Football Manager 2021 Official Feedback Thread

[Svenc]

7 hours ago, samuelawachie said:

Why do these kind of theories always arise every single year?

Art imitating life. Top 10 weirdest football excuses (besoccer.com)  It's also much easier to blame a game mechanic than yourself (and oft times, it can actually be a combination of both).. Ironically, many suspect the AI of "cheating" as they generally overperform with their clubs this much. This isn't actually seen for what it is (that is, outperforming the same AI they accuse of cheating, which would never perform the same way with the same clubs). But a mechanism that supposedly kicks in so that things stay interesting rather than boring. The logic is: I am too good for this game, so the game must punish me (and everybody else doing so well) on the occasion to keep me interested. Unfortunately, that completely ignores players who don't have the same issues this regularly. Online, it's like an echo chamber of perception bias. Somebody suspects this mechanism to be "true", and everybody looking for confirmation of their beliefs chimes in, so things repeat at naseum.



There's naturally also a more practical explanation. In a (typically) successful FM save, over the course of it, AI opponents oft tend to be the only managers who actually would play defensive, shut-up-shop football. The reputation of the successful human team rises, and with it, how AI managers perceive it. More and more see it as the match favorite, and tactically adapt "accordingly". As the AI for many is the only manager ever employing park the bus tactics for prolonged periods of a match (content with a draw or just not getting trashed), it's the only manager who ever (and if by luck or even a bug) either scores from few shots, the very first of such few shots, or even wins matches with few shots .  That is, if they score at all. Looking through knap's threads, despite his rather attacking tactics (and oft mediocre teams picked by the downloaders), that doesn't appear to happen that wildly often. This is then seen as "cheating", (the term getting "FM'd), as many aren't able to replicate the same -- however, If you'd try yourself to park the bus against such an AI parking the bus, well, I had a couple interesting sequences on a prior release.  

(If Whufc1000 is indeed Garry, and I suspected as much due to many many many reasons, he's got history on these boards and many FM boards, btw. Just google for hammer1000, garrywhufc or Gazhammer+Football Manager. During his heydays he was this infamous, he even had his own FM myth attached to his  namesake (admittedly invented by me).  At one point it seemed he was on a much better track as far as I remember. Rather than accusing the ME/AI of a bias/cheat, which simply has never been there and actually decent players have proven that every release, he's questioned the game's feedback (as well as, I think, sometimes even actual ME flaws and bugs). 

Indeed, to me, improved game feedback is the key of getting rid of such theories -- or at least lessen them. However, this has to be a careful balancing act, as some may be alienated if the game just spoon fed everything and gave it all away. (I've been arguing for optionally tactical assistants proper for a very long time which would go through the same "thought" process  as any AI manager would both pre-match as well as in-match and actually explain it, and many more).
 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Svenc

[Svenc]

Curious whether there will be "proof" -- I mean, it could point to actually game issues too, so why not post it? It's not like the game never had any issues... I'd personally have never much played the likes of FM17 despite its popularity (wide midfielders barely helping to defend central areas, and as such AI vs AI matches where 3rd division opposition dominated the park against 1st division opposition and pegged them back most of the match simply by a choice in formation). And was criticizing early FM15 (advanced players given an attack duty not tracking back to defend, and as such some teams, including AI, barely being able to defend with hockey scorelines every week) and a couple others as well until they were patched. The AI is completely unaware of such dynamics,  leading to such freak matches, as unlike a player, it cannot actually "read" the engine play.

AI bias is big fat lie -- if there's a bias, it's all for the human player. Including all the analysing tools SI by now provide which in formative years they never did, as it would give players another edge over the AI if used proper.

Garry, if this is you: The last time I personally saw you uploading anything, that is outside of the perennial final match stats of hand picked matches (shots, possession, and the ill-fated CCCs...) which you always mass post to "prove" something, it was actually a couple of pkms. Don't think you ever do that anymore as "smart asses" or similar would rip it apart. That was an old release, thus. I'll be putting this in a spoiler tag as it goes a bit beyond "FM 21" feedback. Hopefully it still works.  

 

 

This is a typical quote of yours:

[quote]The amount of "lucky strikes" and "fluke goals" the AI score(from a lot less chances than i'm having) is the first suggestion of Bias. [/quote]

[spoiler]
I saw the set of pkms rather late back then, but whilst there were some decent guys replying -- they somehow missed a couple things. Firstly, you claimed that you never scored off "lucky" goals. Now, the definition of a lucky goal may be subjective, but to me your West Ham goal in the following vid certainly applies. Secondly, for all the shots recorded inside the box, there was absolutely no space created whatsoever. I went into the analysis and basically recorded every single shot in the video. Almost all of them were exclusively from the set piece (little space by definition).

West Ham 2-1 Stoke - Match Highlights - YouTube

Now, there may not a solution to everything (game issues and all). However, this was mainly tactical. The combinations of roles/duties, instructions as well as attacking width barely stretched Stoke. If you pause at 1:06, which is where the easy interception starts leading to the Stoke counter and subsequent goal -- if you'd draw a circle around all your players having advanced, that's a really small area a very deep sitting Stoke AI has to cover. Keeping the pitch small allows you to keep possession easier (a stat you've put much emphasis on at least in formative years). However, as a consequence, Stoke easily got a foot into almost every open play move -- no matter who receives the ball next, he's immediately pushed as the Stoke defenders have no distance to cover.




IIRC correctly, you perceived this and similar of "AI cheating" just the same, as the AI would have it much easier to trawl through your defensive without a tackle or any defensive action in sight. It's true that the AI had it easier to go unchallenged. However, this was all of your own making. The AI back then (generally) when using an attacking tactic and pushing for a goal used the width and depth of the pitches, and as such made defenders cover a much larger distance to close down the next ball carrier. 

Granted, I'm not sure you actually WANT help. If your intent is trying to prove an AI bias which doesn't exist (neither back then nor now, players have ALL the edges over it, and that's not defending the game), so be it. [/SPOILER]

Edited July 14, 2021 by Svenc

[Viking]

So for pretty much the first time ever with FM/CM I've played with teams in leagues outside the english Championship the last weeks. I've found it's much easier to win games in, for example, Bundesliga 2. I don't know why that is, but I am having fun with FM21 right now.

[Svenc]

Recently I've been thinking again that FM, for better and worse, is a game where you can actually have success without understanding why. Which is where a lot of frustrations come from. This is not meant to directly adress anything on the last page/s, but how the game can be perceived in general. Addressing that will be vital -- I personally think the introduction of xG (and xG plots!) for instance is a decent step, in particular if further tweaked by SI and used and understood proper by players (it's most useful as a long-term tool, as, to quote this article "In soccer, the rate at which shots are scored is massively variable. A club might win 1-0 on a perfect long-distance strike one week and then lose 2-1 the next while firing a dozen shots from good positions right into the keeper's chest. ")

Borussia Dortmund's crisis isn't a crisis at all, and stats prove they will rebound (espn.com)

I still think needs to communicate that an xG difference between teams in isolated matches of but 1-1.5 is hardly a guarantee for a win; and that introducing a stat such as xG per shot, probably even a league table of xG per shot, would also be benefitial. E.g. Germany at the World Cup 2018 with their gazillion supposedly "chances", most shots of any team in the group stages by far,  but none of them actually of the highest calibre. Articles such as these also hint at where analysis in general could improve. The Anatomy of Germany’s World Cup Disaster - The Ringer

However, stats alone will never be enough, which needs to be communicated  too. Nobody is using exclusively stats in football, naturally. Case in point FM 2017 and a large portion of the FM tactical download community, as both are also very popular. I'm picking FM17 as that is a more obvious example likely to be understood by most, not because I like to pick on it again. As wide midfielders positioned the way they did (as in the screenshot: mostly sticking out wide and isolating their central peers), eventually by either trial&error or else a large portion of the tactics on offer honed in on the fact that the central spaces where pretty wide open. Most tactics thus swarmed the middle of the pitch (keeping it narrow and/or having a lot of players in the CM/DM/AMC positions, where they could have "training matches" against the oft undermanned central midfield of the opposition, such as this 4-4-2 with its 2 CMs covering it all alone.) Naturally, as human player wins and goals are human player wins and goals, this is never to rarely reported as a bug or ME defensive weakness (or unfairness against the AI, for that matter :D), but that's the human mind for you. Success tends to be attributed to own skill -- failure to something else.

 

Generally as usual, the success of the tactics was not in doubt. However as with any tactic there's a caveat. For as long as SI don't code every AI to play exactly the same way with the same formations and players (and making the same in-match decisions), ditto the data research not entering the same values into the editor for any AI manager; eventually, tactics may perform differently against different resulting AI. This type of tactic back then came unstuck in particular if an AI manager sat deep, packed their backline with a back five and fielded a couple DMs/CMs to shield that backline. (If the AI could actually read the match play, it would have done this every match). This naturally plugged all the "holes" exploited so thoroughly. For every centre back pulled out of the backline so easily against most AI approaches, opening the central direct route to goal bust wide open, there was another spare man to cover that hole. 

The end result, in particular if the crucial opening goal didn't come and the AI was forced to go more attacking, oft was not very pretty (loads of long shots and/or attempts inside the box almost exclusively from the set piece). Few, if any providers offered a plan B for such scenarios. What I said earlier about the difference between winning and understanding why (or being somewhat able to recognize if things aren't working as well as they usually do).

Another more obvious example from recent edition was the "Three Fishermen" from back when if a team (either humans, who typically systemically exploited this and thought they were clever rather than unfair), or AI, fielded three central forwards. And upon defending wouldn't track back, so would immediately face a 3-2 advantage against most formations upon every interception of the many there are in every match of FM. I still remember a couple of threads where players conceded AI comebacks sometimes in the space of but a few minutes (3 central forward formations are prefered attacking formations edited into the db for quite a few AI managers).



Again, I'm not concentrating on these editions to have another criticism at them (all of this was criticized enough -- even without anyone getting banned  ). I'm concentrating on them because they offer the more obvious examples of that stats alone aren't enough, same as there may be a difference between winning and understanding why -- and in general, at least optionally better analysis may be vital, maybe by an optionally tactical analyst/assistant proper. Actually somewhat understanding results is the key imo in both getting some enjoyment out of the game either way, or else things would feel quite "random" (which actual football, naturally quite often is).

[_mxrky]

My player leaving my team on a free because I refuse to give him 200k a week (when he’s on 70) currently only to leave to Celta Vigo who are offering him a lower wage than what he is currently paid. So realistic fm.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, _mxrky said:

My player leaving my team on a free because I refuse to give him 200k a week (when he’s on 70) currently only to leave to Celta Vigo who are offering him a lower wage than what he is currently paid. So realistic fm.

Yeah its insane man. Its really hard to enjoy a long save in FM21. Insane wagedemands and players moaning over everything. First and second season is ok to play then it becomes insane.

[YAMS]

Just a quick one this, whoever at SI decided the new match UI was the way to go deserves to tread on lego for eternity. 

Cheerio. 

 

[XaW]

9 minutes ago, YAMS said:

Just a quick one this, whoever at SI decided the new match UI was the way to go deserves to tread on lego for eternity. 

Cheerio. 

 

If you have issues with the match day UI, I'd have a look at this mod:

Most people who dislike the UI seems to love this.

[YAMS]

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

If you have issues with the match day UI, I'd have a look at this mod:

Most people who dislike the UI seems to love this.

Appreciate the response but it shouldn't need a mod to fix something that is so clearly not fit for any purpose whatsoever. It was a terrible, terrible decision to alter this from FM20. That time could have been used on many other worthwhile fixes. PLEASE bring back widgets for FM22. 

Anyway, enough on that. Back to FM12. Cheers. 

[XaW]

3 minutes ago, YAMS said:

Appreciate the response but it shouldn't need a mod to fix something that is so clearly not fit for any purpose whatsoever. It was a terrible, terrible decision to alter this from FM20. That time could have been used on many other worthwhile fixes. PLEASE bring back widgets for FM22. 

Anyway, enough on that. Back to FM12. Cheers. 

Well, this change seems to split the user base quite a bit as I've seen everything from loving it to hating it. I was simply offering a solution for those who dislike it. Personally, I'm in the middle, not bothered in any direction as I liked the old one, but also don't mind the new one.

[YAMS]

19 minutes ago, XaW said:

Well, this change seems to split the user base quite a bit as I've seen everything from loving it to hating it. I was simply offering a solution for those who dislike it. Personally, I'm in the middle, not bothered in any direction as I liked the old one, but also don't mind the new one.

As I said, thank you. Appreciate the prompt response. Let's see what FM22 brings. Cheers. 

[Grifty]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

Well, this change seems to split the user base quite a bit as I've seen everything from loving it to hating it. I was simply offering a solution for those who dislike it. Personally, I'm in the middle, not bothered in any direction as I liked the old one, but also don't mind the new one.

New one is a million times better than the old one.

[Platinum]

14 hours ago, XaW said:

Well, this change seems to split the user base quite a bit as I've seen everything from loving it to hating it. I was simply offering a solution for those who dislike it. Personally, I'm in the middle, not bothered in any direction as I liked the old one, but also don't mind the new one.

I think its missing two main things:

- We can't view the assistant feedback at will (have to quickly catch it while it pops up on the screen or wait until an in between highlights moment)

- Cant move the tablet around the screen or properly adjust its shape and size. All we can currently change is its width up to a certain size and the tablet is transparent half the time

Those are two pretty big things to be missing imo and if they were fixed I think most people wouldn't mind the new design. I actually don't use the mod but it is one of the best mods for the game for sure.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Platinum

[Tyburn]

The match screens mod hasn’t been designed for FM21 only. It’s been around for quite a few years I believe.

The argument of “it should just be brilliant straight out of the box” doesn’t really apply to FM imo. It being a game that has always been designed to be modded.

People all want different things. The simpler SI make it, the easier it is to mod it as we wish. Don’t be afraid to try it. The match screens mod is quite simply superb. As are many mods to be found in the skinning hideout and elsewhere.

You don’t even have to build a mod yourself. There is a very active and talented community that will do it all for you.

”It shouldn’t need a mod” is missing the point of the design of FM.

[balamski97]

Hello.
I would like to know if you will add a function to the editor, according to which divisions in the same country will be able to play different modes.
For example, the season "autumn-spring" in the top division. In the second division - in winter, clubs are relegated to the second division, in summer-clubs are promoted to the top division. In the third division - the season "spring-autumn".
In Russia, the RFU is thinking about such a format, by the way. Hypercube, that's it.

[shwanko]

The one who managed how Interviews are done this year in SI deserve an Oscar ... I still can't believe is not fixed in any patch!!!  
We had complained alot over past years on how interviews are long & boring ..

what was SI reply? yeahh let us even add more unnecessary clicks !! so you press "attend TV conference" ..  and ready for your First QS . ..but nahh . u have to click another pointless "start" button !! 
then you go throw unimaginative , repetitive robotic interview QSs .. and just when you think your nightmare is overs once is finished !! nahhhh you have to press another button to show me the brief !!    why not show brief straightway?? is already finished ?!!  why I have to click an extra button? 

it feel like is been added just so they remove it next year .. and say ... "we made it better as it will require less clicks !!"

Then let us go to Quality of QSs !!  
why not show me icons? .... to see impact of each reply to QS on my players,opposition team moral, fans, my board... other members in media ,,etc

EX: Do you think X player is one to make difference in 2nd match? then If I answer YES.. other players in my team will moral drop .. x player moral go up.. opposite team get angry and more motivated ,,media lose respect bcz they don't agree with me and think am just trying to boost X player moral, .... fans disagree and unhappy ....etc. ... this will may force me to change strategy at next QS trying to heal the damage of QS before that !! make it more damn interactive .. by seeing reaction on each of my replies like IRL .. we all time adjust when see impact of first reply on others ...
without any doubt Interviews .. is least improved feature in FM and SI are struggling to solve it .. 
They need to come and interact with fans bcz is obvious they are not able to solve it alone .. 
 

Edited July 18, 2021 by shwanko

[Tyburn]

1 hour ago, shwanko said:

The one who managed how Interviews are done this year in SI deserve an Oscar ... I still can't believe is not fixed in any patch!!!  
We had complained alot over past years on how interviews are long & boring ..

what was SI reply? yeahh let us even add more unnecessary clicks !! so you press "attend TV conference" ..  and ready for your First QS . ..but nahh . u have to click another pointless "start" button !! 
then you go throw unimaginative , repetitive robotic interview QSs .. and just when you think your nightmare is overs once is finished !! nahhhh you have to press another button to show me the brief !!    why not show brief straightway?? is already finished ?!!  why I have to click an extra button? 

it feel like is been added just so they remove it next year .. and say ... "we made it better as it will require less clicks !!"

Then let us go to Quality of QSs !!  
why not show me icons? .... to see impact of each reply to QS on my players,opposition team moral, fans, my board... other members in media ,,etc

EX: Do you think X player is one to make difference in 2nd match? then If I answer YES.. other players in my team will moral drop .. x player moral go up.. opposite team get angry and more motivated ,,media lose respect bcz they don't agree with me and think am just trying to boost X player moral, .... fans disagree and unhappy ....etc. ... this will may force me to change strategy at next QS trying to heal the damage of QS before that !! make it more damn interactive .. by seeing reaction on each of my replies like IRL .. we all time adjust when see impact of first reply on others ...
without any doubt Interviews .. is least improved feature in FM and SI are struggling to solve it .. 
They need to come and interact with fans bcz is obvious they are not able to solve it alone .. 
 

Whilst I don’t agree with the tone of your post the idea of seeing some reaction to your answers in a press conference with the board, fans, squad is a very good idea.

Perhaps a container or three on the screen that has some dynamic code. Morale, dressing room atmosphere, a notch up or down concerning manager performance with visions and expectations etc for the board.

At the moment there is a disconnect between the conference and the club. The only info we get is what the journo’s think to the meeting. Not as important as to what the fans think, or the board, or the squad.

New player signings has a dynamic widget for the player in question. To expand on this for ALL conferences would be a good start to making them less stale, imo.

[YAMS]

On 17/07/2021 at 18:08, Tyburn said:

The match screens mod hasn’t been designed for FM21 only. It’s been around for quite a few years I believe.

The argument of “it should just be brilliant straight out of the box” doesn’t really apply to FM imo. It being a game that has always been designed to be modded.

People all want different things. The simpler SI make it, the easier it is to mod it as we wish. Don’t be afraid to try it. The match screens mod is quite simply superb. As are many mods to be found in the skinning hideout and elsewhere.

You don’t even have to build a mod yourself. There is a very active and talented community that will do it all for you.

”It shouldn’t need a mod” is missing the point of the design of FM.

That's the problem. It should be playable without having to download mods. The match day UI in its presented initial form is completely unfit for purpose. Mods should enhance a game, not be a base required element to make it playable/anything like it's excellent predecessor. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by YAMS

[shwanko]

13 hours ago, Tyburn said:

Whilst I don’t agree with the tone of your post the idea of seeing some reaction to your answers in a press conference with the board, fans, squad is a very good idea.

Perhaps a container or three on the screen that has some dynamic code. Morale, dressing room atmosphere, a notch up or down concerning manager performance with visions and expectations etc for the board.

At the moment there is a disconnect between the conference and the club. The only info we get is what the journo’s think to the meeting. Not as important as to what the fans think, or the board, or the squad.

New player signings has a dynamic widget for the player in question. To expand on this for ALL conferences would be a good start to making them less stale, imo.

I don't mind that .. and agree .. interviews seem about journalists reactions to it .. I know players do . bcz suddenly I see player in squad with a red icon saying he reacted badly to something I said !! ok !! 
so there is something happening at background .. yet SI don't communicate that with us and keep those interviews dull  

[herne79]

14 hours ago, Tyburn said:

Whilst I don’t agree with the tone of your post the idea of seeing some reaction to your answers in a press conference with the board, fans, squad is a very good idea.

Perhaps a container or three on the screen that has some dynamic code. Morale, dressing room atmosphere, a notch up or down concerning manager performance with visions and expectations etc for the board.

At the moment there is a disconnect between the conference and the club. The only info we get is what the journo’s think to the meeting. Not as important as to what the fans think, or the board, or the squad.

New player signings has a dynamic widget for the player in question. To expand on this for ALL conferences would be a good start to making them less stale, imo.

 

36 minutes ago, shwanko said:

I don't mind that .. and agree .. interviews seem about journalists reactions to it .. I know players do . bcz suddenly I see player in squad with a red icon saying he reacted badly to something I said !! ok !! 
so there is something happening at background .. yet SI don't communicate that with us and keep those interviews dull  

I agree there is always room for improvement.

One other point to mention is FM's "time squish".  In real life managers get the same (or similar) questions asked to them week in week out, which undoubtedly becomes repetitive as well, but they only get questions once a week (maybe twice).  In FM we'll get the same overall number of press conferences (probably with fewer questions) but we'll get 50 press conferences (and 100+ questions) in the space of a 2 hour game session.  So it becomes even more repetitive much more quickly for us.  So yes, more variety will always be welcome but the very nature of the game also has an impact (and is why I always send my AM).

In a similar vein this also contributes to other seemingly repetitive areas of the game - players constantly wanting pay rises and generally moaning; emails to our inbox; and so on.  Hell even playing matches can get repetitive simply because we can play so many in such a short space of time.

Anyway, if you have suggestions on how to make improvements the best place to do that is in the suggestions forum .

[RTHerringbone]

Incredible to see Garry still wheeling out his AI bias theory 

How many years has it gone on and across how many "whufcxxxxx" aliases? Amazing scenes 👏

[RinusFM]

Quote

Is it me or can't we sort the scoutingassignments this year? I remember in FM2019 or so I could sort the scouting so I can make easier adjustments.

Edited July 20, 2021 by RinusFM

[Sunstrikuuu]

My head is getting absolutely done in by transfer offers for two players.  One's a 27 year old winger, the other a 24 year old RB/CB/RWB.  They're both pretty good.  Not great, not Champions League first XI material, but decent enough squad options in my system.  Since I signed them off the transfer list for Leipzig a season ago, each has probably had, without exaggeration, a hundred offers made for 'em.  Every few days when the windows are open, it's three or four or seven or eight more offers.  And they're all to take these players on loan, no fee, Fringe Player or Squad Player status, a fraction of wages.

What the hell is going on?  Why, when I reject these offers, do the same clubs make the same offer again a week later?  Why do they make the same offer, except worse and now it's non-negotiable?  If these two guys are such hot commodities, why won't anyone buy them?

[Whufc10000]

On 14/07/2021 at 16:32, Svenc said:

Curious whether there will be "proof" -- I mean, it could point to actually game issues too, so why not post it? It's not like the game never had any issues... I'd personally have never much played the likes of FM17 despite its popularity (wide midfielders barely helping to defend central areas, and as such AI vs AI matches where 3rd division opposition dominated the park against 1st division opposition and pegged them back most of the match simply by a choice in formation). And was criticizing early FM15 (advanced players given an attack duty not tracking back to defend, and as such some teams, including AI, barely being able to defend with hockey scorelines every week) and a couple others as well until they were patched. The AI is completely unaware of such dynamics,  leading to such freak matches, as unlike a player, it cannot actually "read" the engine play.

AI bias is big fat lie -- if there's a bias, it's all for the human player. Including all the analysing tools SI by now provide which in formative years they never did, as it would give players another edge over the AI if used proper.

Garry, if this is you: The last time I personally saw you uploading anything, that is outside of the perennial final match stats of hand picked matches (shots, possession, and the ill-fated CCCs...) which you always mass post to "prove" something, it was actually a couple of pkms. Don't think you ever do that anymore as "smart asses" or similar would rip it apart. That was an old release, thus. I'll be putting this in a spoiler tag as it goes a bit beyond "FM 21" feedback. Hopefully it still works.  

 

 

This is a typical quote of yours:

[quote]The amount of "lucky strikes" and "fluke goals" the AI score(from a lot less chances than i'm having) is the first suggestion of Bias. [/quote]

[spoiler]
I saw the set of pkms rather late back then, but whilst there were some decent guys replying -- they somehow missed a couple things. Firstly, you claimed that you never scored off "lucky" goals. Now, the definition of a lucky goal may be subjective, but to me your West Ham goal in the following vid certainly applies. Secondly, for all the shots recorded inside the box, there was absolutely no space created whatsoever. I went into the analysis and basically recorded every single shot in the video. Almost all of them were exclusively from the set piece (little space by definition).

West Ham 2-1 Stoke - Match Highlights - YouTube

Now, there may not a solution to everything (game issues and all). However, this was mainly tactical. The combinations of roles/duties, instructions as well as attacking width barely stretched Stoke. If you pause at 1:06, which is where the easy interception starts leading to the Stoke counter and subsequent goal -- if you'd draw a circle around all your players having advanced, that's a really small area a very deep sitting Stoke AI has to cover. Keeping the pitch small allows you to keep possession easier (a stat you've put much emphasis on at least in formative years). However, as a consequence, Stoke easily got a foot into almost every open play move -- no matter who receives the ball next, he's immediately pushed as the Stoke defenders have no distance to cover.




IIRC correctly, you perceived this and similar of "AI cheating" just the same, as the AI would have it much easier to trawl through your defensive without a tackle or any defensive action in sight. It's true that the AI had it easier to go unchallenged. However, this was all of your own making. The AI back then (generally) when using an attacking tactic and pushing for a goal used the width and depth of the pitches, and as such made defenders cover a much larger distance to close down the next ball carrier. 

Granted, I'm not sure you actually WANT help. If your intent is trying to prove an AI bias which doesn't exist (neither back then nor now, players have ALL the edges over it, and that's not defending the game), so be it. [/SPOILER]

The world has gone insane 

Practically nobody questions anything anymore 

For a start absolutely nobody other than the SI employees who's job it is to code the game know how the game is coded, or could even understand it, yet we are constantly expected to accept and believe that what we witness in the game is not only a true reflection of real life football, but by watching the matches you can actually determine potential issues within your tactic AND the ability to fix it.

I'm well aware that this is a completely pointless waste of my time bothering to even post this, because all that happens here is SI, the mods and the most devoted of followers close ranks and actually try to make YOU seem like the crazy conspiracy theorist and that everybody else gets it, so why don't you?

Case in point the % of how much more likely the AI is of scoring with their very first shot on target compared to the human manager. SI employees/moderators etc. focus completely on  the actual % I've posted rather than the actual issue. This immediately makes people question the actual point I'm trying to make, instead of the actual matter at hand in which I'm not actually giving an actual % but instead attempting to point out that there is a massive gulf between the two and the % I gave could in fact be somewhat lower or higher than the % I used to describe the problem in the first place.

That right there is the problem and the reason SI can get away with releasing a half assed game year after year. I'm sorry but that's the truth. As a brief example, the final release of the game this year doesn't even have a working media prediction. It remains the same every season. Now to me that's an immediate red flag because I cannot tell you how many times I've read on this forum how important it is to know how you are seen in the grand scheme of things by the other clubs, as this is how they decide how to set up tactically against you, so if my initial media prediction was 20th in the EPL and I actually won the league in my very first season(example) how does the AI view my team the very next season? Are we still relegation fodder, or potential champions again?

SI can't have it both ways(well obviously they can and they defend it to the point of removing all the content they don't like or can explain) for example ccc's, how long have they been an issue? Nobody knows to this day how they are calculated(not even SI) yet they have been ever present in the game for as long as I can remember. If SI cannot explain how this statistic is calculated, then why does it remain part of the game? The simple answer is because of lazy programing. There is so little pressure on them to improve on what they already have, so we get the same old ME year after year with the odd tweak that usually makes things worse rather than better.

To rub it in even more, you ask a question like "Why does my throw in taker deliberately throw the ball to the opposition, who then runs from his own half, through up to six or seven of my players like a knife through butter and finishes with aplomb every time?" Regardless of his ability/pace/technique, i should add.

You then get the age old reply...."Its your tactics" or "Go to the tactics help area and we'll have a look at it for you" only to be told, guess what? Its your tactics. You can't have a CM on this mentality with a DLP on thus mentality whilst employing a positive mentality at the same time as blah blah blah. I could take that information to the 10 most regarded managers in the whole of the footballing world and each and every one of them would go 

This always leads to the age old question of "game bias". This is where it should get interesting, but its such a touchy subject with SI that it has never been explored. SI's bottom line is "its your tactics" accept it or go away. Now to me, if your intelligence is more than that of a rock, then you know that this is what links EVERYTHING together and is also the biggest red flag of all the red flags, flagging away on flag day in flag town. This subject is an absolute no no to SI.

Ask SI to prove there is no AI bias and its Sayonara FM Forums and all privileges. They can however ask you to prove that there is AI bias, but you can't even begin to do that unless you are given access to the game code and are SI willing to have the game code scrutinised? 

I have had genuine conversations with actual human beings whose job it is to write code and each one immediately mentions "Parameters". These are obviously not set by the AI, this is done by a human being(I know you knew that) and it is these parameters that govern how A + B + Y = result(poor example) and whilst these parameters are still put in place by a human being, then there will always be manipulation.

Believe it or not, I admit that this can actually work both ways. but for the human being to take advantage we would have to be given the sequence, for example - you are 3-0 down and it is possible to come back and win 4-3 but to do so you must do A: change mentality to ? B: change the role and duties of certain players C: change particular team/player instructions and voila, you have turned a 3-0 defeat into a 4-3 win.

Now, the AI is already privy to all this information, it is just a matter of how, when or how often it is inclined to use it and those parameters are usually linked to how good that particular manager is rated. That's why you will often see big clubs(especially Liverpool) scoring 3 or 4 goals in injury time to turn games on there head. The lesser the quality of each particular member of staff, the more/less they can manipulate the outcomes of games. This is all connected of course to the choices you make, whether it be mentality, player roles, defensive line, team talk, all of these things and more and if you make all the right moves at the right time, then the AI are less likely to manipulate matches and results.

It might seem daunting and difficult to understand(and the actual coding is just that) but I've tried to simplify  and put in layman's terms what actually goes on and that part of it is very simple.

I'm sure that this post and myself will now be removed, but I haven't divulged any big secrets here. Everyone should be aware that this is how AI works already and I'm sure in the near future this will be massively improved upon, but for now this is what we have and I suppose we just have to put up with it and carry on, but be assured that this is not "conspiracy theory" whether you like it or not, this is how Artificial Intelligence is incorporated into all games.

[roykela]

@Whufc10000

Practically nobody questions anything anymore 
I find it's the opposite. But they start with their own conclusions first and work backwards in order to find their own truth, instead of the factual truth.

For a start absolutely nobody other than the SI employees who's job it is to code the game know how the game is coded, or could even understand it, yet we are constantly expected to accept and believe that what we witness in the game is not only a true reflection of real life football, but by watching the matches you can actually determine potential issues within your tactic AND the ability to fix it.
No, not a true reflection of real life football. The closest they can get to a true reflection of real life football. Huge difference.

I'm well aware that this is a completely pointless waste of my time bothering to even post this, because all that happens here is SI, the mods and the most devoted of followers close ranks and actually try to make YOU seem like the crazy conspiracy theorist and that everybody else gets it, so why don't you?
That is not all that happens here. Try following some advice instead of stubbornly sticking to your own conclusions in spite of people trying to help you.

Case in point the % of how much more likely the AI is of scoring with their very first shot on target compared to the human manager. SI employees/moderators etc. focus completely on  the actual % I've posted rather than the actual issue. This immediately makes people question the actual point I'm trying to make, instead of the actual matter at hand in which I'm not actually giving an actual % but instead attempting to point out that there is a massive gulf between the two and the % I gave could in fact be somewhat lower or higher than the % I used to describe the problem in the first place.
That's your conclusion. I don't experience the same, at all.
And if people are focusing on the wrong thing then try to explain it better.

That right there is the problem and the reason SI can get away with releasing a half assed game year after year. I'm sorry but that's the truth. As a brief example, the final release of the game this year doesn't even have a working media prediction. It remains the same every season. Now to me that's an immediate red flag because I cannot tell you how many times I've read on this forum how important it is to know how you are seen in the grand scheme of things by the other clubs, as this is how they decide how to set up tactically against you, so if my initial media prediction was 20th in the EPL and I actually won the league in my very first season(example) how does the AI view my team the very next season? Are we still relegation fodder, or potential champions again?
Haven't seen anything wrong with the media prediction in my game. It is definitely not the same every season here.

SI can't have it both ways(well obviously they can and they defend it to the point of removing all the content they don't like or can explain) for example ccc's, how long have they been an issue? Nobody knows to this day how they are calculated(not even SI) yet they have been ever present in the game for as long as I can remember. If SI cannot explain how this statistic is calculated, then why does it remain part of the game? The simple answer is because of lazy programing. There is so little pressure on them to improve on what they already have, so we get the same old ME year after year with the odd tweak that usually makes things worse rather than better.
Ccc have been a discussion point many a times. SI don't need to explain how it's calculated. SI knows how it's calculated. Explaining how it's calculated though might not be so straight forward.
Especially to a crowd that constantly misinterpret things and pass their own misinterpretations as facts.

To rub it in even more, you ask a question like "Why does my throw in taker deliberately throw the ball to the opposition, who then runs from his own half, through up to six or seven of my players like a knife through butter and finishes with aplomb every time?" Regardless of his ability/pace/technique, i should add.
You then get the age old reply...."Its your tactics" or "Go to the tactics help area and we'll have a look at it for you" only to be told, guess what? Its your tactics. You can't have a CM on this mentality with a DLP on thus mentality whilst employing a positive mentality at the same time as blah blah blah. I could take that information to the 10 most regarded managers in the whole of the footballing world and each and every one of them would go 
Throw-ins should definitely be improved. "It's your tactics" is often the correct reply because people, in general, overestimate their understanding of tactics (and football in general).
Going to the tactics forum will get you help from people who knows more about tactics in FM.

This always leads to the age old question of "game bias". This is where it should get interesting, but its such a touchy subject with SI that it has never been explored. SI's bottom line is "its your tactics" accept it or go away. Now to me, if your intelligence is more than that of a rock, then you know that this is what links EVERYTHING together and is also the biggest red flag of all the red flags, flagging away on flag day in flag town. This subject is an absolute no no to SI.

Ask SI to prove there is no AI bias and its Sayonara FM Forums and all privileges. They can however ask you to prove that there is AI bias, but you can't even begin to do that unless you are given access to the game code and are SI willing to have the game code scrutinised?
You mention others making people "like you" look like conspiracy theorists? This here is stuff that make yourself look like a conspiracy theorist. Not others. Yourself.
AI bias.....Yeah, nah, i don't see any of that in my game.
If you make a claim there is an AI bias then you have to prove it. It's that simple.
"I can get all the best players for free, all the time, at my National League North team. Without editors. Prove me wrong. And i don't have to give you anything, because it is so because i say so." See how that won't work? 

I have had genuine conversations with actual human beings whose job it is to write code and each one immediately mentions "Parameters". These are obviously not set by the AI, this is done by a human being(I know you knew that) and it is these parameters that govern how A + B + Y = result(poor example) and whilst these parameters are still put in place by a human being, then there will always be manipulation.
Believe it or not, I admit that this can actually work both ways. but for the human being to take advantage we would have to be given the sequence, for example - you are 3-0 down and it is possible to come back and win 4-3 but to do so you must do A: change mentality to ? B: change the role and duties of certain players C: change particular team/player instructions and voila, you have turned a 3-0 defeat into a 4-3 win.
That is pretty much how it is, i would say. Just a whole lot more complicated than that simplified example. And how would it not work like that? It's tactics.

Now, the AI is already privy to all this information, it is just a matter of how, when or how often it is inclined to use it and those parameters are usually linked to how good that particular manager is rated. That's why you will often see big clubs(especially Liverpool) scoring 3 or 4 goals in injury time to turn games on there head. The lesser the quality of each particular member of staff, the more/less they can manipulate the outcomes of games. This is all connected of course to the choices you make, whether it be mentality, player roles, defensive line, team talk, all of these things and more and if you make all the right moves at the right time, then the AI are less likely to manipulate matches and results.
So in other words, your tactics?

It might seem daunting and difficult to understand(and the actual coding is just that) but I've tried to simplify  and put in layman's terms what actually goes on and that part of it is very simple.

I'm sure that this post and myself will now be removed, but I haven't divulged any big secrets here. Everyone should be aware that this is how AI works already and I'm sure in the near future this will be massively improved upon, but for now this is what we have and I suppose we just have to put up with it and carry on, but be assured that this is not "conspiracy theory" whether you like it or not, this is how Artificial Intelligence is incorporated into all games.
If this is how AI is incorporated into all games that would suggest that that is how far we can get AI to go for games meant for the private consumer.
If that is so, then you already understand and have thus "berated" SI, Mods and devoted followers for no reason. SI can't do any more about it. Mods can't do anything about it. Devoted followers can't, sure as hell, do anything about it.
So your point is pointless.....if, what you're saying last, is true. You are basically nullifying your entire point...which i'm sure i have misunderstood. And i if i have. Try explaining it in a simpler way.
You are basically saying exactly the same thing what people have been telling you, within the last 3-4 paragraphs. This what people are saying when they say "it's your tactics".

Edited July 21, 2021 by roykela
Clarifying it as a direct response

[Whufc10000]

56 minutes ago, roykela said:

@Whufc10000

Practically nobody questions anything anymore 
I find it's the opposite. But they start with their own conclusions first and work backwards in order to find their own truth, instead of the factual truth.

For a start absolutely nobody other than the SI employees who's job it is to code the game know how the game is coded, or could even understand it, yet we are constantly expected to accept and believe that what we witness in the game is not only a true reflection of real life football, but by watching the matches you can actually determine potential issues within your tactic AND the ability to fix it.
No, not a true reflection of real life football. The closest they can get to a true reflection of real life football. Huge difference.

I'm well aware that this is a completely pointless waste of my time bothering to even post this, because all that happens here is SI, the mods and the most devoted of followers close ranks and actually try to make YOU seem like the crazy conspiracy theorist and that everybody else gets it, so why don't you?
That is not all that happens here. Try following some advice instead of stubbornly sticking to your own conclusions in spite of people trying to help you.

Case in point the % of how much more likely the AI is of scoring with their very first shot on target compared to the human manager. SI employees/moderators etc. focus completely on  the actual % I've posted rather than the actual issue. This immediately makes people question the actual point I'm trying to make, instead of the actual matter at hand in which I'm not actually giving an actual % but instead attempting to point out that there is a massive gulf between the two and the % I gave could in fact be somewhat lower or higher than the % I used to describe the problem in the first place.
That's your conclusion. I don't experience the same, at all.
And if people are focusing on the wrong thing then try to explain it better.

That right there is the problem and the reason SI can get away with releasing a half assed game year after year. I'm sorry but that's the truth. As a brief example, the final release of the game this year doesn't even have a working media prediction. It remains the same every season. Now to me that's an immediate red flag because I cannot tell you how many times I've read on this forum how important it is to know how you are seen in the grand scheme of things by the other clubs, as this is how they decide how to set up tactically against you, so if my initial media prediction was 20th in the EPL and I actually won the league in my very first season(example) how does the AI view my team the very next season? Are we still relegation fodder, or potential champions again?
Haven't seen anything wrong with the media prediction in my game. It is definitely not the same every season here.

