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.
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.
) too:
Crazy world that is!
