twitter.com/drinkrelaxplay/status/900347177549144064
Reus is there too:
https://twitter.com/PESLeagueDE/status/900347008690597890
https://twitter.com/PESLeagueDE/status/900346478861762560
Norbert Dickel (the german legend that noone knows ;) ) too:
https://twitter.com/PES_Armenia/status/900346446007869441
 
May I ask why Dybala, Hazard and Icardi (to name a few) don't have their tattoos? Dybala and Hazard are licensed through their respective National Teams. Icardi is licensed through both his Club AND Argentina Natial Squad. So what's stopping Konami to go all out?.
 
Chuny said:
May I ask why Dybala, Hazard and Icardi (to name a few) don't have their tattoos? Dybala and Hazard are licensed through their respective National Teams. Icardi is licensed through both his Club AND Argentina Natial Squad. So what's stopping Konami to go all out?.
Click to expand...
maybe this is coming with the day one patch... maybe... you know konami... everything is possible.
this is like when they forget to put signal iduna park in the stadium list on their website. sometimes their behaviour looks weird/confusing...
make the best out of it: watch CL qualifiers (they have tattoos too)! :)
 
Last edited:
PRO_TOO said:
maybe this is coming with the day one patch... maybe... you know konami... everything is possible.
this is like when they forget to put signal iduna park in the stadium list on there website. sometimes there behaviour looks weird/confusing...
make the best out of it: watch CL qualifiers (they have tattoos too)! :)
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong though, I couldn't care less about player's tattoos. I just want to know how it works.
I mean... who own the rights of their tattoos? I guess players own it themselves. So... Konami can get their faces perfectly represented, but not their arms or legs?. It's just confusing.
 
Chuny said:
Don't get me wrong though, I couldn't care less about player's tattoos. I just want to know how it works.
I mean... who own the rights of their tattoos? I guess players own it themselves. So... Konami can get their faces perfectly represented, but not their arms or legs?. It's just confusing.
Click to expand...
so i guess its down to konami then. if you have the rights to the players and clubs... what rights do they need to get?! the one's from the guys who put the tattoo on dybalas skin!? ;)
its crazy. noone knows. maybe not even konami!
 
Tattoos? Licensing issues?
In NBA2K whatever (2017 or 2016) there was a certain player represented with tattoos and the tattoo artist who made one particuar tattoo wanted money because he considered that he alone had the rights on that tattoo and not the player.
That is perhaps the reason.
 
gerd said:
Tattoos? Licensing issues?
In NBA2K whatever (2017 or 2016) there was a certain player represented with tattoos and the tattoo artist who made one particuar tattoo wanted money because he considered that he alone had the rights on that tattoo and not the player.
That is perhaps the reason.
Click to expand...

Seems plausible, but what i dont get, if it is a licensing thing, how can both companies represent players(Messi, Reus?) with ink in their games?
 
They've already mentioned that tattoos are limited to players in partner clubs like Barca, Liverpool and Dortmund.
 
Chris Davies said:
Nice, thanks for posting this! I wonder if tactics are locked because they're still tuning.
Click to expand...
How I understand it: only position movement is locked. The other options should be available.
I'm glad it's like that in the demo. So I can test some stuff by disabling advanced tactics and other auto settings. I want to see the pure AI behavior.
OR: Maybe I'm just playing the game on fm. Matt is gonna do that analyzing stuff anyway (thx M10)... so I only have to watch a video! :D
gerd said:
Tattoos? Licensing issues?
In NBA2K whatever (2017 or 2016) there was a certain player represented with tattoos and the tattoo artist who made one particuar tattoo wanted money because he considered that he alone had the rights on that tattoo and not the player.
That is perhaps the reason.
Click to expand...
I meant that as a joke. :)
Really. He wanted money?! :CONFUSE: Crazy world that is!

Someone on a podcast, can't remember which one (might be footy united), said he's waiting for that bored rich fella who's suing a game company for totally changing the product he bought by delivering patches. I was laughing my ass off!!
And i liked his thought. :D
 
Last edited:
Matt10 said:
I'm at the point where I just need the demo in my hands. Yet to see a video of teams actually building numbers in the attack or, more importantly, in defense.
Click to expand...

Same here but I can already tell that Fluid formations is going to be the only way to get the midfield play good enough for me as well as numbers in defence.
 
rammeal said:
Same here but I can already tell that Fluid formations is going to be the only way to get the midfield play good enough for me as well as numbers in defence.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it looks like it. I'll be messing around with it if I don't see what I need in the demo by default.
 
just an example of the no foul being barged on in 2017 which happened more often then not, in the other game this is a clear penalty, still referee is sleeping or whstever blind here, just to say that in the beta 2018 this still happens, seriously F*** this game or the referee i don t know which one i have to say...
 
Matt10 said:
Agreed, it looks like it. I'll be messing around with it if I don't see what I need in the demo by default.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping there is more midfield congestion in the final game, on the harder difficulties. If not, I'm hoping Matt will team up with some option file makers to edit teams so that there is.
 
PRO_TOO said:
How I understand it: only position movement is locked. The other options should be available.
I'm glad it's like that in the demo. So I can test some stuff by disabling advanced tactics and other auto settings. I want to see the pure AI behavior.
OR: Maybe I'm just playing the game on fm. Matt is gonna do that analyzing stuff anyway (thx M10)... so I only have to watch a video! :D

I meant that as a joke. :)
Really. He wanted money?! :CONFUSE: Crazy world that is!

