Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?)

[Rupal]

In games where the odds are closer to even, or against me, I can bag 4-5 goals despite my stats suggest I should have had 1, or 0. They've got it backwards most of the time in my mind.

Ah, but they'll say that's because you created good CCCs not bad ones.....

Makes you weep, doesn't it??

[pandemonium]

Here's to hoping the patch will fix some of these problems

[r0x0r]

Wait, are you guys all seriously trying to say chances where your relatively wide (so not a perfect angle), with a top keeper in front of you, should tend to result in a goal? o.O

[Rupal]

r0x0r, it's not what we are saying but how the game itself classifies things.

It's not as simple as looking at the angle and deciding how easy the chance was from that. There are too many other variables about which will affect things.

The game identifies a number of CCCs. That's the only statistic which we can use. You are claiming that (for example) some of Hammer1000's one on ones weren't 'really' good chances. Mitja, looking at the same evidence doesn't agree. It's all subjective, as I tried to point out to wwfan earlier.

The game says that there were x number of CCCs. It is bizarre to insist that that is wrong and that some or all of them shouldn't count.

[boywonder9]

Wait, are you guys all seriously trying to say chances where your relatively wide (so not a perfect angle), with a top keeper in front of you, should tend to result in a goal? o.O

I'm not talking about any one particular chance, or any of PKM that other people have posted in this thread. I'm talking about general trends I notice over full seasons of play that see my conversion rate of CCCs significantly lower than the AI's in games where I statistically dominate by a wide margin.

I could care less about how the ME visually represents chances, nor can I tell which chances are CCCs (and plenty of ambiguity around what exactly consitutes a CCC) and which aren't from watching games. Their are obvious deficiences in how things are represented, so that seems like a pointless excercise to me. And my experiences are in League 1, with Premier League level players (yeah, I got a sugar daddy owner and totally exploited the transfer system to stack my team) and I'm certainly not facing any Cech's down in League 1.

[r0x0r]

r0x0r, it's not what we are saying but how the game itself classifies things.

It's not as simple as looking at the angle and deciding how easy the chance was from that. There are too many other variables about which will affect things.

The game identifies a number of CCCs. That's the only statistic which we can use. You are claiming that (for example) some of Hammer1000's one on ones weren't 'really' good chances. Mitja, looking at the same evidence doesn't agree. It's all subjective, as I tried to point out to wwfan earlier.

The game says that there were x number of CCCs. It is bizarre to insist that that is wrong and that some or all of them shouldn't count.

We don't know what the games definition of a CCC is. If it's a chance that a decent striker will score against an average keeper 1/4 or 1/5 times, then fine, they were CCC's. However, he had them against a world class keeper, and as such it's not shocking none resulted in goals.

[r0x0r]

I'm not talking about any one particular chance, or any of PKM that other people have posted in this thread. I'm talking about general trends I notice over full seasons of play that see my conversion rate of CCCs significantly lower than the AI's in games where I statistically dominate by a wide margin.

I could care less about how the ME visually represents chances, nor can I tell which chances are CCCs (and plenty of ambiguity around what exactly consitutes a CCC) and which aren't from watching games. Their are obvious deficiences in how things are represented, so that seems like a pointless excercise to me. And my experiences are in League 1, with Premier League level players (yeah, I got a sugar daddy owner and totally exploited the transfer system to stack my team) and I'm certainly not facing any Cech's down in League 1.

So you are saying that the developers lie when they claim the ME doesn't treat a CPU player and a real player any differently?

[Mitja]

Wait, are you guys all seriously trying to say chances where your relatively wide (so not a perfect angle), with a top keeper in front of you, should tend to result in a goal? o.O

at least '14:29' looked like one, wasn't it?

[boywonder9]

So you are saying that the developers lie when they claim the ME doesn't treat a CPU player and a real player any differently?

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying they treat a heavily favored team and underdog team differently. I can get crazy high conversion rates of CCCs during FA Cup Runs against Premier League teams despite getting absolutely dominated. They level all results, human and AIs. I happen to be playing a save game where my team was much better than the rest of the league (again, thank you my Austrian sugar daddy), so I constantly saw this for a whole season. If I became a mid-table team I'd probably notice it far less often. If I was a relegation struggler I'd probably get the high conversion rates of CCCs that I get to see the AI have against me, while AI would struggle to convert.

So it affects everyone in my mind, with the teams seeing the most negative effect being the more talented, and thus the team more often favored leading into game.

[r0x0r]

at least '14:29' looked like one, wasn't it?

14:29 is a score 1 in 1.2, as others have said.

That said it WAS a top goalkeeper, and suprised the striker it made its way through to him, so while it SHOULD have been a goal, it's not impossible to imagine it being missed.

Even as it was, with the players they were, 2 in 3 times it would have been a goal.

[r0x0r]

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying they treat a heavily favored team and underdog team differently. I can get crazy high conversion rates of CCCs during FA Cup Runs against Premier League teams despite getting absolutely dominated. They level all results, human and AIs. I happen to be playing a save game where my team was much better than the rest of the league (again, thank you my Austrian sugar daddy), so I constantly saw this for a whole season. If I became a mid-table team I'd probably notice it far less often. If I was a relegation struggler I'd probably get the high conversion rates of CCCs that I get to see the AI have against me, while AI would struggle to convert.

So it affects everyone in my mind, with the teams seeing the most negative effect being the more talented, and thus the team more often favored leading into game.

If you do so much better in cup runs, perhaps your problem is that your tactics can't create the truely clear cut chances against defensive formations, while against an attacking one you can do well?

[Ched]

ignore me

10101010

[Ched]

* ignore my post - just realised i was on page one

*hides blushing* i shouldn't have got out of bed - appologies

[Loversleaper]

Clearly there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. The settings Hammer1000 use doesn't look anything like any of the AI tactics and the general way they are set-up, they all have certain directions they implement slider settings. It is not an exact science but there are some small 'rules', the reason I pressume there are 'valuables' in the ME that create quality chances. It is a combination of sliders that create these effects (also in the defensive aspect of the game). That is why the AI is more accurate then Hammer's set-up (no offense).

The arguments that it is not tactical would suggest that we are up against the Computer from I, Robot. There is a motivation factor that causes players to miss chances, but if this is not the case then it will be tactical. If it were programmed the way some have suggested then it would mean teams be in the same league position year after year. Like the scenarion explained when Hammmer met Sunderland in the league and then in the Cup is simply a case of the AI maybe attacking and defending in the other, people have to be able to see these signs in the ME. If you can't you will have difficulties understanding why and what is going on in the game.

I don't know about how to interpret the thread as a whole, 90% matches are like the screen shots presented yet he overachieves (demolishing the preset ideology). Sorry to say this but it looks as if some are actively seeking confrontations with other Community memembers which is sad in itself. If SI did create a computer-program that all of a sudden decides that you should loose would change the whole world as we know it today as we soon will be up against 'Mother'...

[boywonder9]

If you do so much better in cup runs, perhaps your problem is that your tactics can't create the truely clear cut chances against defensive formations, while against an attacking one you can do well?

Ummmm...no. That is back to the totally subjective area of deciding what are and aren't "true" CCCs, which is a totally pointless excercise in my opinion. Their is no such things as true CCCs - there are only CCCs. If there was a distinction to be made between types of CCCs, I'm guessing SI would have built that into the game.

Yours is the tactical answer that can explain all of our issues away, but it doesn't hold any water IMO.

[Hammer1000]

Clearly there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. The settings Hammer1000 use doesn't look anything like any of the AI tactics and the general way they are set-up, they all have certain directions they implement slider settings. It is not an exact science but there are some small 'rules', the reason I pressume there are 'valuables' in the ME that create quality chances. It is a combination of sliders that create these effects (also in the defensive aspect of the game). That is why the AI is more accurate then Hammer's set-up (no offense).

The arguments that it is not tactical would suggest that we are up against the Computer from I, Robot. There is a motivation factor that causes players to miss chances, but if this is not the case then it will be tactical. If it were programmed the way some have suggested then it would mean teams be in the same league position year after year. Like the scenarion explained when Hammmer met Sunderland in the league and then in the Cup is simply a case of the AI maybe attacking and defending in the other, people have to be able to see these signs in the ME. If you can't you will have difficulties understanding why and what is going on in the game.

I don't know about how to interpret the thread as a whole, 90% matches are like the screen shots presented yet he overachieves (demolishing the preset ideology). Sorry to say this but it looks as if some are actively seeking confrontations with other Community memembers which is sad in itself. If SI did create a computer-program that all of a sudden decides that you should loose would change the whole world as we know it today as we soon will be up against 'Mother'...

I've said all along that i think the problem is with the way the game calculates results and stats, somewhere along the line it is going askew and creating to many of these ridiculous games.

Is it so hard to believe, given the amount of other issues we are all(including SI) aware of?

As for it being tactical, they lad i got the tactic from said that he won the EPL first season with West Ham, i managed 6th, but there are others claiming it is not working for them at all with West Ham, which i think suggests it could be something other than tactical, is it so difficult to believe?

[Loversleaper]

I've said all along that i think the problem is with the way the game calculates results and stats, somewhere along the line it is going askew and creating to many of these ridiculous games.

Is it so hard to believe, given the amount of other issues we are all(including SI) aware of?

As for it being tactical, they lad i got the tactic from said that he won the EPL first season with West Ham, i managed 6th, but there are others claiming it is not working for them at all with West Ham, which i think suggests it could be something other than tactical, is it so difficult to believe?

Is it so difficult to understand that people have different ways of playing the game even though the original set-up would be the same. They may like different players, they may tweak a little during matches, teams talks and press/squad handling...

Some people are better than others, like any game in the whole world, maybe some just have to get over it? I cannot expect that evey game in the world has the same effect/outcome even though Gamers have the same tools to begin with. I'm sorry Hammer1000 but the level of argument presented is not how the world works...

[Gilles Domoraud]

*Butts in*

From CM01/02 the concensus is- play attacking have many shots of poor quality, play defensive have few shots of good quality.

Is that is all that happening here? With tempo and composure thrown in?

Hammer1000 could you tell me more about Olic/screenshot his profile? Have you just bought him? Is he having trouble blending in? Bad strength? Bad technique? Or is he Brian Deane in disguise?

What are the settings to get your player arriving in the box before the opposition? I think there are none, only player attributes determining this (off the ball, anticipation, flair, acc & pac, decisions? vs positioning, anticipation, marking, acc & pac, decisions?)

What determines this? Struggle to hold ground (strength?)and technique(technique, agility, balance? vs what defensive attributes?) to shoot? (finishing, composure, left footedness? vs what?)

Brian Deane eat your heart out(look where the ball ended up). Almost corner flag attempt.

I really don't believe the fact of him not knowing English/blending in problems should result in the miss of the CCC mentioned earlier(Is Cech 20 reflexes & agility? because if it is a glitch in the graphics then Cech must have shifted like mad to get to that ball) or him putting this shot THAT wide (unless of course he IS Brian Deane in disguise).

It seems Olic was having a terrible game. I don't know quite know what to put it down to (I only got to the 20th minute before screenshotting this so I don't know how the rest of the Chelsea game went).

[jase19]

Sunday the 25th:

Liverpool 1-1 Everton

Shots 12-1

Fouls 5-15

Corners 7-2

Offside 0-1

Posession 56%-44%

Saves 0-8

so yeah.

i should have stated that this was a game that happened in real life, not very long ago.

[r0x0r]

Ummmm...no. That is back to the totally subjective area of deciding what are and aren't "true" CCCs, which is a totally pointless excercise in my opinion. Their is no such things as true CCCs - there are only CCCs. If there was a distinction to be made between types of CCCs, I'm guessing SI would have built that into the game.

Yours is the tactical answer that can explain all of our issues away, but it doesn't hold any water IMO.

There are clear cut chances then there are clear cut chances. Not all chances are equally easy to score. What the game calls clear cut, I may not, or vice versa... Either me or the game may have a laxer definition than the other?

[Ched]

There are clear cut chances then there are clear cut chances. Not all chances are equally easy to score. What the game calls clear cut, I may not, or vice versa... Either me or the game may have a laxer definition than the other?

interestingly i replied to another thread moments ago that commented on the accuracy of CCCs - the game does not consider ability or footedness - hence if the player has a chance with his head, but has no heading ability the game still classes this as a CCC, ditto on his weaker foot.

Hence there is merit in distinguishing CCCs as in what the game calls them and true CCCs as in chances that fall within the players ability.

IMO a fault within the game that will hoepfully be rectified.

[boywonder9]

There are clear cut chances then there are clear cut chances. Not all chances are equally easy to score. What the game calls clear cut, I may not, or vice versa... Either me or the game may have a laxer definition than the other?

OK. If you take two CCCs side by side, you could say this empty net tap in is easier than this one one one against a good goalie. That is fine. But when you look over CCCs over a full season those things will all even out, and everyone will likely get CCCs that are roughly of similar quality on average. I don't buy that one tactic consistently creates higher quality CCCs when compared to another, at least not to the level that produces such a wide gap in conversion rates. Plus, I can speak about the type of CCCs the AI gets, and they look remarkably similar to all of my CCCs, yet they convert much more often.

If there are people here who feel that their tactics do create CCCs that are of significantly higher quality than mine, fair enough. There is no way for me to argue against it, or you to prove it, so I'll leave that alone. I just don't buy that an AI tactic, with players less talented then mine, and stats that have possession in the 30-40% range, a handful of shots, 1 or 2 CCCs a game is creating top quality CCCs relative to mine.

[Ched]

I could the same exact tactics I use now, pick an awful team, and produce much higher conversion rates because I would be the underdog most games. My stats will be awful, the CCCs (if less frequent) will look the same, the talent level will be awful, yet I'll convert CCCs at a higher rate than I do with my absurdly talented team (by League 1 standards).

I'll not comment on the first para as i have done so previously and would add nothing - suffice to say i disagree

Your seccond para makes a point i can comment on directly:

As chelsea i lost several games to "one-shot-one-goal syndrome" ("osog" now on for brevity ) - i felt this was suspect and looked into it. As Coventry i won many games due to osog - the reasons for this are generally simple with regards to basic psychology and tactics.

- when the opp played against my cov team they were often complacent as i wasn't doing too well, for this reason they wasted more chances and were less potent.

- my team, when they weren't depressed, were rarely close to complacent as they knew they had a struggle.

- there are also differences in the tactics that the AI plays against a poor team and a strong team. e.g. i altered chelseas rep to 5000 in one game and 9999 in a second - i used the same tactic and the same personnel - the avg goals per game was 2.4 higher with the lower rated team - the reason is simple the AI attacked more - hence the one chance that a poor team may get will oft be decent as the opps players are pushing on and will oft be against a complacent GK leading to generally higher potency.