SI can't have it both ways(well obviously they can and they defend it to the point of removing all the content they don't like or can explain) for example ccc's, how long have they been an issue? Nobody knows to this day how they are calculated(not even SI) yet they have been ever present in the game for as long as I can remember. If SI cannot explain how this statistic is calculated, then why does it remain part of the game? The simple answer is because of lazy programing. There is so little pressure on them to improve on what they already have, so we get the same old ME year after year with the odd tweak that usually makes things worse rather than better.
Ccc have been a discussion point many a times. SI don't need to explain how it's calculated. SI knows how it's calculated. Explaining how it's calculated though might not be so straight forward.
Especially to a crowd that constantly misinterpret things and pass their own misinterpretations as facts.

To rub it in even more, you ask a question like "Why does my throw in taker deliberately throw the ball to the opposition, who then runs from his own half, through up to six or seven of my players like a knife through butter and finishes with aplomb every time?" Regardless of his ability/pace/technique, i should add.
You then get the age old reply...."Its your tactics" or "Go to the tactics help area and we'll have a look at it for you" only to be told, guess what? Its your tactics. You can't have a CM on this mentality with a DLP on thus mentality whilst employing a positive mentality at the same time as blah blah blah. I could take that information to the 10 most regarded managers in the whole of the footballing world and each and every one of them would go 
Throw-ins should definitely be improved. "It's your tactics" is often the correct reply because people, in general, overestimate their understanding of tactics (and football in general).
Going to the tactics forum will get you help from people who knows more about tactics in FM.

This always leads to the age old question of "game bias". This is where it should get interesting, but its such a touchy subject with SI that it has never been explored. SI's bottom line is "its your tactics" accept it or go away. Now to me, if your intelligence is more than that of a rock, then you know that this is what links EVERYTHING together and is also the biggest red flag of all the red flags, flagging away on flag day in flag town. This subject is an absolute no no to SI.

Ask SI to prove there is no AI bias and its Sayonara FM Forums and all privileges. They can however ask you to prove that there is AI bias, but you can't even begin to do that unless you are given access to the game code and are SI willing to have the game code scrutinised?
You mention others making people "like you" look like conspiracy theorists? This here is stuff that make yourself look like a conspiracy theorist. Not others. Yourself.
AI bias.....Yeah, nah, i don't see any of that in my game.
If you make a claim there is an AI bias then you have to prove it. It's that simple.
"I can get all the best players for free, all the time, at my National League North team. Without editors. Prove me wrong. And i don't have to give you anything, because it is so because i say so." See how that won't work? 

I have had genuine conversations with actual human beings whose job it is to write code and each one immediately mentions "Parameters". These are obviously not set by the AI, this is done by a human being(I know you knew that) and it is these parameters that govern how A + B + Y = result(poor example) and whilst these parameters are still put in place by a human being, then there will always be manipulation.
Believe it or not, I admit that this can actually work both ways. but for the human being to take advantage we would have to be given the sequence, for example - you are 3-0 down and it is possible to come back and win 4-3 but to do so you must do A: change mentality to ? B: change the role and duties of certain players C: change particular team/player instructions and voila, you have turned a 3-0 defeat into a 4-3 win.
That is pretty much how it is, i would say. Just a whole lot more complicated than that simplified example. And how would it not work like that? It's tactics.

Now, the AI is already privy to all this information, it is just a matter of how, when or how often it is inclined to use it and those parameters are usually linked to how good that particular manager is rated. That's why you will often see big clubs(especially Liverpool) scoring 3 or 4 goals in injury time to turn games on there head. The lesser the quality of each particular member of staff, the more/less they can manipulate the outcomes of games. This is all connected of course to the choices you make, whether it be mentality, player roles, defensive line, team talk, all of these things and more and if you make all the right moves at the right time, then the AI are less likely to manipulate matches and results.
So in other words, your tactics?

It might seem daunting and difficult to understand(and the actual coding is just that) but I've tried to simplify  and put in layman's terms what actually goes on and that part of it is very simple.

I'm sure that this post and myself will now be removed, but I haven't divulged any big secrets here. Everyone should be aware that this is how AI works already and I'm sure in the near future this will be massively improved upon, but for now this is what we have and I suppose we just have to put up with it and carry on, but be assured that this is not "conspiracy theory" whether you like it or not, this is how Artificial Intelligence is incorporated into all games.
If this is how AI is incorporated into all games that would suggest that that is how far we can get AI to go for games meant for the private consumer.
If that is so, then you already understand and have thus "berated" SI, Mods and devoted followers for no reason. SI can't do any more about it. Mods can't do anything about it. Devoted followers can't, sure as hell, do anything about it.
So your point is pointless.....if, what you're saying last, is true. You are basically nullifying your entire point...which i'm sure i have misunderstood. And i if i have. Try explaining it in a simpler way.
You are basically saying exactly the same thing what people have been telling you, within the last 3-4 paragraphs. This what people are saying when they say "it's your tactics".

Practically none of your replies make the slightest bit of sense, do you have them all mixed up?

[dolph11]

Did @roykela really respond with the throw-in debacle this year is due to tactics? Stop that right now!

 

[roykela]

5 minutes ago, dolph11 said:

Did @roykela really respond with the throw-in debacle this year is due to tactics? Stop that right now!

 

From those responses and that's what you concluded. No. That is not what i did
What was the first line in that response? That is what my response to the throw-in issues is. And this year? It has needed improvement for a while.
Don't cherry-pick things out of context. That leads to the wrong assumptions and conclusions.

[roykela]

2 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

Practically none of your replies make the slightest bit of sense, do you have them all mixed up?

Not mixed up at all. When reading the replies, actually try to understand them.
If you don't understand them tell me what it is you don't understand and i will clarify.

Edited July 21, 2021 by roykela

[dolph11]

18 minutes ago, roykela said:

From those responses and that's what you concluded. No. That is not what i did
What was the first line in that response? That is what my response to the throw-in issues is. And this year? It has needed improvement for a while.
Don't cherry-pick things out of context. That leads to the wrong assumptions and conclusions.

I'm not cherry-picking. Your response. after the initial part, was to direct him to the tactics section of the forum if he's having problems with throw-ins! 

 

Listen, he may not have worded himself correctly and seem like he's having a non-sensical rant but there is a lot wrong with the game this year that makes no sense and is difficult to put into words. It's not always tactics. Sometimes it's just ridiculous stuff. One that's really annoying me, apart from the throw-ins and the static defenders ducking under easy headers that they should easily connect with is how my pacey players are slow and the oppositions are rapid on counters! Now, for me to show that I'd have to go through the painstaking process of recording it, showing the attributes, uploading, etc. It's an unbelievably monotonous chore I can live without. 

 

Still, a lot of errors and issues have gone into this years game and many people have pointed it out on here. A lot of well articulated posts about it usually get ignored for some reason. I wonder why that could be?

 

You may think I'm ranting because I don't know what I'm doing or tactically inept; you couldn't be further from the truth. Currently winning my 6th consecutive title, as well as European progress and all State of the Art facilities with FC Inter in Finland using my own version of a 70's Ajax tactic and another tactic using an AP(a) wide and a lone striker in  a more counter based system, which you're welcome to look at. 

 

But to deny these strange problems exist in the game helps nobody and negates any progress that can be made! It's so counter-productive going forwards if the people on here aren't going to listen because the way somebody has written something (trying to make them look silly) or don't like the persons tone (threaten to ban them or warn them). Not everybody can articulate themselves as they would probably like. 

Edited July 21, 2021 by dolph11

[roykela]

4 minutes ago, dolph11 said:

I'm not cherry-picking. Your response. after the initial part, was to direct him to the tactics section of the forum if he's having problems with throw-ins! 

 

Listen, he may not have worded himself correctly and seem like he's having a non-sensical rant but there is a lot wrong with the game this year that makes no sense and is difficult to put into words. It's not always tactics. Sometimes it's just ridiculous stuff. One that's really annoying me, apart from the throw-ins and the static defenders ducking under easy headers that they should easily connect with is how my pacey players are slow and the oppositions are rapid on counters! Now, for me to show that I'd have to go through the painstaking process of recording it, showing the attributes, uploading, etc. It's an unbelievably monotonous chore I can live without. 

 

Still, a lot of errors and issues have gone into this years game and many people have pointed it out on here. A lot of well articulated posts about it usually get ignored for some reason. I wonder why that could be?

 

You may think I'm ranting because I don't know what I'm doing or tactically inept; you couldn't be further from the truth. Currently winning my 6th consecutive title, as well as European progress and all State of the Art facilities with FC Inter in Finland using my own version of a 70's Ajax tactic and another tactic using an AP(a) wide and a lone striker in  a more counter based system, which you're welcome to look at. 

 

But to deny these strange problems exist in the game helps nobody and negates any progress that can be made! It's so counter-productive going forwards if the people on here aren't going to listen because the way somebody has written something (trying to make them look silly) or don't like the persons tone (threaten to ban them or warn them). Not everybody can articulate themselves as they would probably like. 

To rub it in even more, you ask a question like "Why does my throw in taker deliberately throw the ball to the opposition, who then runs from his own half, through up to six or seven of my players like a knife through butter and finishes with aplomb every time?" Regardless of his ability/pace/technique, i should add.
You then get the age old reply...."Its your tactics" or "Go to the tactics help area and we'll have a look at it for you" only to be told, guess what? Its your tactics. You can't have a CM on this mentality with a DLP on thus mentality whilst employing a positive mentality at the same time as blah blah blah. I could take that information to the 10 most regarded managers in the whole of the footballing world and each and every one of them would go 

The highlighted part. The continuation from what i started with, that's what i was pointing at.
That is an indication of a fundamentally flawed tactic. Indication. Sometimes the worst player can have his moments. That's just how things are.
I know it's just an example but there's a reason for that happening and the best answer can be given from the tactics forum.
Haven't had that happen in any of my games. Neither for nor against. That's not saying it doesn't happen. WHY it happens is a different story. Can be a bug, can be tactical or neither of those.

You don't have to show it. All they're doing is asking for some help to have a much better chance to pinpoint where exactly it goes wrong.
It's a choice between going through the chore of providing details and evidence to help out or continue without it. No-one have to do it.
But if it's something wrong it sure helps when people report it, as detailed as possible.