Someone on a podcast, can't remember which one (might be footy united), said he's waiting for that bored rich fella who's suing a game company for totally changing the product he bought by delivering patches. I was laughing my ass off!!
And i liked his thought. :D
Click to expand...
Read somewhere that Rockstar did pay enormous settlements with both GTA 4-5, just because someone felt that they were represented in the game.
Where there's money to be made,the wolves comes out.
Perhaps a way not to get sued?
 
stupidusername said:
My only issue is that your research is made with a very selective interpretation of the original complaint. For example if only 20% of shots were on target you might say this is clear proof that shooting is not too "easy", but if 90% of those shots were clean, perfectly struck shots that only narrowly missed the target it kind of misses the point. You also can't really use a singular example to challenge claims about general trends/observations, like one example of a shot being blazed over doesn't mean that it's not a notably rare thing to see this. On the other hand, we should be as precise as possible when pointing out issues and not overstate the case. I did not mean to imply that it was impossible to blaze one over, but I still feel the difficulty of certain types of shots is not accurately represented in the game in terms of the variety of outcomes, which contributes to the *perception* of cheap or easy goals even if the statistics don't fully support it.
Click to expand...

Not having a go but what was originally put forward was that first-time shots at goal are too easy. I'm not holding up what I have done with regards to counting every single first-time effort on goal over for matches as full proof of anything other than the claim that first-time shots are super accurate and easy is completely and utterly questionable.

16 first-time shots in total were attempted across those four matches. That averages four per game; two per half. We are talking about first-time efforts on goal struck with the foot, from anywhere on the pitch, here. We aren't talking about bicycle kicks or heeled volleys - just a shot at goal without taking a first touch.

Only three resulted in goals and all three were from inside the box (one was a tap-in) and body position and execution were completely and utterly believable. The claim that first-time shots are super accurate, effective, or easy simply doesn't hold up based on the admittedly small sample size. Remember, another forum member used an example from a match in which I, not them, identified that it was the only first-time strike at goal in the entire match. That was the first piece of evidence I was presented with that first-time shots are too easy and I worked from there. I'm not even having a go at them here, and merely pointing out the facts as to how the debate and my analysis started.

You are a high level manager in a place of work and one of the managers who works under you tells you that a member of staff is off "all the time". You ask them if they mean that they are "never" in, and they reply "Yes. They are never in"

Do you just assume they are correct or do you ask them for more information? More evidence?

So let's say you do a bit of investigation. Turns out they are in work 97% of the time they are expected to be in work. While 3% is perhaps a wee bit high, certainly cause for discussion, it simply isn't all the time, is it? The manager has misinformed you and when you asked them for a bit more clarity they said they are never in.

Do you manage that situation based on the "perception" or the actual facts? What would you have to say to the manager? "Close enough", "yes, I can see what you mean in spite of current evidence stating that you are 100% wrong, but I need to go with perception here. I'm sure the employee's trade union will have no issue with that at all"

While there is value to perception, hard facts matter, especially if people are wanting to have their feedback taken seriously.

I asked Chris the same question and he never answered, so I will ask you, respectfully:

If you were looking to gather genuinely useful feedback for Konami and some dude started off his massive feedback piece with "Shots NEVER go over. First-time strikes at goal with the foot are super accurate and easy" yet you have evidence that completely debunks the first claim, and casts major doubt on the second, are you really going to take them seriously? Are you really going to read the rest of their feedback for any other reason than to amuse yourself for a couple of minutes? Maybe they have some amazing feedback elsewhere, but they started off with stuff that is currently proving easy to debunk. They are their own worst enemy, not Konami.

If folks are feeding stuff like that back to Konami then they would do well to forget ever being taken seriously. Not that they ever supply any evidence anyway.

***********************************************************************************************

Anyway, another vid. First one I clicked on from my Youtube homepage. Uploaded 2 hours ago...


Number of first-time shots struck with the foot at goal: 1. It was from close range.

Number of first-time shots that were on target: 0

Number of first-time shots that resulted in a goal: 0

BONUS OBSERVATION!

Number of shots that were struck under no pressure at all that ended up going high and wide: 1. But "it never happens"

17 first-time strikes with the foot at goal across 5 matches. 12 of those came in one match. 3 goals scored from first-time strikes struck with the foot across 5 matches; a truly worrying 0.6 first-time strike goals per match. All the first-time strikes at goal that resulted in goals were from inside the area, with one being a tap-in, as previously stated.

Based on 5 matches (currently) first-time strikes on goal have returned a success rate of 17%. But they are easy and super accurate. 17%, which is less than 1 in 5, and they have had to be from close range in order to succeed.

This isn't trolling. It is analysis.
 
@curdstar Brevity is the soul of wit. I mean I see you still talking about goals per match ratios and other metrics you've made up that don't really address the point that the perception of these shots (not just first time shots, but difficult or ambitious shots in general) being too easy to pull off persists, mainly because there isn't a wide enough "spectrum" of outcomes, and I already conceded that we should be precise and not overstate the case.

The other big issue I have with PES 2018 is how easy it is to pull off "skill passes", backheels and stuff. I think it's more of an animation issue, i.e. the amount of times the game selects fancy trick passes makes it look really arcadey. It's super noticeable in the video DuduBR9 just posted. I'd love to be proven wrong on that one! :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom