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

[JimbobWWFC]

Ok Mitja, now you have confused me. I feel that tactics have a direct impact on the quality of the chances. For example, I am inclined to agree with what was quoted by r0x0r here, about wwfan's explanation:

when wwfan talks about tactics creating artificial chances, he simply means that some tactics encourage lots of shots of a low quality, while others create fewer shots of a better quality. Some tactics encourage shooting, where others will spread the ball, keep playing it and try to walk it into the net almost, only shooting once a goal is guaranteed.

[phnompenhandy]

what is a chance of scoring 1on1 down in conference football then? -33%?

You're missing his point. Providing the tactics are set up as wwfan suggests and he's not just running straight at the keeper, the odds would be reasonable. Lower due to less composure and finishing attributes, but still reasonable.

[JimbobWWFC]

Providing the tactics are set up as wwfan suggests and he's not just running straight at the keeper, the odds would be reasonable. Lower due to less composure and finishing attributes, but still reasonable.

In relation to the GK's abilities? Just because a striker has poor finishing or heading stats at that level of football, doesn't mean it is unlikely he will score in that league, becuase the opposition players also have lower stats

[Mitja]

Ok Mitja, now you have confused me. I feel that tactics have a direct impact on the quality of the chances. For example, I am inclined to agree with what was quoted by r0x0r here, about wwfan's explanation:

i might agree with him there but what i wanted to say is that some people suggest that high tempo and creative freedom encouarge rushed chances and that slower build up leads to less but better quality shots.

[Hammer1000]

• My width against massed defences: 20
  
• FBs and wingers all set to FWRS Often, RWB Often, Cross Ball Often, Cross from Byline, thus guaranteeing a plethora of crosses
  

It's only a certain type of match we are analysing, Garry. You don't, and never have, spread the ball wide enough against the massed defence, nor pushed your FBs forward enough. A width of 15 would be OK against most forms of AI tactic, especially if you kept players back to cover for the break, as is your wont. It would be wide enough to create chances, but solid enough to mop up pressure at the back. However, it will not unlock the massed defence. It is neither wide enough, nor, based on what I've seen, able to get enough players forward to overpower the defence.

Funnily enough mate and not just to prove you wrong again, but most of the chances i miss are on the break, i'm not having much of an issue against teams parking the bus, maybe because i'm still not seen as that much of a threat?

I dont allow my fullbacks forward runs often for the simple reason that they fail to defend properly on mixed forward runs, i've even tried to make them man mark opposing wingers, but they still stand off them 5 yards or so the wrong side when the opposition are in possession and my FB's should be getting back in a position to defend?

Cannot blame me for this one mate, its not my fault theres a massive defensive issue in the game(or is it?)

[Mitja]

You're missing his point. Providing the tactics are set up as wwfan suggests and he's not just running straight at the keeper, the odds would be reasonable. Lower due to less composure and finishing attributes, but still reasonable.

i don't think i'm missing anything. if there's a difference of 10-15% to score those chances between very good PL striker (Olić, Saviola) and world class striker (Rooney), it's not hard to figure out what's the difference between Rooney and conference league striker.

[JimbobWWFC]

i might agree with him there but what i wanted to say is that some people suggest that high tempo and creative freedom encouarge rushed chances and that slower build up leads to less but better quality shots.

I thought that was fair enough. Is that not something you experience as well?

When I am creating lots of chances, but not scoring, I tone down the tempo and creative freedom, and very often leads to a goal (or goals). Even though my overall total of attempts does not increase by as much as before, it leads to goals

[JimbobWWFC]

i don't think i'm missing anything. if there's a difference of 10-15% to score those chances between very good PL striker (Olić, Saviola) and world class striker (Rooney), it's not hard to figure out what's the difference between Rooney and conference league striker.

Correct, if that conference-level striker was playing in the EPL with Olic, Saviola & Rooney. In this case, I agree with you that the conference player's chances of scoring could well be in the minus-percentages lol

[Mitja]

...............

[Mitja]

I thought that was fair enough. Is that not something you experience as well?

When I am creating lots of chances, but not scoring, I tone down the tempo and creative freedom, and very often leads to a goal (or goals). Even though my overall total of attempts does not increase by as much as before, it leads to goals

which is of course flowed compared to RL football. tempo - how fast ball moves, CF - be creative, don't be. can't see anything about shooting there, it's not mentioned in menual nor in TT&F.

[JimbobWWFC]

which is of course flowed compared to RL football. tempo - how fast ball moves, CF - be creative, don't be. can't see anything about shooting there, it's not mentioned in menual nor in TT&F.

Yes I know what you mean. But I believe that a more patient build-up leads to better chances, even if shooting is not directly linked to tempo in TT&F

[chopper99]

I'm going to have to give up on this thread. Both sides have their view and neither will conceed that the other side may have a point in any way, so we're just going round in circles.

And as for this comment by Hammer:

Rupal - Nobody will admit to your rather "obvious" and well put point of view here, as to do so would admit that they are wrong, or as suggested, merely pulling stats and other info from their butts.

Plenty of people have put across just as 'obvious' and well put arguments from the other side, and you then pull other stats out to support your own argument. Both sides are guilty of doing the exact same things to support their own beliefs, and for that reason I doubt any conclusions will be reached in this thread.

[Mitja]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

[Hammer1000]

I'm going to have to give up on this thread. Both sides have their view and neither will conceed that the other side may have a point in any way, so we're just going round in circles.

And as for this comment by Hammer:

Plenty of people have put across just as 'obvious' and well put arguments from the other side, and you then pull other stats out to support your own argument. Both sides are guilty of doing the exact same things to support their own beliefs, and for that reason I doubt any conclusions will be reached in this thread.

Actually i'm holding out hope that somebody may actually come up with a non tactical answer to my original question?

This is what the thread was all about after all.

I also think your wrong in your assesment as it goes, i've provided screenies, pkm's etc and the only thing those arguing against have provided is assumptions, oh, apart from Rich's links to FM08.

Rupal was just trying to point out that Ibrahimovic 1 on 1 with the keeper is an easier chance than Garry Neville in the same position, or words to that effect? which i happen to agree with.

[Rupal]

Let me sum up my point like this:

FC chasing ball while keeper is coming out.

1) FC with pace 18, acceleration 18, dry pitch, 5th minute, gets to the ball with plenty of time to spare. Can set himself well, measure his shot. 1 in 2 chance of scoring (say).

2) FC with pace 12, acceleration 12, dry pitch, 56th minute, has about enough time to get to the ball and can control things reasonably well. 1 in 3 chance of scoring (say).

3) FC with pace 9, acceleration 9, wet pitch, 88th minute, carrying a knock, has just barely enough time to get to the ball and has to snatch at his shot before he is properly balanced. 1 in 4 chance of scoring (say).

They'll all look the same.

Simples!

[ham_aka_stam]

Rupal,

Sorry to keep butting in on this thread, but my suggestion would be to wait until the patch,

[knap]

Very good post by Dirty Ace on TT forum on subject of CCCs.

[Rupal]

Rupal,

Sorry to keep butting in on this thread, but my suggestion would be to wait until the patch,

Yes, I really hope that the patch sorts a load of things out.

And please keep butting in!

[knap]

My first test game is with park the bus Bolton. I usually win this game even with no defence, however, when I tested with max width 20, rather than my usual width setting it ended 0-0.

[wwfan]

They don't look the same at all. All we have to do is to judge how much time the player has on the ball before he has to shoot. Time to pick his spot or forced to toe poke. Personally, I find the difference easy to spot. They are easily qualified.

NB: You are also erring on the generous side with your odds.

Garry, I am not 'pulling stats from my butt'. I accessed high quality research data from multiple top-level journals when looking into footballing stats. Why would I simply make this stuff up?

Funnily enough mate and not just to prove you wrong again, but most of the chances i miss are on the break, i'm not having much of an issue against teams parking the bus, maybe because i'm still not seen as that much of a threat?

I dont allow my fullbacks forward runs often for the simple reason that they fail to defend properly on mixed forward runs, i've even tried to make them man mark opposing wingers, but they still stand off them 5 yards or so the wrong side when the opposition are in possession and my FB's should be getting back in a position to defend?

This is hardly proving me wrong, rather supporting my assumptions. Chances on the break equate to running on to TBs. That this is your most common type of chance is easy to see in your pkms. The whole point of getting FBs forward is that it is a risky strategy and you are opening up the chance of a counter. However, if you don't, you are unlikely to break down the stubborn defence and risk conceding as your side's frustration grows given all their possession and lack of a result.

Basically, I assumed you were creating most of you chances via TBs and weren't flooding the flanks against stubborn defences, which you have just confirmed. My advice is to go wider (you can increase your width by 25%: that's a lot) and get the FBs forward when playing the 'frustation' games as doing so will minimise your problems. It's the same advice I've been giving you for 3.5 years and you are still not taking it. It there any wonder you are still seeing the same scenarios?

Rupal was just trying to point out that Ibrahimovic 1 on 1 with the keeper is an easier chance than Garry Neville in the same position, or words to that effect?

Well, duh!! Of course it is. Ibrahimovic is a world-class FC (although I tend to agree with Martin O'Neill about him) so should score roughly 1 in 3. Gary Neville, should he ever get near to a one on one, is likely to score somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5. The question is whether you can see this difference in the graphical simulation. I believe you can, by measuring the quality of Ibrahimovic's touch, running angle, shot decision etc. Hpwever, Rupal believes you can't.

To answer those who think the conference FC will score at less than 0%, there is obviously a cut off below which hardly any player will fall. Scoring odds versus shot taking position are roughly similar around the world at all levels, simply because the gap between attacking skill and defending skill is roughtly the same in every league. The only difference at the top level is the greater likelihood of a player doing the phenomenal. If you are lucky enough to have a player who converts at a greater than normal ratio for his level, it is likely that he is playing in a level below his abilties and his all round play allows him to find that tiny bit of extra space that turns a 1 in 10 chance into a 1 in 5 chance, or a 1 in 5 to a 1 in 3.

[Rupal]

My first test game is with park the bus Bolton. I usually win this game even with no defence, however, when I tested with max width 20, rather than my usual width setting it ended 0-0.

Well, someone's bound to tell you that one match doesn't prove anything. All the same....

[Rupal]

Very simply wwfan, I doubt that you would be able to identify what the odds were by just looking. I really do. The differences would be infinitesimal in a reasonably tight situation so that, unless you were actually comparing two separate players going for the ball (which is not the situation we are talking about) you wouldn't have a prayer. But let's choose another example for your consideration.

Ball comes across from the wing in the air. FC is 6ft 5 inches tall and can easily reach the ball and is comfortably balanced. The goal is 2 metres away and the keeper is out of position. Let's say that this is a 1 in 2 chance (or 1 in 3 or 1 in 55 or whatever you like).

Same situation. FC is 5 ft 10 inches tall and can reach the ball reasonably well and isn't too badly balanced. Let's call that a 1 in 3 chance (or whatever you want providing that it's a lower chance).

Same situation again. FC is 5 ft 3 inches tall and by making a really good stretch can just reach the ball but this means his balance isn't great. Let's call this a 1 in 4 (or whatever).

Are you claiming that you will be able to spot the difference in quality of CCC by just looking at the match?

Victor Meldrew had a phrase for that.

[grande92]

After playing this game and making loads of new tactics, even experimental ones, this i a problem i have never stumpled upon. I know some have this problem, and one thing i can recommend is for them to read the TTF document. Also, there could be numerous factors making this happen for some:

Strikers lack of confidence (problems with the manager?)

Confidence in the squad

Is it real big, easy chances (not just looking at the CCC statistics, but going through the match and looking at the chances. Whos missing them? How are they missing? And so on..)

