Re: SWOS 16/17 Error and bug reports

just one thing i noticed with 2 teams totTenham and Celtic both have Moussa Dembele

just one thing i noticed with 2 teams totTenham and Celtic both have Moussa Dembele

Yeah, there are two Mousa/Moussa Dembeles in real life. It s easy to tell them apart because one is black and the other is white (just kidding!).

Excellent work with the colour decider. I m dying to know the rest of the results now.

@Ben
Don t worry, you really have a point there.
Also, Sida79 s logic doesn t make sense (to me), but it s not important now. (And if there was a joke somewhere in his post, I am sorry I missed the funny part...).

Applying, for example, the logic in 96/97 where Ronaldo (Brazil) is black then you would have something like (but I could be wrong on one or two):
Arsenal: Francis Coquelin - black
Hull: Jake Livermore - white? (*edit)
Southampton: Virgil Van Dyck - black
Sunderland: Jack Rodwell - white
Tottenham: Kyle Walker - black (*edit), Dele Alli- black, Michel Vorm - black, Mousa Dembele - black
Watford: Heurelho Gomes - white
West Brom: Salomon Rondon - white
West Ham: Winston Reid - black, Dimitri Payet - could be both, Darren Randolph- black

The logic is to make a simple arithmetic rule for the official updates to avoid the never ending arguments about who is really black...

Don t know what you re talking about.
I just said he has a point there, Randolph is not white, there s no way, my guess is the guy editing didn t even look at the picture, that s all. It s not a crime and that doesn t bother me.
For me it s ok, white, black I do not really care about how they look in the game.
The guy was polite, had a point, do you know what a forum is?
Admins can ignore him or tell him they decided otherwise (they have all the rights) or whatever they want to reply. I agree with him, but I am not asking for a change, probably the guy editing was too busy to check all the pictures (was he supposed to?). No big deal.

Don t know what you re talking about.

lol agreed!

Well, that escalated quickly. Do you need more than 1 person involved to say that? ;D

The best scenario would be to use the logic from SWOS 96/97, but I don t know what logic they used. I imagine they used the almanacs and haven t really seen all the players in action. If that is indeed so, the method I proposed would yield slightly better results.

The silly part of it all, and the reason why I would never seriously insist on using that system, is that both the photograph you find online, as well as skin colour itself, can vary, so it s best to leave it to someone who s seen the player in action many times.

You need no better proof for this than to look at Ronaldo s page on transfermarkt, which does its best to come as close as possible to both the swos white and the swos black sprite at the same time.



Now, just to be clear... this would still not be an obstacle if someone would make automated software that takes a bulk of player s images from google and, with little supervision, mashes them all up in a much better average. What would be an obstacle is that we perceive colour in relation to it s surrounding, if you think of that whole white dress/blue dress thing, or what was it, and optical illusions.

Then there is the question of overlapping ranges with different endpoints, etc. Too much work!

Hey Sida, yes, as I feared, this is turning in to a mine field. So I ll say this and then bow out:

The point was that the colours should be decided without relying on our subjective opinion. As this thread shows, that strategy will only result in endless arguments. Arguments about skills are bad enough, but I was just trying to stop this forum going down the road of bickering over who is really black. Before you know it, someone says the wrong thing without any bad intentions and the whole thing escalates.

The official editors have done such great work here, for their benefit we should give this topic a wide berth before it can even get started. They don t deserve having accusations thrown at them.

Your idea, like the calculation for player values, takes all subjectivity out of it and that s the point. I m not suggesting we actually use it either, just that we should make a point right now, for the benefit of the editors, to avoid this discussion altogether.

Leave all players as they currently are and let people edit their own datasets if they are unhappy. No more decisions on whether or not a player is or ins t really black. I suggest we avoid that particular mine field, for the benefit of the editors who have done such an awesome job.

Just my suggestion, hope you ll consider it.

Good luck! ;D

@Higgipoker

Mine field? Escalates? In what world something like this is a mine field? Not the real one, I am sure about that.
It s way simpler than that.
Guy says: these guys are black. Instead of saying something like: yes, you re right (or right on most of them), but we are not planning updates for now/it was editor choice and we keep it like that anyway/generic excuse/we decided to keep the work of the editor/etc. etc. Playaveli wrote None of these players is really black. Some less than half-black, or with some african roots.
- In my opinion - this is complicating a simple thing.
Let s start from the fact that s the only reply to Ben s post that really matters, being from a mod/admin on topic, then you (and then Sida79 answering his own questions) jumped in...

Noone is attacking the great work done here, well, not me for sure and I am quite sure it s the same for Ben. However I am not blind, that s all and I personally don t like when someone pretends not to see a simple mistake/wrong choice, just because in his mind that ruins the perfect picture.

Especially because Ben was probably right.

Also, take Janko4 s post. One reply could be: at the moment we don t want to edit teams (or something like that) but please tell us why you think they re overpowered and where. If the guy replies, he may or may not have a point, if he doesn t case close. Maybe he has something interesting to say or maybe not, but why not take a chance and see if we can talk about something here? The update is not under attack .
Last thing:
man, this is not kindergarten, you say: Leave all players as they currently are and let people edit their own datasets if they are unhappy.
Implying someone pointing out something wrong or apparently wrong or makes no sense (even if, like in this case, irrelevant) is unhappy. And unhappy is negative, is bad and is, obviously, wrong. Wow, just wow.
I imagine Ben thinking oh, right, I can edit a dataset myself, thanks Higgipoker! . Was he talking about that? No.
Yes, I don t know what you re talking about and you probably don t know as well.

@higgipoker - I agree completely. The rest was for the lolz and lolz it got, so mission accomplished

@emmeti - you have a point on some of the issues, but generally don t seem to see the faults in your posts with the same efficiency with which you find them in those of others. Your unwarranted reaction, playing the blame game, taking things personally and the tone of the posts in general makes one feel he s arguing with a child, and that s just no productive way to go about your day!

Looking at the editor s decisions, as well as yours and mine, I can conclude probably neither of us is blind but we do all have different ideas of how those players should look, so while edit it yourself might sound dismissive, it s really a logical answer.