kapomaho üstad ellerine sağlık
Printable View
kapomaho üstad ellerine sağlık
Herhalde eksik olan kisim 1 numarali heading ;ama zaten onemli yerler 2.heading ten sonra basliyor.Buyuk ihtimalle bu yazi burdan kaldiralacak :) bende ikaz alacam ama olsun gercekten cok yararli bilgiler var insallah kaldirilmadan once baya bir insan yararlanabilir.
Bu TT&F'un Turkce cevirisini yapandan izin almadan burada alinti yapmak dogru olmaz. Bu nedenle sildim ve ceviriyi yapandan burada yayinlanmasi icin izin istedim. Izin alinirsa ceviriyi yapana gerekli tesekkurleri ileterek tekrar eklenmesini saglarim.
Edit: Ayrica bu eski TT&F biraz demode oldu. Bunu hazirlayanin SI forumlarinda yeni yazilari var esasinda ve bu yazidaki bazi teorilerin artik FM 2007'de clismadigini belirtiyor.
nasıl bir çalışma?
kardeş burda oyunla ilgili bilgiler vermiş cogumuzun bildiği şyler zaten..
hiç alakası yok kardeş.. sen 5*5 blok bütünlüğü ya da ikilik mantalite teorisi gibi bi dizin şeyi daha önce biliyormuydun?
yazılanları okudum.paylasan arkadaşa cok tesekkur ederim.ama taktigimi yazılanlara gore kurmaya calısınca isin icinden cıkamadım.bi tarafı yapiyim derken obur tarafı bozuyorum:D
bide bazı konuları cok havada bırakmıs mesela defans cizgisini nasıl kurulması yonunu anlatmamıs,orta sahayla butunlugu saglayın demis.ama nasıl yapılacagını solememis.
yine de yararı oldu,cok tesekkurler dostum,arastırıp bizimle paylaştıgın icin...
Birşey değil kardeş ne demek...
Merhaba arkadaşlar,forum bölümüne yenı üye olsam da gördüğüm kadarıyla bu konuyu açan arkadaşın eklediği İngilizce bilgiler bize yararlı olacaktır.Lakin pek çok kişinin de İngilizceyi o yazılanları okuyacak kadar iyi bilmediğinden dolayı,ben arkadaşlara yardımcı olmak amacıyla sayfanın tümünü Türkçeye çevirmek istiyorum.Ama bunun için bana bir tane de arkadaş lazım.(Tabii Türkçe çeviri için)Yadım etmek isteyen olursa çeviriyi iki günde bitireceğime de söz verebiliyim.Eyvallah...
Introduction
I hope SI forgive me for saying so, but as of yet their arguably unparalleled simulation of football management fails in one respect to live up to the real thing. It is not yet sophisticated enough tactically. I know that some of you who are struggling with the game may sit with gaping mouths when reading this and think my brain has become addled, but I’ll explain.
In the modern game of football it is next to impossible to come up with a tactical formation that top clubs boasting experienced managers and quality players are unable to outperform with some degree of consistency. If it could happen then by now a smaller side would have won the Premiership via sheer tactical nous alone. Yet it hasn’t happened and is increasingly unlikely to. Why? Simple. Money and quality always, always outperforms lack of quality. Tactical mistakes from big sides (picking the wrong player for the match, being too attacking, too defensive) may allow a small side to win the odd match, but it won’t happen with regularity. Witness Man Utd’s return to the 4-4-2 that has been the cornerstone of their success and the required ditching of a work-shy goal poacher to accommodate it. Did Ferguson make tactical errors over the last two years? Undoubtedly he did. Did he buy the wrong players? Indisputably. Has he learned from his mistakes? Seems he has. Did Man Utd finish outside the top four in those 4-5-1 days, a position most fans of small clubs would die for? Not once!
The FM tacticians still have a serious advantage over real life managers. They can exploit tactical weaknesses in general terms that don’t exist in the real world. A new system of play can undermine the carefully thought out logic of the game-engine and allow a user team to outperform the AI despite a serious quality gap in personnel. That rarely happens in real life. A team will only get promoted if its squad is among the better squads in the division. Yes, the best team may not win the title and tactical variations can give slight advantages, but they are slight only. Until this version of FM this has not been the case in our ******* world. Many tactics have outperformed the AI in ways that could never happen in real life, with Diablo being the most notable. SI obviously want to eliminate this, as a simulation’s main intention is to successfully mimic real life. So, each version of the game sees a battle between developer and tactical guru, as one tries to build a more and more realistic system of play and the other tries to undermine it with creative tactical innovations. So far, the gurus have always won.
Both FM06 and FM07 began their shelf-lives with constant criticism from consumers. ‘The game is too hard’, ‘tactics are too complex’, ‘it’s unrealistic that I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season’ are common complaints. These should read ‘the game is hard because it is more realistic and thus bad user tactics get ripped apart by AI managers that know what they are doing’ and ‘I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season because I’m a newbie manager who really doesn’t know what he is doing which is realistic in the extreme.’ In ’06 the tactical gurus then kicked in and new ways of tactic creation were explained and implemented and the SI forums went quiet. Some of the theories and tactics, as in previous versions, went on to have seminal status. In ’07 these have yet to arrive.
Have SI finally defeated the tactical gurus and developed a tactical system that constantly prevents user systems from outperforming the game-engine? I think they are close, but they are not there yet. I’m still performing much better than my player quality would suggest I should, although I haven’t reached the comfort zone I achieved in ’06 in which I could sit back and relax after 10 minutes of a game in 95% security I would get a draw at least. I have to remain focussed all game. But, I believe I am outperforming the game-engine, and am within touching distance of *****ing it. I will certainly dominate divisions with players equal to or above the divisional average, which is what we are all trying to do.
The rest of this article/thread discusses the whys and wherefores of tactical methodologies, their strengths and limitations and argues that a whole new mind-set is required when designing tactics in ’07. Finally, it offers the beginnings of some theories and frameworks that will, hopefully, allow users to create solid tactics and reduce their frustrations.
Three Philosophies of Tactic-Building
There are many individual philosophies concerning tactic building in the T&TT Forum. Some ‘gurus’ prefer highly complex methodologies consisting of tactics for every situations. Others prefer simplified approaches that require little tweaking or adjustment. Others still try to construct weird asymmetrical formations that confuse the AI and take advantage of engine weaknesses. This opening section will analyse the intricacies of the different approaches.
Complex
I would be regarded as a ‘complex guru’. My tactics and threads take into consideration the minutiae of the tactical settings and require considerable building and setting up before game-play begins. I demand individual mentality settings for each player and different home and away settings for individuals and the team as a whole. My theories have been criticised as being too anal and determent on constant minor tweaks before coming to fruition.
These criticisms have always rankled. My own take on my approach is that I try to build a logical mentality framework that can be adjusted to suit any formation, within which individual settings can be manipulated to produce the required results. The framework I devised in ’06 did that exceptionally well and allowed me, towards the end of 06’s shelf-life, to be able to showboat, switching between formations as and when I pleased with no detrimental affect on performance. The football was fluid and effective, capable of scoring goals and keeping things tight defensively. At no point did I believe it was over complex or reliant on slight slider tweaks. The mentality framework was logical, as were the home and away settings, and I rarely thought about minor slider adjustments. Once it was right, it was right.
Yet, I became a victim of my own success. Within 10 minutes of any game I would be able to see if my chosen tactical-flavour was the right one and either leave the game to run, or switch to another system before the opposition had too many chances and win the match in the second half. I only lost 5 or 6 games in total in all competitions over my last four seasons. My interest waned as the game became too easy and I began to play half-heartedly. Although it is fun winning there does need to be a challenge. When ’07 came out I hoped it would answer said challenge and it has not disappointed. I will further this discussion later in the ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two.
Simple
The archetypal ‘simple’ approach is the Slider Apathy favoured by Asmodeus. It is based (or was based in ’06) on a dual mentality setting which linked strikers to defenders by use of a high defensive line. This enabled the team to remain compact whilst ensuring five players defended and five attacked at all times. Other settings were left to user preference as to their judgement of player ability. It produced a different style of play than the Rule of Two system I was using, but was equally effective. Unlike myself, Asmodeus has never been accused of over-complexity and his ideas and system, although theoretically and intellectually sound, offered effective tactics for the more casual game-player. Like myself, Asmodeus built tactics that out-performed the game engine (and here’s the rub, to be discussed later).
Asymmetrical
The asymmetrical ‘gurus’ build tactics that rely on formations that would be unthinkable in real-life football. Four-three-threes with weird side-arrows are the most common variant but there are others. I would also place Diablo, with its long-farrowed MC, in this category even though it is not asymmetrical, as a midfielder constantly sprinting half the length of the pitch to become an auxiliary centre-forward is highly unrealistic. These tactics all work(ed) because they challenged the logistics of the game-engine and took advantage of scenarios unimagined by the programmers. Another example of the AI failing to deal with unrealistic tactical plans is the ‘everyone at the back post’ corner routine which warped any testing of ’06 tactics as it guaranteed too many goals from set-pieces.
It is easy to write off the asymmetrical tactical gurus as game-engine hackers who search for bugs and errors within the engine and exploit them. Their tactics have little to do with real football and a lot to do with the difficulties of programming a football simulation that can cope with unrealistic and unexpected systems of play. These tactics have their place, as they will help SI develop an understanding of where their game-engine holes are located so they can fill them. They are also the result of highly creative thinking and analysis and should be commended. However, that doesn’t stop me from hoping that they all fail. Once asymmetrical tactics fail to out-perform the engine then a greater level of realism will have been reached than ever before. I think ’07 may well have reached this plateau.
Before I am attacked by the asymmetrical gurus, I wish to state here and now that I also regard my and Asmodeus’s systems as ones that took advantage of inadequacies in the game-engine and should be as equally open to criticism as asymmetrical tactics. The following section will explain why I have come to think this way.
The ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy
Demise is too strong a word. The Rule of Two still works and, judging from Asmodeus’s New Year resurrection of Slider Apathy, so do his theories. However, they are seriously challenged by the new engine and nowhere near as effective as before. Rule of Two still over-performs in terms of results but not in terms of possession, chance creation and fluidity of play. It would be relatively easy to remain on the Rule of Two bandwagon and still do quite well. But ‘well’ is not enough. I want to be able to dominate possession, play pretty football, score well worked goals and win in some style and the Rule of Two does not do this. I’ll try to explain why and how I think its dominance has been challenged.
Defensive Line and Mentality
Arguably, the reprogramming of the defensive line and increased mentality differentials have been the undoing of both the Rule of Two and dual mentality frameworks. In ’06 employing a high defensive line kept both types of formation tight and allowed for solid defence and fluid attack. The user had the best of both worlds. His team could be both defensive and attacking at the same time. The game-engine couldn’t cope with this and both systems out-performed to a huge degree. In this respect they are no different to the asymmetrical tactics I challenged before, with the exception that they were built on logical frames that the game designers hadn’t foreseen, rather than exploiting holes and gaps with weird arrows and positions.
The reworking of the defensive line, so that it only kicks in when a team loses possession, is one of the key elements that have forced an alteration of approach for the tactical gurus. Any formation that relies on heavily split mentalities will struggle with the gaps in and behind the defence that a high line leaves with low mentality defenders or a low line leaves with high mentality midfielders. The defence retreats more quickly than the midfield so there is too little cover in front of it and the defenders becomes horribly exposed. This affect is minimised by working out the average mentality for the team and then giving the defensive line the same slider setting, but this still fails to combat the other main issue of heavily split mentalities, which is player confusion.
Mentality has been reworked so that on field mentality differences are more acute than previously. Thus, a heavy mentality split will produce a loose formation that offers a lot of space that a tight, (near) global mentality system then exploits. This weakness of this type of tactic is accentuated by player confusion as to where they should be passing. A player with a low mentality is unlikely to play a risky ball to a high mentality player up the pitch and instead will pass to a player with similar mentality settings, which leads to lots of aimless passes between the back four and a defensive mentality midfielder. Eventually possession is lost as the opposition closes them down and the team is under pressure. The risk of such play is minimised by employing defensive midfielders who sit in front of the back four and protect it from counters whilst still being high mentality enough to launch attacks of their own. The best Rule of Two tactical set I have seen employs one or two defensive midfielders in all its flavours. However, it seems next to impossible to build a fluent 4-4-2 using the Rule of Two framework.
Width
Although not as influential as the defensive line and mentality, width has also been reworked in ’07 and requires a different outlook. In ’06, to get the full-backs into space to cross and defeat the 3-3-2-1-1 you were required to give them short-farrows. In ’07 as long as you have a normal width and mixed forward runs on the full-backs they will overlap and support the attack. As goals per game have decreased dramatically, overlapping full-backs are necessary to defeat tight AI formations and they only do so with low split mentalities and a reasonably wide formation.
Conclusion
Both the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy theories took advantage of game-engine weaknesses, albeit in a logical manner, that the developers hadn’t foreseen. As in previous generations of FM, these weaknesses have been largely wiped out by reworking the engine, thereby reducing their effectiveness. Neither of them are toothless but they are more frustrating than in ’06 and both almost certainly require DMCs to function. Neither will adapt comfortably to the most common formation in football, the 4-4-2, and therefore their validity must be questioned. Hence, a strategic rethink is required.
Apologies to Asmodeus if his Slider Apathy is working as well as it was in ’06. According to his posts and my assumptions it shouldn’t be, but I haven‘t tried it and am basing my arguments on observation of the match engine and his own comments on the validity of his theory
Rethinking Strategy
As I stated previously, my Rule of Two tactics were overachieving in terms of results, but not in terms of style. My original post in ’06 suggested that the match engine was flawed and that it was impossible to make a decent 4-4-2. I disproved my own argument over a period of intense experimentation and constructed a solid 4-4-2 which eventually evolved into a diamond. It became more complex as I began to better understand the game and resulted in the Tactical Theorems and Frameworks thread that ran to three incarnations prior to this one. Hopefully, this thread will be as popular and useful as its predecessors.
Unfortunately, or fortunately in real terms as my life is considerably more fun and interesting than it was in late 2005, I don’t have as much time to devote to Football Manager as I did. Come January 2007 I am only 9 matches in to my 5th season. Therefore, I don’t have as much time to experiment with tactics as I did previously and thus my approach has been different. In ’06 I downloaded and rejected a series of so-called super tactics before embarking on a mission to design a logical framework. This required a huge amount of testing and game-play. For ’07, much of this testing has been carried out by others (Supersaint, El Padre, crazy gra, Beevster, The New Diaby, thegooner spring to mind) and for that I thank them. From their writings and observations I was able to build a reasonably complex theoretical picture of how the game worked which allowed me to circumnavigate a lot of the testing. The following is a rough guide to my thought processes in terms of re-imagining tactical excellence in ’07. As in ’06, I was working entirely towards producing a solid 4-4-2 that could perform above the ability of the AI. Also, as in ’06 my testing team was a team that had been promoted to a Regional Conference division the previous season (Maidenhead in ’06, Blyth in ’07), so was low in terms of quality.
For a long time I remained trapped in the Rule of Two approach to mentality. I adjusted many tactical elements of the game in trying to get RoT working well. All of them failed on one count. I could get results but not the performance I wanted. Possession was low, shot count was low. The one thing that stood in its favour, and the element that SI has still failed to resolve in dealing with heavy split mentality systems, was the percentage of goals scored per shot on target. Rule of Two still guarantees a few really good chances every game as the high mentality split forces the odd overload of the AI’s defence, but it happens with much less frequency than in ’06. Eventually, I became frustrated with the system (exactly paralleling my experiences in ’06 as I gained promotion in the play-offs first season but wasn’t happy with playing style) and began to play around with different mentality settings.
For a while I played around with the Ro3, in which each stratum of the team (defence, midfield, attack) operated on the same mentality split by three from the stratum above it. Thus, defence would be 6, midfield 9, attack 12. However, there were no perceivable benefits and I scrapped it. I also experimented with Supersaint’s take on the Rule of Two in which attacking systems would start with the central defence on 10 and defensive ones with the central defence on 2 with adjusted defensive line and closing down for each system. There was some improvement, but not to the extent I wished. At this stage I began to get frustrated and played around with global mentalities and slightly split mentalities, but I still couldn’t get things working the way I wanted. Finally, as I was about to permanently dent my forehead from constantly bashing it on a wall, I came across a thread offering a different perspective.
I hope he won’t mind me saying this, but the majority of this user’s threads and comments are less than sophisticated and generally limited in their worth. This one, however, offered me the building blocks for a series of mentality frameworks that finally got my team performing in the manner I wanted. Titled simply ‘Experiment’, this thread by PAGEY124 revolutionised my thinking, and were it not for its existence I doubt I would be writing this thread right now. Implementing its mentality settings, although not his other suggestions, immediately produced the requisite quality change in playing style and the mentality frameworks I had been searching for.
[QUOTE=ForCimbom;695032]Introduction
I hope SI forgive me for saying so, but as of yet their arguably unparalleled simulation of football management fails in one respect to live up to the real thing. It is not yet sophisticated enough tactically. I know that some of you who are struggling with the game may sit with gaping mouths when reading this and think my brain has become addled, but I’ll explain.