[This field intentionally l]

Jeez, what an utterly depressing state of affairs. wwwfan has been working diligently with SI for 3.5 years to produce a ME which produces statistically correct results. I for one find the *manner* in which these results are generated i.e., the actual match played itself, to be utterly unsatisfying. When I win a game because the opposition GK heads the ball into his own net I don't think "Great, that goal produces the statistically justified result", I think "WTF was that?"* and I laugh. Yes, FOR ME this ME is laughable sometimes in the way it produces statistically correct results.

What we need to do is thank wwwfan for dragging the ME up-to the level where the results are statistically correct, and then convince him to help change to *manner* in which these results are generated.

*This is but a single example of laughably created goals. You can keep this one; I have a bag full.

[Hammer1000]

This is hardly proving me wrong, rather supporting my assumptions. Chances on the break equate to running on to TBs. That this is your most common type of chance is easy to see in your pkms. The whole point of getting FBs forward is that it is a risky strategy and you are opening up the chance of a counter. However, if you don't, you are unlikely to break down the stubborn defence and risk conceding as your side's frustration grows given all their possession and lack of a result.

Basically, I assumed you were creating most of you chances via TBs and weren't flooding the flanks against stubborn defences, which you have just confirmed. My advice is to go wider (you can increase your width by 25%: that's a lot) and get the FBs forward when playing the 'frustation' games as doing so will minimise your problems. It's the same advice I've been giving you for 3.5 years and you are still not taking it. It there any wonder you are still seeing the same scenarios?

Like i said mate, not having much of a problem breaking down defences, because in these situations we DO get the ball out wide, remember my winger getting player of the season?

What i'm not going to do is go to Old Trafford and have my fullbacks on forward runs often, they are a nightmare on mixed thanks to the poor defending/positioning/anticipation in the ME, so i am NOT confirming that you are right, you are confirming that i am right.

I'm amazed at your decision to "cherry pick" parts of my posts, just to link it in any bizarre way you see fit to tie it into your assumptions, when i'm actually saying something completely different?

I'd maybe lay off the tapwater for a while mate, see if that helps(lol)

[JimbobWWFC]

Ok, I am losing interest in this thread now, so this is just a message to say that the following 2 posts have certainly lightened the mood in this thread!!

When I win a game because the opposition GK heads the ball into his own net I don't think "Great, that goal produces the statistically justified result", I think "WTF was that?"* and I laugh.

*This is but a single example of laughably created goals. You can keep this one; I have a bag full.

LOLOLOL I can imagine this exact thing happening!! :D

i am NOT confirming that you are right, you are confirming that i am right.

I'd maybe lay off the tapwater for a while mate, see if that helps(lol)

Top quotes everyone! Seriously, these were such a great way to turn this into a much less serious thread

[Hammer1000]

Taken from thread concerning not scoring from CCC's

I think the amount of CCC's is flawed in how many we create. But there has to be something coded into the game to keep scores realistic on some level. However the number of CCC's does need tuning yeah slightly. Especially for top teams, at lower levels and mid table sides its not an issue as the score reflects the CCC's I have. But at top sides its a bigger issue imo.

Spot on Cleon, this is what i think is the problem.

Basically, its too easy to create good chances once you know how to play the game a little and get the best out of the sliders(or d/load a tactic from someone who does? lol)

Based on this, the game is coded to reduce the amount of goals scored when this occurs.

This actually answers both sides of the argument if you think about it?

I overachieve with weaker teams, making lots of chances and CCC's even against the bigger Clubs therefore the coding that was introduced goes to work making sure i dont score to often, this leads to all these funny looking games we keep seeing and all these missed CCC's

Those that DONT see this must be using a tactic that does'nt over create in terms of chances and CCC's, therefore the coding need never(or rarely) be introduced, ergo, they do not see any/so many of the types of games so many people are getting miffed about.

It does make a lot of sense.

In fact when you think about it, this could actually explain away the same problem i and many others have had with the last few versions? i called it cheating back then, but can now see how it can actually work both ways, for and against the Human and AI.

Cleon, i think you have just hit the flipping nail on the flipping head fella!!!

So it's looking like a massive ME issue after all?

Just think about how much sense it makes?

[Jack Rudd]

What i'm not going to do is go to Old Trafford and have my fullbacks on forward runs often, they are a nightmare on mixed thanks to the poor defending/positioning/anticipation in the ME, so i am NOT confirming that you are right, you are confirming that i am right.

This conversation isn't what you'd do when you go to Old Trafford: Manchester United are a very strong team who play an attacking formation, which is not the type of opponent against whom you're seeing these crazy results. It's about what you'd do when you go to the Stadium of Light, or the Hawthorns, or Huish Park, or wherever.

[JimbobWWFC]

Hammer, who wrote the 2nd quote in your most recent post? I actually understand THAT better than Cleon's. I think it sums the situation up very well. I can't quote it properly, becuase you already quoted it...

"I overachieve with weaker teams, making lots of chances and CCC's even against the bigger Clubs therefore the coding that was introduced goes to work making sure i dont score to often, this leads to all these funny looking games we keep seeing and all these missed CCC's

Those that DONT see this must be using a tactic that does'nt over create in terms of chances and CCC's, therefore the coding need never(or rarely) be introduced, ergo, they do not see any/so many of the types of games so many people are getting miffed about.

It does make a lot of sense.

In fact when you think about it, this could actually explain away the same problem i and many others have had with the last few versions? i called it cheating back then, but can now see how it can actually work both ways, for and against the Human and AI."

[Hammer1000]

Hammer, who wrote the 2nd quote in your most recent post? I actually understand THAT better than Cleon's. I think it sums the situation up very well. I can't quote it properly, becuase you already quoted it...

"I overachieve with weaker teams, making lots of chances and CCC's even against the bigger Clubs therefore the coding that was introduced goes to work making sure i dont score to often, this leads to all these funny looking games we keep seeing and all these missed CCC's

Those that DONT see this must be using a tactic that does'nt over create in terms of chances and CCC's, therefore the coding need never(or rarely) be introduced, ergo, they do not see any/so many of the types of games so many people are getting miffed about.

It does make a lot of sense.

In fact when you think about it, this could actually explain away the same problem i and many others have had with the last few versions? i called it cheating back then, but can now see how it can actually work both ways, for and against the Human and AI."

It was ME mate, on the CCC thread.

I'm a little high at the minute as this appears to be the answer to what i've been trying to get to the bottom of for years?

[JimbobWWFC]

Ah, good stuff. As I said, this is probably the best explanation I have seen so far.

I have explained on other threads that, although things like this do happen, and people talk bout 'levelling' mechanisms or ME cheating them, I don't mind. It happens to the AI as much as it happens to me. I am also sure that, if I reload after a defeat, win the rematch, I will play badly again in the following games, sort of like karma

[Leclercq]

Too many replies we see here are going round in circles but it's been a good read all the same.

basiclly your point is that Hammer's right about everything he's saying but he doesn't want to stop using exploits/adopt to 'normal' tactics? i think that's exactly what he wants to prove.

Oh I agree with what he's saying, I only decided to respond because he says he's not enjoying the game and that he'll stop playing it, and although I don't play it, there is no need for such action (who else will complain in such detail and not get flamed on this forum?). So, I simply suggested he try a different method and angle on tactics, although he doesn't want to budge and so we will get no where and he'll keep getting frustrated.

I'd maybe lay off the tapwater for a while mate, see if that helps(lol)

lol:D

[Hammer1000]

Ah, good stuff. As I said, this is probably the best explanation I have seen so far.

I have explained on other threads that, although things like this do happen, and people talk bout 'levelling' mechanisms or ME cheating them, I don't mind. It happens to the AI as much as it happens to me. I am also sure that, if I reload after a defeat, win the rematch, I will play badly again in the following games, sort of like karma

It all ties in perfectly, although i'm sure a few will still deny this vehemently.

I think it's the addition of CCC's that has finally brought this to light.

Well done Cleon i say!