There are tactical and team talk related ways of dealing with these phenomena all of which are explained in wolfsongs psychology thread and wwfans tt&f thread.

[Hammer1000]

Gilles - This is Olic mate.

Not the greatest finishing and composure stats, but no worse than others in the top scorers list like Martins, Agbonlahor and that dude from Hull etc.

As you can see, he has been scoring goals, in fact he's by far my best striker despite having the worst finishing stats out of all my 5 strikers.

His only bad run was in those games i uploaded where i dont think he scored with something like 17 shots 14 on target, or something like that?

[Ched]

His only bad run was in those games i uploaded where i dont think he scored with something like 17 shots 14 on target, or something like that?

Out of curiosity how long had he been at the club, where had you signed him from, when was the run of games and what was the weather like during that time?

One of my first posts on these forums was accusing the game of cheating as i always lost a run of games in feb/march. It took another forum member to point out that i had south americans playing in their first english winter, hence they may not be used to the cold etc, and that my tactic, perfect for warm weather, was unsuited to deteriorating pitches in the winter - i had very similar numbers to those you are showing here and after developing a "poor weather" tactic i promptly got rid of this regular blip.

I felt that the game was balancing out my run of wins but it turned out to be nothing of the sort, i fully sypathise with your plight, however it is almost entirely due to tactical set up.

NB: there's little point in analysing individual pkms or even worse individual shots as there are too many factors to consider - instead ask yourself how often is this happening? If every season then when? and try and find patterns. I know it isn't fun, but it's the direction the game's heading.

Hope this helps.

[boywonder9]

I'll not comment on the first para as i have done so previously and would add nothing - suffice to say i disagree

Your seccond para makes a point i can comment on directly:

As chelsea i lost several games to "one-shot-one-goal syndrome" ("osog" now on for brevity ) - i felt this was suspect and looked into it. As Coventry i won many games due to osog - the reasons for this are generally simple with regards to basic psychology and tactics.

- when the opp played against my cov team they were often complacent as i wasn't doing too well, for this reason they wasted more chances and were less potent.

- my team, when they weren't depressed, were rarely close to complacent as they knew they had a struggle.

- there are also differences in the tactics that the AI plays against a poor team and a strong team. e.g. i altered chelseas rep to 5000 in one game and 9999 in a second - i used the same tactic and the same personnel - the avg goals per game was 2.4 higher with the lower rated team - the reason is simple the AI attacked more - hence the one chance that a poor team may get will oft be decent as the opps players are pushing on and will oft be against a complacent GK leading to generally higher potency.

There are tactical and team talk related ways of dealing with these phenomena all of which are explained in wolfsongs psychology thread and wwfans tt&f thread.

I'll just say your on the right track by messing with the teams reputation to see how it affects conversion rates. Teams with bigger reputations, or very talented, and thus heavily favored, are too often given poor conversion rates. I don't want to have to figure out how to get the motivational speeches spot on every single time using whatever ambigous matrix SI developed to implement them. If the "levelling" is built into the pre-game morale of teams I'm still not OK with it.

You assume your scoring numbers changed because the AI tactics changed in your example of changing reps. I assume that their is some system to "normalize" scoring levels when heavily favored teams run up against big underdogs. The reality is that neither of us know what is going on. We could both be right, both be wrong, one right, one wrong. Who knows? I'm starting to confuse myself at this point, so I think its time I bow out of this thread.

[Hammer1000]

Out of curiosity how long had he been at the club, where had you signed him from, when was the run of games and what was the weather like during that time?

One of my first posts on these forums was accusing the game of cheating as i always lost a run of games in feb/march. It took another forum member to point out that i had south americans playing in their first english winter, hence they may not be used to the cold etc, and that my tactic, perfect for warm weather, was unsuited to deteriorating pitches in the winter - i had very similar numbers to those you are showing here and after developing a "poor weather" tactic i promptly got rid of this regular blip.

I felt that the game was balancing out my run of wins but it turned out to be nothing of the sort, i fully sypathise with your plight, however it is almost entirely due to tactical set up.

NB: there's little point in analysing individual pkms or even worse individual shots as there are too many factors to consider - instead ask yourself how often is this happening? If every season then when? and try and find patterns. I know it isn't fun, but it's the direction the game's heading.

Hope this helps.

He's a Croatian, who i picked up on a free from HSV in Germany and used to play in Russia.

I'm hoping on that basis that he's used to the cold weather(lol)

Appreciate your post mate, thanks!

Boywonder - Stay with us mate

[Ched]

You assume your scoring numbers changed because the AI tactics changed in your example of changing reps. I assume that their is some system to "normalize" scoring levels when heavily favored teams run up against big underdogs. The reality is that neither of us know what is going on. We could both be right, both be wrong, one right, one wrong. Who knows? I'm starting to confuse myself at this point, so I think its time I bow out of this thread.

I try not to assume much, and base most of my criticisms on stats that i've researched (a change i made after my first post here ) trust me when i say that i and several others have studied this in depth and can guarantee that the game doesn't tweek numbers just for normalities sake.