Az da olsa bu yazıyı Türkçeye çevirme ihtiyacı duyuyorum.Devamını da istek olursa tabii ki çevireceğim.Yardıma gelen olmasın ne yapalım bu da benim küçük bir yardımım olsun Türksportal'a:
Sunum
''SI'nın(SIA GAMES) bu söyleyeceklerimden ötürü beni bağışlamasını umut ediyorum ama şimdilik,büyük bir ihtimalle onların bu eşsiz ''futbol yönetiminin'' taklidini(simulasyon) yaparken yaşayacağım başarısızlıklarda onlara hürmetimin olacağı da su götürmez bir gerçektir.Bu taktik olarak henüz yeterı kadar teferruatlı değil.Oyunda sizin kaç kere bunu oturtmak(ayarlamak) için öyle avare avare çırpındığınızı biliyorum;bu okunduğunda kalın kafalı(zekamın olmadığını) olduğumu düşüneceksiniz,ama bunu açıklayacağım.''
Evet arkadaşlar,o kişi bunları yazmış.Ben sadece metne uyarak ve Türkçe söyleyişe de uyumlaştırarak çevirdim.Devamını isteyen var mı?
Kardeş bunların devamı var, ben yakında ekleyeceğim.
Arkadaşlar bunların çevrisi için mini bir grup oluşturulabilir bu şekilde çeviri daha hızlı olur.
yemin ediorum ingilizce hocamda biraz futbola merak ve onemlisi erkek olsaydi
bunu donem odevi almak icin cok ugrasir sonundada birebir cevirirdim
kardeş bu sigamesteki forumları buraya atıyosunuzda bi yardımı olduğunu zannetmiyorum millete.sonuçta bizim biçoğoumuzun anadili türkçe ingilizce değil sanırsam galiba yanlış bilmiyosam:)
Hepsini değil fakat önemli yerlerini özetleyim size
Bu arkadaş bu yazıda belirttiği taktiksel varyasyonları 4-4-2 taktiğinde uygulamış.Bunuda birkeç Framework olarak vermiş mesela
Home Framework
Mentality
GK 14
DC 15
FB 16
MCd 17
ML/R 18
MCa 19
FC 20
Bunlar kendi evinde oynayan bi takımın oyuncu mentalitesi fakat verilerden görülüyorki baya bi offansif. 2. olarakta
Away Framework
Mentality
GK 1
DC 2
FB 3
MCd 4
ML/R 5
MCa 6
FC 7
Buda dışarda oynanan maçlar için verilmiş oyuncu mentalitesi.buda verilierden anlaşılıyorki baya bir defansif. 3. olarakta
Attacking Away Framework
Mentality
GK 6
DC 7
FB 8
MCd 9
ML/R 10
MCa 11
FC 12
Buda deplasman maçlarında atak oyunu benimseyen bir diziliş olarak vermiş.
A Hypothetical Framework
Mentality
GK 9
DC 10
FB 11
MCd 12
ML/R 13
MCa 14
FC 15
Buda farklı bir oyuncu varyasyonu.
Bütün Framework lere dikkatlice bakarsak defanstan forwet hattına kadar oyuncu mentalitesinin birer kademe olarak arttığını görüyoruz.Mesela bir DC 10 mentalitesinde oynarken yanındaki biraz offansif lan FB 11, bu FB’e en yakın oyuncu defansif oynayan yani MCd nin 12 olduğunu görüyoruz.Buda demek oluyor ki oyuncular birbirlerine takım olarak yakın oynuyorlar.
Teoremlere geçersek
Passing, Width & Tempo:
Bu bölümdeki ipucuda şu:
Eğer kısa pasla oynuyorsanız ultra geniş alanı seçmelisiniz
Eğer ki uzun pasla oynuyorsanız dar formasyon seçeneğiyle oynamalısınız.Bu sizin posizyon yüzdenizi arttıracaktır diyor.
Defensive Line:
Defans çizgisini oyun mentalitenize göre seçmelisiniz.Eğer oyun mentaliteniz 14-20 arasındaysa defans çizgisini 17 olarak eğer ultra defansif formasyonda yani 1-7 arasındaysa 4 olarak ayarlayabilirsiniz.Eğer çevik defans oyuncularına sahipseniz defansı ortasahada kurmanızda pek problem yaşamazsınız fakat defans oyuncularınız yavaşsa arkalarına atılan toplar tehlike yaratır diyor.