I don't think anything one or way another. Only responding to what's being given. I have no idea if you're tactically inept or a guru etc.
Ranting or not does not matter one bit to me.
Why would i take a look at it?

That's the thing. I'm not denying strange problems. Negating progress is to do a bunch of tests and then not provide the findings.
Eliminate as much as possible, by observing, testing and then provide the results with others.
One will probably get directed to another sub-forum that contains many more people who are better in that area.
When/if more people there observes and experience the same, go the bugs sub-forum and report all the findings. As detailed as possible.
All of that is progress.
Apart from it taking time and being a chore, there is no downside. Especially if one doesn't want to negate progress.
Like i said; no-one HAS to do it. It's purely optional.
But when someone is saying the same thing over and over and over again in the same sub-forum after being pointed somewhere else.....that's negating progress,

Couldn't care less about a person's tone. Certainly don't want them to look silly.
I'm focused on the actual information inside what's being written.
Not everybody can articulate themselves....i know. I'm one of them, as i constantly say at work
Also why i try saying "explain it better/simplify it/explain it differently".

Discussing and arguing a person's points does not mean i'm disagreeing. Nor does it mean that i'm agreeing.
I'm exploring other options until they can firmly be excluded.

[dolph11]

2 minutes ago, roykela said:

To rub it in even more, you ask a question like "Why does my throw in taker deliberately throw the ball to the opposition, who then runs from his own half, through up to six or seven of my players like a knife through butter and finishes with aplomb every time?" Regardless of his ability/pace/technique, i should add.
You then get the age old reply...."Its your tactics" or "Go to the tactics help area and we'll have a look at it for you" only to be told, guess what? Its your tactics. You can't have a CM on this mentality with a DLP on thus mentality whilst employing a positive mentality at the same time as blah blah blah. I could take that information to the 10 most regarded managers in the whole of the footballing world and each and every one of them would go 

The highlighted part. The continuation from what i started with, that's what i was pointing at.
That is an indication of a fundamentally flawed tactic. Indication. Sometimes the worst player can have his moments. That's just how things are.
I know it's just an example but there's a reason for that happening and the best answer can be given from the tactics forum.
Haven't had that happen in any of my games. Neither for nor against. That's not saying it doesn't happen. WHY it happens is a different story. Can be a bug, can be tactical or neither of those.

You don't have to show it. All they're doing is asking for some help to have a much better chance to pinpoint where exactly it goes wrong.
It's a choice between going through the chore of providing details and evidence to help out or continue without it. No-one have to do it.
But if it's something wrong it sure helps when people report it, as detailed as possible.

I don't think anything one or way another. Only responding to what's being given. I have no idea if you're tactically inept or a guru etc.
Ranting or not does not matter one bit to me.
Why would i take a look at it?

That's the thing. I'm not denying strange problems. Negating progress is to do a bunch of tests and then not provide the findings.
Eliminate as much as possible, by observing, testing and then provide the results with others.
One will probably get directed to another sub-forum that contains many more people who are better in that area.
When/if more people there observes and experience the same, go the bugs sub-forum and report all the findings. As detailed as possible.
All of that is progress.
Apart from it taking time and being a chore, there is no downside. Especially if one doesn't want to negate progress.
Like i said; no-one HAS to do it. It's purely optional.
But when someone is saying the same thing over and over and over again in the same sub-forum after being pointed somewhere else.....that's negating progress,

Couldn't care less about a person's tone. Certainly don't want them to look silly.
I'm focused on the actual information inside what's being written.
Not everybody can articulate themselves....i know. I'm one of them, as i constantly say at work
Also why i try saying "explain it better/simplify it/explain it differently".

Discussing and arguing a person's points does not mean i'm disagreeing. Nor does it mean that i'm agreeing.
I'm exploring other options until they can firmly be excluded.

Understandable. I think the ire of some people is how did some of these obvious errors get in the game? How did they make it past final testing? How, even in the final patch, are some of the most ridiculous things happening? And this is what the guy was getting at.

 

People have taken the time, over the years, to post bugs in the bugs forum, I've seen some take hours of their own time only for them to still be in the game! It's never known if the SI team take them seriously or pay attention as it's always a generic 'under review' for each one. More needs to be done in this regard to encourage people to take the time knowing there will be a positive outcome rather than feeling like it's not really worth it. 

[roykela]

3 hours ago, dolph11 said:

Understandable. I think the ire of some people is how did some of these obvious errors get in the game? How did they make it past final testing? How, even in the final patch, are some of the most ridiculous things happening? And this is what the guy was getting at.

 

People have taken the time, over the years, to post bugs in the bugs forum, I've seen some take hours of their own time only for them to still be in the game! It's never known if the SI team take them seriously or pay attention as it's always a generic 'under review' for each one. More needs to be done in this regard to encourage people to take the time knowing there will be a positive outcome rather than feeling like it's not really worth it. 

Oh, absolutely. I can certainly say i agree with that. There are many things with each year's game that baffles me are still in.
It's a very good thing people are vocal with stuff they find wrong, or not right, with the game. Good for us and good for SI.
I truly get that "not worth it" feeling. Been there, done that a few times
 

[Svenc]

22 hours ago, RTHerringbone said:

Incredible to see Garry still wheeling out his AI bias theory 

How many years has it gone on and across how many "whufcxxxxx" aliases? Amazing scenes 👏

Yep, and in retrospect, he's been given 100%, make that 10000% correct replies like 10 years ago already in like all the big threads he created (in particular, but not limited to, by wwfan, who back then actually also had an influence over AI tactical decision making by providing the basis of the then tactical creator). He would have it much easier nowadays to explain as the game allows ME highlight uploads, has much more analysis tools and stats (e.g. xG,  Expected Point Tables et all). He, naturally too, bettered the AI on all fronts (which was much simpler then anyways).


Not a Rant, But.... - Football Manager General Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com) 

Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?) - Football Manager General Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

(Funnily, wwfan even mentioned Garry's tendency to go all narrow in a bid to better possession, which he also still did in the FM 2015 game against a Stoke AI packing it and sitting deep I posted earlier. Same as his reliance on set pieces seen in the vid, that is back then when the threads were created actually buggy set piece exploit goals to score the crucial opener against an AI manager on the defense -- which he never perceived as "cheating" of course, unlike anything the AI did to him. That was FM15, but I don't think it's a coincidence. Garry's been always a stats man (which is a big part why he well never "get" the game nor its ME), and whilst he doesn't think as highly about possession anymore (good for him Football is a numbers game but only Gary Neville seems to realise it | Football | The Guardian), the quote under "Biography" in my profile suits him perfectly, even if it wasn't from him).

If the AI is actually better at x, it's because it's better at doing that, and the reason has always been on him and always always will be. Simple as that. The AI has blatantly always had the same tools -- and there's been oft plenty enough to criticize about how it uses it as it naturally would affect its long-term performance (choice of roles, duties, the combination of both in particular formations, the timing when it goes for a more attacking tactic when trailing an opposition lead, substitutions etc. etc.) Back on those old releases you actually had AI for entire matches playing narrow formations but never advancing a single wide player of the formation and similar stuff thus never stretching any defense much -- the "AI bias" theories have only ever distracted from such actually game issues of there's typically plenty enough.


tldr; Garry has always been the perfect example of that there's a big difference between winning (or losing) and understanding why you do so.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Svenc

[Whufc10000]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

Yep, and in retrospect, he's been given 100%, make that 10000% correct replies like 10 years ago already in like all the big threads he created (in particular, but not limited to, by wwfan, who back then actually also had an influence over AI tactical decision making by providing the basis of the then tactical creator). He would have it much easier nowadays to explain as the game allows ME highlight uploads, has much more analysis tools and stats (e.g. xG,  Expected Point Tables et all). He, naturally too, bettered the AI on all fronts (which was much simpler then anyways).


Not a Rant, But.... - Football Manager General Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com) 

Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?) - Football Manager General Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

(Funnily, wwfan even mentioned Garry's tendency to go all narrow in a bid to better possession, which he also still did in the FM 2015 game against a Stoke AI packing it and sitting deep I posted earlier. Same as his reliance on set pieces, that is back then actually buggy set piece exploit goals to score the opener -- which he never perceived as "cheating" of course, unlike anything the AI did to him. That was FM15, but I don't think it's a coincidence. Garry's been always a stats man, and whilst he doesn't think as highly about possession anymore (good for him Football is a numbers game but only Gary Neville seems to realise it | Football | The Guardian), the quote under "Biography" in my profile suits him perfectly, even if it wasn't from him).

If the AI is actually better at x, it's because it's better at doing that, and the reason has always been on him and always always will be. Simple as that. The AI has blatantly always had the same tools -- and there's been oft plenty enough to criticize about how it uses it as it naturally would affect its long-term performance (choice of roles, duties, the timing when it goes for a more attacking tactic when trailing an opposition lead etc. etc.)

You'll never get it and the simple reason for that is because you don't want to.

Nothing that you(or anyone else) have posted is proof of anything, all you bark on about is hearsay and propaganda.

Did you know that wwfan used to release tactics? Not only that but he also claimed and posted a load of amazing fixtures and results that apparently he got from said tactics. Now if you are so keen to reminisce, then go and look back on the results other FM'ers were getting with the same set. All you got was a lot of 0-0 and 1-1 draws, nothing like the kind of results he achieved. These tactics were tested by other FM guru's who found that the results and matches wwfan said these tactics produced was impossible. They just weren't good enough to achieve what he claimed.

What you cannot/will not grasp, is that I always test a whole myriad of tactics, some narrow, some wide, some counter, some aggressive, some negative and so many others in between, so for you to claim you have proven anything with a post about a narrow tactic I once used is absolutely laughable, as is most everything you post.

My proof is from the horses mouth and that is that SI's claim that there is no AI bias is just not true and that is because the AI have all the information in the form of code to know how to react, whilst 99.999999999999% of human players only have minimal knowledge of how FM works and therefore would literally have to watch hundreds of thousands of full matches to get even a fraction of an idea of what works and when and all the thousands of other tweaks and changes that come with it.

Now that's tricky enough, but I suppose over a period of a few years that may be possible, but only if you were doing so with the exact same ME but we have to contend with a dozen or more ME's per release, making it a ludicrously difficult task, even if you could play FM 24/7 for the rest of your life.

It may well be true that the AI is coded to only use a small amount of basic instructions, that we are told gives US the upper hand, but nothing could be further from the truth, because the AI only needs to use basic instructions, as it has already been told how and when to use them, it is therefore on us to do and say all the right things and if we do, then we are occasionally rewarded, but its often an empty victory because we don't have any idea what we actually did to achieve it.

Like it or not and believe who you want, but what I've described, however poorly, is the basis of how FM works.

[XaW]

Listen, @Whufc10000, suppose what you say are true, can you at least give us some data or something resembling any type of proof for your claims? I mean, you have written page up and page down about this, and told us you have proof, can you please show it? I'm not discounting your claims, but I am asking for proof, as in data, numbers, methodology, anything to back what you claim. If only it's your anecdotal evidence, at least point to some sort of data. I mean, being so assured you must have jotted it down somewhere?

As soon as you can present something, anything at all, we can at the very least take a look at it and see what it presents, at that point we can even try to look at your methods, perhaps you have found discrepancies that can be look at further? Perhaps you have found some biases that we could test as a community and provide the data for SI to fix? Perhaps we can continue the examination and increase the sample size to avoid being caught by statistical anomalies? At the very least we can peer review your data to see if your theories can be disproved or not, and we can do it as a community. I've seen several others in here who are eager to get to the bottom of claims like this. I'm sure @dolph11,  @roykela, @Svenc, and several others here would love to look at the raw data and expand on it, if there are indeed issues to be found from it.

I do hope you can provide these things for us to dig into as soon as possible. If you have issues finding space for big data, I'm sure we can find some arrangements somewhere. Just let us know, and we are all willing to help out with things like this.

[themadsheep2001]

What Xaw said, because in almost 15 years, you've never once been able to back up a single word of what you've said, it's been misinformation after conspiracy, with a bit of slander thrown in. At some point you're going to have to prove it

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, Whufc10000 said:

Like it or not and believe who you want, but what I've described, however poorly, is the basis of how FM works.

It's not. I'm tied to NDA which I won't break, but I was briefly a part of the internal Beta, which is where it was communicated how the AI operated back then  pretty openly (and it was pretty apparenty to see anyways, in particular for vintage editions IIRC the public tactic forums even had threads on learning how to read what the AI was employing in terms of roles, duty, even mentality and instructions at any one period of a match). 

Additionally, all the feedback given back then if there had been any bias would have been for nought, there was also quality analysis in terms of AI vs AI matches, also in terms of engine  bugs, the likes of which you rarely see in public bug posts. (I later on criticized the AI tactics in public posts such as this and a couple others, which evidently cost it points).  As far as I remember, you had an invitation back then also, but refused to take it. Had you taken it, you would have additionally noticed how wrong you were on how the game worked (I'm not disputing it's quality, just how it works in general).

Additionally, it was you who got the poor results from wwfan's then tactics set, which you also said. As always, you speak for everybody ("FM'ers"), but ignore counter evidence that doesn't suit your argument (Perception bias - Catalog of Bias), such as back then many being able to win matches despite having far fewer shots on your perennial posted final match screens. That is because you can't read the ME for some reason and never could, and as such neither time nor pick your decisions accordingly. I actually think that's the best bet you have: Outline and criticize why you can't read a thing, and rely on stats alone this much (at least there's starting to be a few half decent ones in xG and Expected Points now now even though they may need tuning), and one day you may be getting somewhere. FOr the record, I don't think you're alone in this (does anybody remember helping a guy named looping)?

Not sure what your aim is, but by now it appears it's a mental protection of kind of yours. Whereas in formative years you at least wondered what you may be contributing to your experience (vastly outperforming the AI in general, btw, as recorded in any of your season screenshots), it now seems you're not prepared to be challenged anymore. Doing so would be equal to painfully admitting to yourself that despite all these many hours poured in, you didn't fully get it all along. 

(Which you don't, 100% btw).

Edited July 21, 2021 by Svenc

[dolph11]

4 hours ago, roykela said:

Oh, absolutely. I can certainly say i agree with that. There are many things with each year's game that baffles me are still in.
It's a very good thing people are vocal with stuff they find wrong, or not right, with the game. Good for us and good for SI.
I truly get that "not worth it" feeling. Been there, done that a few times
 

I think, after all of the typing, we are somewhat in agreement! 

[roykela]

1 hour ago, Whufc10000 said:

You'll never get it and the simple reason for that is because you don't want to.

Nothing that you(or anyone else) have posted is proof of anything, all you bark on about is hearsay and propaganda.

Did you know that wwfan used to release tactics? Not only that but he also claimed and posted a load of amazing fixtures and results that apparently he got from said tactics. Now if you are so keen to reminisce, then go and look back on the results other FM'ers were getting with the same set. All you got was a lot of 0-0 and 1-1 draws, nothing like the kind of results he achieved. These tactics were tested by other FM guru's who found that the results and matches wwfan said these tactics produced was impossible. They just weren't good enough to achieve what he claimed.

What you cannot/will not grasp, is that I always test a whole myriad of tactics, some narrow, some wide, some counter, some aggressive, some negative and so many others in between, so for you to claim you have proven anything with a post about a narrow tactic I once used is absolutely laughable, as is most everything you post.

My proof is from the horses mouth and that is that SI's claim that there is no AI bias is just not true and that is because the AI have all the information in the form of code to know how to react, whilst 99.999999999999% of human players only have minimal knowledge of how FM works and therefore would literally have to watch hundreds of thousands of full matches to get even a fraction of an idea of what works and when and all the thousands of other tweaks and changes that come with it.

Now that's tricky enough, but I suppose over a period of a few years that may be possible, but only if you were doing so with the exact same ME but we have to contend with a dozen or more ME's per release, making it a ludicrously difficult task, even if you could play FM 24/7 for the rest of your life.

It may well be true that the AI is coded to only use a small amount of basic instructions, that we are told gives US the upper hand, but nothing could be further from the truth, because the AI only needs to use basic instructions, as it has already been told how and when to use them, it is therefore on us to do and say all the right things and if we do, then we are occasionally rewarded, but its often an empty victory because we don't have any idea what we actually did to achieve it.

Like it or not and believe who you want, but what I've described, however poorly, is the basis of how FM works.

Your proof is that SI says there isn't? That's not how it works. That is just a claim. A claim that you have not provided any material, not even basic material, to show us anything.
It's your claim. You will have to provide the data for your claims. 
Provide the methods used, the results, possible tweaks and conclusions. Preferably as detailed as possible and explained step by step.
It's that easy.

[Daveincid]

I forgot what I wanted to write about FM21 because of reading the last pages, but it was positive anyway

So there is a little different feedback:

Feedback for the Football Manager-Feedback-Thread: Level of entertainment is impressive

 

[roykela]

2 hours ago, dolph11 said:

I think, after all of the typing, we are somewhat in agreement! 

I can always agree and disagree with someone at the same time.
I can argue both ways
If someone has an argumentative point in a discussion i will explore that point with a counter-point.
Does not necessarily represent my personal view on said point though.
 

Edited July 21, 2021 by roykela

[Svenc]

Additionally:

 

[quote]My proof is from the horses mouth and that is that SI's claim that there is no AI bias is just not true and that is because the AI have all the information in the form of code to know how to react[/quote]
 

This is kinda true. It's called coding AI logics and/or receiving feedback on it an improving on it (that is to a degree -- I don't think SI will ever code the AI to exclusively challenge their tactical hardcore as that may mean a drop in sales and/or a large increase in frustration).

Case in point the popular FM12/13. FM12 had an unresolved AI tactics bug that meant the AI frequently did not employ somebody protecting their backlines. IIRC, this actually had continued to early FM13 betas, despite being fairly basic stuff. When fixed, the main coder/s already anticipated that some would find the game harder. Coupled with that up to FM12 it was a feasible (and popular) schtick of human managers to keep 6-7 outfield players always behind the ball (defend duty or "runs from deep" set to never) and launch long balls to isolated forwards, you had a lot of rage quits on early FM13. This was feasible because up to that point forwards would visibly off the ball run through their markers to pick up long/through balls as if they didn't exist. (The concerned and cynical guy in me is wondering whether that isn't a big part of why FM12 is still that popular -- you'd have to do pretty lousy things to actually underperform FM12's AI accross the board. Ditto actually FM17, where players simply needed to flood central spaces due to wide midfielders always sticking out wide, GG).

Any release typically has issues. There's a difference between that and perceiving the game as inherently unfair / biased towards any AI though.  SI may never aim to challenge their tactical "hardcore". But it's of importance to challenge such perceptions. Think of it like this: If you yourself can generally outperform the AI this much despite all (and still perceive the game of being biased towards the AI) -- where does that leave anybody else, e.g. me? My Stoke example was hardly any tactical masterclass, but team sports basics 101. (I don't consider myself a particularly tactical guru, btw.) If teams, in any team sports, aim to stretch defenses, they typically make the pitches the defending team has to cover bigger, and vice versa. The AI back then suscribed to such logics as that a) is fairly basic stuff and b) as such it was fed that logics to do such into its tactical decision making. 

If you can't think in such terms (nor read what would be happening in any particular match against any particular AI formation/approach), then you will never get to grips with the game's ME. It's not about trial&erroring through a variety of wide, narrow, blue, purple tactics on every release. It is about watching what's going on and reacting accordingly to it.

[Whufc10000]

10 hours ago, XaW said:

Listen, @Whufc10000, suppose what you say are true, can you at least give us some data or something resembling any type of proof for your claims? I mean, you have written page up and page down about this, and told us you have proof, can you please show it? I'm not discounting your claims, but I am asking for proof, as in data, numbers, methodology, anything to back what you claim. If only it's your anecdotal evidence, at least point to some sort of data. I mean, being so assured you must have jotted it down somewhere?

As soon as you can present something, anything at all, we can at the very least take a look at it and see what it presents, at that point we can even try to look at your methods, perhaps you have found discrepancies that can be look at further? Perhaps you have found some biases that we could test as a community and provide the data for SI to fix? Perhaps we can continue the examination and increase the sample size to avoid being caught by statistical anomalies? At the very least we can peer review your data to see if your theories can be disproved or not, and we can do it as a community. I've seen several others in here who are eager to get to the bottom of claims like this. I'm sure @dolph11,  @roykela, @Svenc, and several others here would love to look at the raw data and expand on it, if there are indeed issues to be found from it.

I do hope you can provide these things for us to dig into as soon as possible. If you have issues finding space for big data, I'm sure we can find some arrangements somewhere. Just let us know, and we are all willing to help out with things like this.

You sound genuine, but on the other hand you must realise that the sheer amount of information required would take up pages and pages on the forum and would literally take weeks/months to upload. Even then, I'd get the same responses from the same people, most notably those you mention above.

This is not a cop out, but previous attempts have shown that no matter how much "proof" I post, it will never be enough.

There are a couple of ways to clarify all of this without all the back and forth, but this would require cooperation from SI and lets face it, that is never going to happen.

1. Allow an independent access to the code - This is actually not essential, if we can all come to terms with the fact that the AI operates in the manner explained to me and however badly I've already explained it here and that is that the AI already has all the information it needs and it takes the necessary input from the human player to counteract it. Each and every one of you could do your own groundwork here to find that this is indeed fact.

2. One or indeed some of you set up some parameters in regard to testing. This could be whatever you want. Give me a tactic to test that so many of you claim that you don't see the kind of things I see and how to implement the decisions you would make and we'll see what happens?

On a side note, #roykela has suggested that media prediction actually works in his game, whereas in mine my teams media prediction remains the same season after season. Apparently this was an issue, but I'm not aware if this was fixed or not in a previous update?  My game updates automatically through steam every day, so it seems strange that this has not been fixed in my version?

[XaW]

4 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

You sound genuine, but on the other hand you must realise that the sheer amount of information required would take up pages and pages on the forum and would literally take weeks/months to upload. Even then, I'd get the same responses from the same people, most notably those you mention above.

This is not a cop out, but previous attempts have shown that no matter how much "proof" I post, it will never be enough.

I do want to see the data, simply because I want the game to be the best it can be. And if you have found errors, then I'd like to see it fixed. But to do so, there must be proof of it. Even SI cannot fix something they are unaware of. If not the raw data, could you load up you summary showing methodology, examples, etc? Something at all we can work out from?

6 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

1. Allow an independent access to the code - This is actually not essential, if we can all come to terms with the fact that the AI operates in the manner explained to me and however badly I've already explained it here and that is that the AI already has all the information it needs and it takes the necessary input from the human player to counteract it. Each and every one of you could do your own groundwork here to find that this is indeed fact.

SI would never allow anyone outside to review the code, and even if they did, a review would take years. Millions upon millions of lines of code is not an easy task to review manually without having any basis about what to look for. That is the precise reason for SI asking for details, example saves, etc. I expect they can run it in debug mode which will point to the exact line being executed at the time, thus giving them a starting point to where the error is occurring, at least pointers to methods, functions, or module. A random review of millions of lines of code are essentially a waste of time.

10 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

2. One or indeed some of you set up some parameters in regard to testing. This could be whatever you want. Give me a tactic to test that so many of you claim that you don't see the kind of things I see and how to implement the decisions you would make and we'll see what happens?

I can provide you my basic tactic, but as everyone else, I tweak it to fit my team, I tweak it inside matches to make sure I take advantage of the opposition when I see it, and I tweak it if I see we struggle with something. So sure, I can give you my tactic that I have quite a lot of success with, if you want? But first we must establish the base line for the test. What are we looking for specifically? The parameters, what are they? You are one who have the data, show us some of the examples from what you have and we can build from there. I have no idea what you have found, so unless you show me your data, I have no idea what we are looking for, or indeed what parameters we should be using.

15 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

On a side note, #roykela has suggested that media prediction actually works in his game, whereas in mine my teams media prediction remains the same season after season. Apparently this was an issue, but I'm not aware if this was fixed or not in a previous update?  My game updates automatically through steam every day, so it seems strange that this has not been fixed in my version?

On this, I'd say the media prediction are not "broken" as claimed earlier, but I still think it needs more work. It seems to be too linked to reputation, and if you overshoot for a season or two the reputation takes time to build and the media prediction follows suit. In one of my games I won the league while being predicted to fight in the relegation zone. The next season I was still predicted to finish on the low half. I would have expected to be at least top half based on a league win the year before, but since the reputation takes longer to build (as I think it should! I mean, Leicester winning the PL gave them a boost, but they were still rated lower than the top teams in England the next season), it takes longer to catch up than it should. This is my opinion, though, there could be other negating factors I don't know about that could influence this, but for me, this is not perfect yet.

[roykela]

48 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

2. One or indeed some of you set up some parameters in regard to testing. This could be whatever you want. Give me a tactic to test that so many of you claim that you don't see the kind of things I see and how to implement the decisions you would make and we'll see what happens?

A tactic, screenshot and pkms are waiting for you in the tactics forums
Test away.

[Viking]

So I really, really, hate when newgens push real life talents aside in the national U-teams early in the game. I just rage deleted a save beacuse a bounch of ugly faced 16 year old newgens made it to the USMNT U20-team in late 2021, despite a good pool of real life talents. Not only do they make the team, they are picked to play games over real life talents. Before anyone asks: yes, there's plenty of players to chose from in the game. I load all players of US nationality and I've checked CA/CR on most real life talents with they editor. Plus I've added several real life talents that are not in the DB myself. Plenty to pick from. There's NO reason for the game to add young players with silly CA/CR early in the game on it's own. Neither have I asked for this when the game is set up.

[Whufc10000]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

I do want to see the data, simply because I want the game to be the best it can be. And if you have found errors, then I'd like to see it fixed. But to do so, there must be proof of it. Even SI cannot fix something they are unaware of. If not the raw data, could you load up you summary showing methodology, examples, etc? Something at all we can work out from?

SI would never allow anyone outside to review the code, and even if they did, a review would take years. Millions upon millions of lines of code is not an easy task to review manually without having any basis about what to look for. That is the precise reason for SI asking for details, example saves, etc. I expect they can run it in debug mode which will point to the exact line being executed at the time, thus giving them a starting point to where the error is occurring, at least pointers to methods, functions, or module. A random review of millions of lines of code are essentially a waste of time.

I can provide you my basic tactic, but as everyone else, I tweak it to fit my team, I tweak it inside matches to make sure I take advantage of the opposition when I see it, and I tweak it if I see we struggle with something. So sure, I can give you my tactic that I have quite a lot of success with, if you want? But first we must establish the base line for the test. What are we looking for specifically? The parameters, what are they? You are one who have the data, show us some of the examples from what you have and we can build from there. I have no idea what you have found, so unless you show me your data, I have no idea what we are looking for, or indeed what parameters we should be using.

On this, I'd say the media prediction are not "broken" as claimed earlier, but I still think it needs more work. It seems to be too linked to reputation, and if you overshoot for a season or two the reputation takes time to build and the media prediction follows suit. In one of my games I won the league while being predicted to fight in the relegation zone. The next season I was still predicted to finish on the low half. I would have expected to be at least top half based on a league win the year before, but since the reputation takes longer to build (as I think it should! I mean, Leicester winning the PL gave them a boost, but they were still rated lower than the top teams in England the next season), it takes longer to catch up than it should. This is my opinion, though, there could be other negating factors I don't know about that could influence this, but for me, this is not perfect yet.

How do you want me to produce this data without anyone saying that it has been doctored in some fashion?

As for "media prediction", in every save I've had every single team has EXACTLY the same media prediction season after season, no matter where they have finished in the league(maximum 4 seasons as I can't play the game beyond 4 seasons as it just gets more and more ridiculous)

The promoted and relegated teams just switch, example West Ham first season MP 11th but relegated switches MP with one of the promoted sides.

If I'm managing West Ham, lets say I finish 1st - 3rd - 1st - in season 4 our MP is still 11th

[XaW]

14 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

How do you want me to produce this data without anyone saying that it has been doctored in some fashion?

Well, you could explain methodology, what your thesis was, how you confirmed it, how you controlled variables (or what variables you were unable to control), what you tried to reject it, summed up numbers showing it, how you calculated standard deviation, etc. Just about in every way anyone would show statistics without showing raw data. I mean, at least doing something like that would give us a way to get a grasp of what your data proves. And that would allow any one of us to try to recreate it. If we got another result, then at least we could compare things, and see if the variables created any discrepancies.

14 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

As for "media prediction", in every save I've had every single team has EXACTLY the same media prediction season after season, no matter where they have finished in the league(maximum 4 seasons as I can't play the game beyond 4 seasons as it just gets more and more ridiculous)

The promoted and relegated teams just switch, example West Ham first season MP 11th but relegated switches MP with one of the promoted sides.

If I'm managing West Ham, lets say I finish 1st - 3rd - 1st - in season 4 our MP is still 11th

Well, then I can say I don't experience what you do. What I see this season is different from last season, I can say that for sure. My problem showing screenshots is that I think I'll get promoted this season, so that would ruin it, but I'll save it anyway in case I don't. I'll show you when I have two season in the same division. It might take a few days to get through the seasons though.

[Neil Brock]

29 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

How do you want me to produce this data without anyone saying that it has been doctored in some fashion?

As for "media prediction", in every save I've had every single team has EXACTLY the same media prediction season after season, no matter where they have finished in the league(maximum 4 seasons as I can't play the game beyond 4 seasons as it just gets more and more ridiculous)

The promoted and relegated teams just switch, example West Ham first season MP 11th but relegated switches MP with one of the promoted sides.

If I'm managing West Ham, lets say I finish 1st - 3rd - 1st - in season 4 our MP is still 11th

In relation to media predictions being incorrect, if you upload the save, let me know the file name and I'll take a look. Details on how to upload here - https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/538431-how-to-upload-files-to-us/