Trust me, some of the numbers thrown up by the early betas were simply woeful and porve that the game wouldn't tweak them in this direction

I appreciate that what i've said is not backed up by anything, and hence i accept that you could treat this with a fair degree of skepticism, i strongly advise you to chat to wwfan if you doubt the validity of my statements as he is one of the most experienced people on these forums with regard to tactical subtleties and would no doubt beable to provide you with the evidence to back up my statements.

As to "I don't want to have to figure out how to get the motivational speeches spot on every single time using whatever ambigous matrix SI developed to implement them" - unfortunately in order to avoid these results caused by complacency you have to take time with team talks. If you read wolfsongs guide then you can get a general idea of what to do and it needn't be too complex.

[Ched]

He's a Croatian, who i picked up on a free from HSV in Germany and used to play in Russia.

I'm hoping on that basis that he's used to the cold weather(lol)

Appreciate your post mate, thanks!

Boywonder - Stay with us mate

Was just checking it wasn't 2011 and you hadnit signed him after a spell in spain or something

Probably a tactical issue then - i think the thread about weather is linked in the tt&f thread - it's a large piece of text but one i highly recommend for anyone who questions the ME and isn't sure why things are happening.

[we6boss]

LMAO! WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR SOME TO ADMIT THE ME IS BROKEN?!?!?!?!?!

It is so funny, I mean, there are people that will defend the ME if the ME said 2+2=7!!!!!! And not only will they defend it, they will type PARAGRAPHS about, stubbornly and pedantically reprimand anyone who says the ME is messed up, AND then have to nerve to feel a fallacious sense of pride knowing that they are on "SI's side."

Come on people, ... the game is broken.

[Ched]

LMAO! WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR SOME TO ADMIT THE ME IS BROKEN?!?!?!?!?!

It is so funny, I mean, there are people that will defend the ME if the ME said 2+2=7!!!!!! And not only will they defend it, they will type PARAGRAPHS about, stubbornly and pedantically reprimand anyone who says the ME is messed up, AND then have to nerve to feel a fallacious sense of pride knowing that they are on "SI's side."

Come on people, ... the game is broken.

There's no need to resort to trolling.

[we6boss]

My intention was not trolling. Don't misuse the word, because it will lose its value. Kinda' like "boy who cried wolf."

I know what you are trying to say(even though you are wrong) but you could not type out your thoughts clearly enough so you just resorted to fallaciously summarize all your thoughts and use the word "trolling."

[Ched]

My intention was not trolling. Don't misuse the word, because it will lose its value. Kinda' like "boy who cried wolf."

I know what you are trying to say(even though you are wrong) but you could not type out your thoughts clearly enough so you just resorted to fallaciously summarize all your thoughts and use the word "trolling."

Possibly the single funniest thing i've read today. Thank god half term ends soon.

[Mitja]

Clearly there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. The settings Hammer1000 use doesn't look anything like any of the AI tactics and the general way they are set-up, they all have certain directions they implement slider settings. It is not an exact science but there are some small 'rules', the reason I pressume there are 'valuables' in the ME that create quality chances. It is a combination of sliders that create these effects (also in the defensive aspect of the game). That is why the AI is more accurate then Hammer's set-up (no offense).

would you be so kind to share with us those settings he uses? i'm most interested.

[Loversleaper]

LMAO! WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR SOME TO ADMIT THE ME IS BROKEN?!?!?!?!?!

It is so funny, I mean, there are people that will defend the ME if the ME said 2+2=7!!!!!! And not only will they defend it, they will type PARAGRAPHS about, stubbornly and pedantically reprimand anyone who says the ME is messed up, AND then have to nerve to feel a fallacious sense of pride knowing that they are on "SI's side."

Come on people, ... the game is broken.

How embarressing. Just when this post was becoming (more or less) constructive, this happens. Clearly you haven't been following the post at all, and on top of that you decide to come into Hammers thread and attack the first person you possible can and lash out at the whole community calling everyone a liar. Well, what response was it that you actually wanted to recieve back... or you just out for the sake of confrontations?

Looking at every poll suggests that under 20% hate this game (but play it anyway) and that is a lot better stats then some of the other games on the market. Is the whole community just supposed to take your word for it that everything is broken? And on top of that you suggest that anyone that has had any fun on this game should just shut up about it, because if they don't they are a bunch of degraded individuals...

Lot's of fun you are...

[we6boss]

I said more than enough. Those previous succinct posts of mine contain more than enough information to answer any previous posts and future responses. If you are not adept enough to decipher it, well, that is not my issue.

[Mitja]

would you be so kind to share with us those settings he uses? i'm most interested.

do TT&F use those kind of settings too?

[Loversleaper]

I said more than enough. Those previous succinct posts of mine contain more than enough information to answer any previous posts and future responses. If you are not adept enough to decipher it, well, that is not my issue.

Before you posted it was a alternative insight on what could be going on. Everyone is looking for answers, and there has been a tendancy lately that people from the different camps are trying to understand easchother for (maybe) the first time. But you know what, we'll just take your word for it instead. Thanks for clearing that up for us....