Closing Down:
Defenders:
Defans çizgisi orta mentalitede olan bir sistemde defans oyuncularının Closing Down özelliğinin 3-5 arasında olması gerektiğini söylüyor.
Central Midfielders:
Ortasaha oyuncusunun ise defans çizgisi ayarıyla aynı olması gerektiğini söylüyoryani defans çizginiz 10 sınırında ise closing down da 10 olması gerekir.
DMCs:
Defansif ortasaha oyuncusununda closing down özelliği oldukça yüksek olmalıdır.
Attackers and Wingers:
Atak ve kanat oyuncularınında closing down özelliğinin yüksek olması gerektiğini söylüyor.
Marking
Home Tactics:
Kendi evinizdeki maçlarda zonal marking en iyi seçim olacağı söyleniyor.
Away Tactics:
Deplasman maçlarında defans ve ortasaha oyunlarınıza tight man-marking özelliğini kullanmanızı öneriyor.
Tackling
Home Tactics:
Kendi evinizdeki maçlarda tüm oyunculara Normal tackling i öneriyor
Away Tactics:
Deplasman maçlarında easy, mormal ve hard olarak oyuncunun mevkisine göre ayarlamanız öneriyor.
Mesela GK ve Central defander Normal
Forward ve Winger Easy
MC ve FB Normal
Forward Runs:
Oyuncuların Forvete koşularında şu tablo izlenmesi gerekir
GK: Rarely
DC: Rarely
FB: Mixed at home, Rarely away
MCd: Rarely
MR/L: Often at home, Mixed away
MCa: Often
FCd/TM: Rarely
FCa: Mixed
Target Man:
Target man özelliğinde oynayan oyuncunun Forward Runs özelliğinin Rarely olmalıdır.Buna ek olarak hold the ball seçeneğinin aktif ve hava toplarında iyi olması gerektiği vurgulanmış.
Playmaker:
Genellikle oyun kurucuyu AMC olarak ayarlıyormuş.Ve forward runs seçeneği rarely olması gerektiğini söylüyor.Vede 4 lü ortasahanın ileri dönük oyuncusuda playmaker olarak görev alabilir.
Time Wasting:
Time wasting ile defance line birbiriyle bağlantılıdır.Defence Line 15-19 ise Time wasting 1-5 arasında olmalıdır.(Home Framwork için).Deplasman maçlarında ise 15-19 olması gerektiğini söylüyor.
Creative Freedom
Creative freedom özelliğinde oynayan bir oyuncunun doğru tercih yapıldığında yaratıcı iyi ölü top yapabildiğinden bahsediyor.bunun için oyuncunun iyi belirlenmesi gerektiğini iyi karar verme yeteğinin yüksek oyunculardan seçilmesi gerektiğini söylüyor.
Team Instructions:
Use Target Man:
Target man uzun ve güçlü oyunculardan seçilmeli forward runs seçeneğinin aktif olmaması gerektiğini belirtiyor.
Use Playmaker:
Forward runs Mix veya Low
Closing Down Low, Zonal marking, free role olarak belirleyebilirsiniz.
Play Offside:
Evinizdeki maçlarda bu özelliği aktif yapabilirsiniz fakat deplasman maçlarında önerilmiyor.
Counter Attack:
Her taktikte bu seçeneği aktif olarak tutuğunu belirtiyor.
eğer yararlı olduysa biara gerisinide özetlemeye çalışırım
ya benim gördüğüm bi yanlışta şu.adam creative freedomla closing down arasındaki bütünlüğe şöyle demiş.
DCs: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 3/17
DR/DL: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 5/15
MCd: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 5/15
ML/R: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 10/10
MCs: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 15/5
FCs: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 15/5
dikkat ederseniz geri adamlar full basıyo böyle şey olurmu yaww.defanstaki adamlar ha bire basıp yerlerini devamlı terkedecekler.arkadan gelen adamlardan dahil gol yicez.bu resmen intahar etmek ya.
.
.
.
Birleştirilen Mesaj:
hala sabırsızlıkla bekliyoruz çalışmanı:)kolay gelsin bu arada.iyi oyunlar herkese.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoşkuN ÖzdemiR
yazıyı hala sabırsızlkıla bekliyorum:)bu kadar uzun sürdüğüne göre baya kapsamlı bi çalışma olacak.kolay gelsin.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoşkuN ÖzdemiR