If a team is given too many tough matchups, it doesn't matter who the coach is, they will fail to qualify
Research showed that 90% of matches in CCL happen with TV diff below 350, 50% - below 100. That assumption that "long streak of hard matchups" is a problem doesn't seem like well-argued. 350TV diff is not that hard matchup, 50% of your matches are more or less even, in terms of TV (which is not good measurement factor, still). With enough matches played by each participant, distribution of "tough matches" across the playerbase becomes more or less even, and just becomes an additional test of coach's skills - i.e. how well he can survive tough matchups.
And some rare unlucky occurrences, like when you are indeed one of those 0,1% of coaches that are given disproportionately far worse match ups than the main body of coaches, are no different from other rare unlucky occurrences like having half of your team dead, which also can influence whether or not you will qualify. That's the nature of this game.
Not having to face +450 tv killer braindead coach teams... would at least help a little when you try to qualify
Everybody in CCL has their share of "+450 tv killer braindead coach teams" because MM doesn't honor anybody and doesn't give you ability to cherry-pick your fights (what you advocate here for), and still there is full set of teams ready for play offs at the end of each season. So if they are able to overcome all obstacles and you are not, they are more worthy to qualify than you. That's how natural selection works.
@hotdogchef said in [Change to the way teams are ranked and matched in
Let those that want to wait, wait, let us choose the max tv difference, 100 the smallest, 450 max. At least for ccl.
CCL is exactly the place where such choosing must not be ever allowed. Matchmaking must not place certain coaches in more beneficial conditions, everybody must face its flaws in equal manner, there must not be ways to avoid less beneficial matchups for those who can just wait on it. Don't you think it would be unfair otherwise, or you see fairness only where you want it to see? It will either lead to situation where everybody will be just waiting for hours (what, I agree, will kill the ladder), or some coaches will have an advantage just because they are ready/able to wait. The only ones I can see it allowed for are those who don't aim at winning the season in the first place, like those who play CCL just because they like strict sportsmanship rules there. If it would be possible to mark some team as "for fun" sort of team, effectively removing it from the competition (so it will never be considered for play-offs), then for such teams it could be allowed, perhaps.
According to recently published study, 50% of games during a season have TV diff below 100 already. 90% of all the games have TV diff below 350 (what is pretty decent and on average still provides 30% chance to win and 20% chance to tie for underdog). It's not a big problem if you'll see a few matches with TV diff more than 100, or even more than 350, as everybody else does it as well, and as your number of played games increases impact of those few extreme [un]lucky factors diminishes, in most of the cases (not counting very rare situations when team gets half of its roster dead/crippled; but that's how BB is)
It would be nice if those formations could be viewed/edited also offline, i.e. before/between games, copied from one team to another or simply kept in some sort of library
I don't usually indulge in self-advertisement, but for the sake of formation editor idea I'll do an exception ;) link
Those side-scrolling UI designs (which is our punishment for Cyanide's flirting with console games market) are really an atrocity on themselves. I also have much to say about need to select formations during on-pitch setup the same way (in contrary to drop-down list we had in the previous game), but none of those words will pass censorship anyway.
That's where you are wrong. If there is one thing you are allowed to do it is making a choice.
That choice will not prevent the risk in most situations that really take place on the pitch.
Because they aren't the same thing. I don't know how to say it in much simpler way than I already had.
That depends on what do you mean by "the same". Because their nature is the same. In both cases there is certain probability of random factor which meddles with your plans. Though in the 1st case you may lower it's probability, you can't remove it, it's still there. So, in the end, in both cases there is certain probability your plan will goo "poof", and you can do nothing about it. Then how it's not the same? Some Kick off events may not have any gameplay (decision-making which leads to them, or mitigates them) bound to them, like Pitch Invasion, but it still doesn't change the fact it's the same kind of random factor as any other in the game you can't mitigate past certain threshold.
They may have different impact, but that's also a subjective matter which depends on context.
It's not the same because the risk is not applied in the same way. Actions have risk applied to them after making a call
No, game won't allow you such privilege. Pitch is of limited sizes, and even if you'll keep turtling up in your own corner, eventually your opponent will get in range, and starting that moment there won't be any way to remove a threat of your plans going wrong due to some (un)lucky roll completely. Whatever you do, a few roll of dices may throw all your precautions out of a window. You seem to be ok with that, but when it comes to Kick off events, which work effectively the same, you suddenly have difficulties to cope with them. I just don't get it. Basically, it's the same for both situations: there is certain chance some unfavorable outcome will spoil all your plans, and you can't prevent it. Does the fact you can make a chance somewhat lesser provide you a convenient illusion of being in control of it? After all, all that matters is the final chance of failure.
but you know the chances and can manage them to a degree
As @dode74 has pointed out, it's possible to manage threats of some Kick Off events. He also forgot to mention some stadium upgrades help with it as well. But then again, "manage" doesn't mean "to prevent". You can't prevent all harms from (un)lucky rolls on pitch, you can't prevent all harms from "bad" Kick off events. Then why first is ok, and 2nd is not?