[Loversleaper]

Mitja: you are out to get me, aren't you my friend? Let's look at some things that has been concerning you regarding the ME. You suggest that it is pre-set, now if Hammer is correct when he says that someone won with West Ham and others end up 6th or much lower then this in it self contradicts this theory. Then teams would have to also loose intentionally to even things out, so if you were underperforming against a team that was overperforming you would automatically win. So I cannot see how they could program this into the game when there are no indications that teams are intentionally throwing games. What they could do is program it so that teams that are underperforming plays more aggresively so they avoid being lower than expectations, but this can be dealt with tactically...

[Mitja]

well i'm not suggesting anything i believe. just asking questions :green:

i won matches i should lost, i lost matches i should win, that's all part of football of course. what bothers me is that you guys are suggesting things which Hammer (or any of us) don't have control and accusing him of exploiting ME with tools he's given. we're all exploting ME, some more some less. we would need to follow AI tactical setup strictly to not exploit it. i know you have a thread about it...

as i said the only 'tactical' thing that makes a little more sense to me is that his players get frustrated after missing too many shots. but why do they miss those in the first place. like boywonder and Rupal i don't buy 'he's creating bad types of CCCs story'. man managment, some poor tactical decisions, not watching matches...that's possible. there are just too many parameters, we'll never know.

[Mitja]

all i'm hoping for is more belivable ME - 930? and re-written tactical interface - FM10?

[wwfan]

I always thought that a CCC would be a chance where I would score more often than not. thats 1 in 2 or higher. but 1 in 4? I dont think that qualifies in my book.

There are very few chances in football that fall below the 1 in 2 range. We're talking open goals from within six yards to get to this kind of figure. If that were the limiter, then we'd hardly ever see a CCC created.

with the players they were, 2 in 3 times it would have been a goal

Even a world class FC with a one on one chance will only score 1 in 3 times. The odds always favour the keeper in these situations.

As I said before, these numbers I'm presenting are not personal opinions on how likely a player should score from certain positions, but cold, hard statistical facts taken from reams of research data on the subject.

Even in very general terms, every shot only has a 40% chance of being on target. The keeper should save 75% of on target shots. Thus, a team will score at a ratio of roughly 1 in 10 shots on goal. The CCC cut off has to be around the 1 in 4 mark, just in terms of real world data. If a player has a better than 25% chance of scoring, it is a better than ususal chance. Anything above 50% is exceedingly rare. CCCs will generally have somewhere between a 25% and 50% chance of being scored.

The issue of determining just how 'good' each of these CCCs are is down to the user. You need to at least try and qualify them. Personally, I can't perceive how any of you can look through the screenshots I linked to earlier and fail to see the difference between the chances Hammer is describing as easy and the ones I am. However, it seems that this is a brick wall through which we can never pass. It seems that the quantifiable mindset is unwilling to approach the qualifiable. What I don't understand is how real world statistical analysis is then ignored in preference to one's subjective opinion about what a CCC should be. Stats are either useful or not. You can't choose to decide that FM stats are important whereas the real world data they are supposed to simulate isn't.

If we cannot 'see' that Hammer's CCCs are borderline CCCs (just 1 in 4) then we can't get to a point in which we can help him, or he can help himself. I've told him for years that his over-reliance on stats is a major cause of his frustrations. It seems it is a common thread for those who are extremely frustrated by the game. The argument they make is that it is impossible to qualify chances because of the poor graphical representation of the ME. I counter that by providing examples of qualifiably better chances than those being described as good chances to illustrate the difference. This gets ignored for being subjective in the preference for 'blanket' readings of CCCs. That is just not a helpful stance to take.

Hammer experiences the type of result he does becasue his tactical set up is unable to create good enough chances on a regular basis to beat certain types of opponent. THis has always been the case from FM06 through to FM09. In order to fix this we have to move to an analytical stance beyond the statistical, so we can see whay and how that is happening. If we are not willing to do so, then the debate is, once more, dead in the water.

@ Mitja: TT&F probably does gain a small advantage over the AI because of its mentality settings. I think they are generally better than the ones the AI uses. However, it is not deliberately exploiting ME holes, such as the farrowed AMC of FM08, or using known exploits such as the corner cheat. However, I don't think it is relevant to the debate, which is why Hammer struggles in certain matches.

[Loversleaper]

Mitja: just remember that you don't have to use exactly the same settings as the AI to win, because there are actually many AI tactical settings that work. But they do have 'patterns' when implmenting sliders and settings, the combination of sliders create the different things you want to get out of the match (trust me it is not an exact science). The problem with this is that contadictory settings create a form of tactical melt-down which can be misleading. This has been the case for the last versions and I don't know if they have figured the way around it.

You can look at the ME kind of the same way you look at a chess board. Player attributes and tactical settings create 'valuables' which is translated onto the ME and you can move certain aspects around on this chess board. If you get some the settings right the ME still registers this and shows the effects on the match stats, but due to some heavy contradictory setting somewhere the result misfires. How are they going to get around this without causing other problems? Because fixing this could result in teams not getting any shots on goal then at all for example, which will cause the greatest "unrealistic" cry in the forum's history.

I think if we went back to the old days, and as much as people want them back, I still believe it will be too retro for the modern gamer...

[r0x0r]

Even a world class FC with a one on one chance will only score 1 in 3 times. The odds always favour the keeper in these situations.

While I agree most of his chances aren't what I'd call clear cut and easily fall into the 1 in 4, if not 1 in 10 range, the specific one was more a 2 in 3. after all the player was 2-3 yards out, the ball had already passed the defence and the goalkeeper, and he had a third of the goal to aim at which was totally open. It's about as clear cut as it gets. Yes he could mess up, and he did... by playing it somewhere where Cech managed to grab it.

Other than that one though, yeah. All of his chances were way more likely to not end in a goal, and his playstyle itself didn't seem like it was likely to lend itself to creating near unmissable opportunities.

[boywonder9]

I try not to assume much, and base most of my criticisms on stats that i've researched (a change i made after my first post here ) trust me when i say that i and several others have studied this in depth and can guarantee that the game doesn't tweek numbers just for normalities sake.

Trust me, some of the numbers thrown up by the early betas were simply woeful and porve that the game wouldn't tweak them in this direction

I appreciate that what i've said is not backed up by anything, and hence i accept that you could treat this with a fair degree of skepticism, i strongly advise you to chat to wwfan if you doubt the validity of my statements as he is one of the most experienced people on these forums with regard to tactical subtleties and would no doubt beable to provide you with the evidence to back up my statements.

As to "I don't want to have to figure out how to get the motivational speeches spot on every single time using whatever ambigous matrix SI developed to implement them" - unfortunately in order to avoid these results caused by complacency you have to take time with team talks. If you read wolfsongs guide then you can get a general idea of what to do and it needn't be too complex.

Fair enough. I use Wolfsongs, and it helps, most of the time (I still get them wrong occasionally with shocking consequences). I also use WWFans guide, and it has helped me quite a bit.

Now I'm in Championship and my team is underdog occasionally. The reason I say my argument is valid is because I can see the the same thing adversely affecting AI now. I just beat Hull 1-0. They had 6 CCCs to my 1, and I didn't score on my CCC. Now if the AI knows how to adjust their tactics to get results in bunker mentality, I'm guessing they know how to plays as favorites as well, right? Yet, in my experience they suffer from the same reduced rates of conversions when they play as favorites. This doesn't necessarily mean there is levelling, it could simply be that the ME gives too much credit to teams that take bunker mentalities, or the complacency issues you suggested. Then again, I never go into bunker mode, so that can't be the AI's problem. Who knows?

Watching my games I can tell you that the quality of CCCs is not the issue. My CCCs fall the right people in the right situation. The CCCs for the AI are no better, and more likely of worse quality than mine. I don't think that is the root of my problem.

I think my main issue are all the gray areas and lack of clear answers about issues people face, and the multitude of factors that go into every result. Sure, it could be my tactics, or the team talks, fitness, morale, my training, the weather, the pitch, the cute girl in the stands, a butterfly distracting my CB, a bad ref, a simple case of bad luck - who knows? People like you who try to help get a ton of credit for your efforts, but in the end it all still feels like best guesses to me, with none of us really knowing who is in the right.

[r0x0r]

I think if we went back to the old days, and as much as people want them back, I still believe it will be too retro for the modern gamer...

Perhaps the solution is to make two tactic options, simple and advanced.

Advanced would be what we have now, while simple would look like an older CM's tactical pane (with a little more perhaps), but would actually do the job of setting the advanced tactics for you.

For instance, set mentality to normal (out of 5 options), counter attacking on, click "try to play down the wings", choose deep defending (again out of 5 options), fast tempo (of five options) and short passing (of five options). This will in turn balance the actual "advanced" sliders behind the scenes for you into a tactic that's likely to work... Contradictory commands could actually result in the underlying "advanced" tactics going for a compromise where, say, passing is set closer to medium than short thanks to the fast tempo...

Then us power users could click "advanced" and have the pane we currently have. We'd have the advantage of being able to squeeeze that extra 20% out of our tactics with finer tuning to all commands, but with the disadvantage of not having anything doing the work for us, leaving us open to messing up horribly.

That way people who think it's too complicated could set up a vague "here's how i want to play" plan on their simple tactics screen, rather than complain how hard it now is. Meanwhile I could set it up that way, then go into advanced and tweak it to fit my exact demands, or indeed just make one from scratch in advanced.

Could even call it a tactics wizard I guess?

Note: This wouldn;t affect the match engine or create a "two different tactics module" problem. All the wizard or simple mode would do is take your preferences and translate them down into the advanced tab, trying to keep things balanced and stop you from messing up too much.

[Rupal]

wwfan your last post was basically a repeat of what you have said before. You just don't seem to be capable of appreciating that you can't always tell how marginal or otherwise a CCC is simply by looking at the match, although I gave you the clearest possible examples of why this is the case.

Whether a chance is 1 in 2, 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 will depend on a number of factors which will vary in any given situation as I pointed out to you before.

Let's take a glaringly obvious example. A header in front of an empty net may be a CCC for Peter Crouch because he is very tall and can reach the ball. Exactly the same header may not be a CCC at all for somebody like Ryan Giggs because he is much shorter. But it will look the same in an FM representation of a game. So it's just not good enough saying that we should be able to see what the relative difficulty of the CCCs is by looking.

Now I know that this is very inconvenient for your position. But it doesn't alter the fact. You are convinced that Hammer1000's difficulties are as a result of the tactics which he uses and so you have seized on this concept of better and worse CCCs because you are intelligent enough to appreciate that, if you don't, the argument that his tactics are actually producing more CCCs than the AI and that the problem is with the conversion rate of those CCCs undermines your whole position.

I am uncertain about what evidence you have that, over a season, people like Hammer1000 or boywonder consistently produce 'lower quality' CCCs? Isn't this a case of assuming that it has to be so in order to justify your opinion that tactics are at the root of the problem?

The only way in which you could satisfactorily prove your point would be to observe every match which Hammer1000 or boywonder had for a season, analyse the overall number of CCCs (and that assumes that you could actually identify what was and was not a CCC on each occasion, which is a hell of an assumption) and attempt to classify each one according to quality taking into account all the variables of the sort which I have mentioned earlier. You would have to do the same with another human player who uses a different tactical approach (eg yourself) with the identical team and compare the results, having also eliminated other possible factors such as team talks, press conferences etc by keeping those identical to Hammer1000's or boywonder's in every particular. I don't suppose that you have done this? Thus, your opinion of the relative difficulty and number of CCCs (assuming that with the poor ME representation the idea of relative difficulty of CCCs has any validity at all, which is itself debatable) remains precisely that, an opinion only.

The only objective data which we have available to us is provided by the match statistics, ie the number of CCCs. Hammer1000 and boywonder say that they produce more of these than the AI but that the conversion rate is lower. This should be our starting point.

[geordiebaz]

This is part of the realisim how many times do teams batter their opponents and lose in real life? Thats football

[Hammer1000]

You suggest that it is pre-set, now if Hammer is correct when he says that someone won with West Ham and others end up 6th or much lower then this in it self contradicts this theory. Then teams would have to also loose intentionally to even things out, so if you were underperforming against a team that was overperforming you would automatically win. So I cannot see how they could program this into the game when there are no indications that teams are intentionally throwing games. What they could do is program it so that teams that are underperforming plays more aggresively so they avoid being lower than expectations, but this can be dealt with tactically...

So glad you brought this up Loversleaper, thanks.

I posted this particular piece hoping for just such a response. Now, if we are to believe that this guy is actually on the level(he's a fellow Hammer, so i cannot be neutral) then this not only negates MY theory, but also that of yourself, wwfan and everyone else who has decided this was a tactical issue.

If it is in fact true? i must digress to my original post and ask again, what could i be doing wrong?

Richie mate - I love it how you keep "changing the goalposts" to suit your own theories mate. You tell me that the introduction of CCC's will prove that the chances i was making were not clear cut, then change it to "not as clear cut" when that theory crashes and burns.

You also told me that these types of games would practically dissapear in 09 and that the cause was the crazy farrows in Human tactics, this has also not been the case, but you now pin the cause solely on the way i play the game.

What next mate? will you tell me my striker keeps missing open goals because his finishing stat is to low, or maybe he's over confident? or maybe his wife ran off with the milkman that morning?(lol)

Rupal - Yet another solid post, great stuff!

[wwfan]

You tell me that the introduction of CCC's will prove that the chances i was making were not clear cut, then change it to "not as clear cut" when that theory crashes and burns.

I believe that was Millie. I always had the misapprehension that they would become further arrows for your bow if, as seems to be the case, you aren't scoring as many as you believe you should be.

Rupal's arguments would be fine if you had not forwarded me a plethora of pkms over the years in which I consistently argued that the chances you were creating were not as clear cut as you imagined. I've hardly changed my position on this, have I? I've even tried to prove it you you via forwarding you pkms of my own and uploading screenshots of the type of chance I'm creating.

Given the evidence of the last 4 years plus the reoccuring nature of your tactical problems in this edition, the only possible conclusion is that the chances you are creating are not as good as you claim/believe them to be. They never have been, so there is no reason for them to be so now. The reason for this is you do not spread play enough and overload the flanks when taking on massed defences. It's that simple. All this 'it is impossible to qualify any CCC chance beyond the simplicity of the match statistics' only confuses the matter and takes you further from your goal of enjoying the game. It is not just perfectly possible to qualify certain CCCs as being better than others, its pretty easy to do once you start creating multi-dimensional chances. If you are only creating one dimensional chances, generally via central TBs in your case, then it is justifiably difficult to judge the differences as you aren't creating any of the better ones to measure against.

However, if you wish to keep on listening to people who just agree with you and argue against what I know the solution to be, which stands somewhat against your plea for help, then go ahead.