[Loversleaper]

This debate just goes around in circles. There has been plenty of proof that the whole thing is tactical, and Hammer1000 you said yourself that I answered your question. But then the theme just goes on and you quickly forget the past.

Rupal, at the end of our small debate, just said "the horrible ME". This is an opinion, and anyone with their head on straight would agree that there is no possible way to have a contructive debate about opinions. I have the opinion that I hate Fish, horrible food, and I can't think how anyone could possible put such a fowl thing in their mouth. So I am going to have the same chance of convincing people of my opinion than you do.

The head of this thread should have been "I hate this horrible ME, who's with me?", because I can clearly see the cycle is complete but people just keep going back to square one. What some people are suggesting is simply not possible and it's as if they have forgotten what makes a computer-game...

[boywonder9]

This debate just goes around in circles. There has been plenty of proof that the whole thing is tactical, and Hammer1000 you said yourself that I answered your question. But then the theme just goes on and you quickly forget the past.

Rupal, at the end of our small debate, just said "the horrible ME". This is an opinion, and anyone with their head on straight would agree that there is no possible way to have a contructive debate about opinions. I have the opinion that I hate Fish, horrible food, and I can't think how anyone could possible put such a fowl thing in their mouth. So I am going to have the same chance of convincing people of my opinion than you do.

The head of this thread should have been "I hate this horrible ME, who's with me?", because I can clearly see the cycle is complete but people just keep going back to square one. What some people are suggesting is simply not possible and it's as if they have forgotten what makes a computer-game...

It's not possible that SI came up with a way to normalize scores, both for AI and human managers? I'm almost sure they have to in order to have a realistic game, and I'm not even arguing against it. A lot of us are simply arguing that it is poorly implemented, or carried out in the wrong way.

[Hammer1000]

This debate just goes around in circles. There has been plenty of proof that the whole thing is tactical, and Hammer1000 you said yourself that I answered your question. But then the theme just goes on and you quickly forget the past.

Rupal, at the end of our small debate, just said "the horrible ME". This is an opinion, and anyone with their head on straight would agree that there is no possible way to have a contructive debate about opinions. I have the opinion that I hate Fish, horrible food, and I can't think how anyone could possible put such a fowl thing in their mouth. So I am going to have the same chance of convincing people of my opinion than you do.

The head of this thread should have been "I hate this horrible ME, who's with me?", because I can clearly see the cycle is complete but people just keep going back to square one. What some people are suggesting is simply not possible and it's as if they have forgotten what makes a computer-game...

Can you seriously not see how much sense this makes? it completely answers every single part of every single issue that has ever been brought up about it, going back to FM06 where it all began.

I'd love to know what is "impossible" about it?

Try to list some reasons why/how this does'nt fit whats going on?

[Loversleaper]

It's not possible that SI came up with a way to normalize scores, both for AI and human managers? I'm almost sure they have to in order to have a realistic game, and I'm not even arguing against it. A lot of us are simply arguing that it is poorly implemented, or carried out in the wrong way.

This has been answered further up the thread somewhere, let me find it.

Here:

"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..."

Everything has been covered, but we keep going in cicles. If you do not undertand the above statement we can have a contructive debate about it, just promise me you think about it first...

[Rupal]

This debate just goes around in circles. There has been plenty of proof that the whole thing is tactical, and Hammer1000 you said yourself that I answered your question. But then the theme just goes on and you quickly forget the past.

There's been plenty of opinion that the whole thing is tactical, not plenty of proof.

[Loversleaper]

Can you seriously not see how much sense this makes? it completely answers every single part of every single issue that has ever been brought up about it, going back to FM06 where it all began.

I'd love to know what is "impossible" about it?

Try to list some reasons why/how this does'nt fit whats going on?

What in God's name do you mean by this? We have talked about it, you said that I was the first to actually answer your question and then you ask me to go though the whole thing again. It's all a big joke, but don't worry I finally got it...

[Loversleaper]

There's been plenty of opinion that the whole thing is tactical, not plenty of proof.

You want us to proove that the ME is not The Matrix? Again I ask you, do you seriously think the ME it is not a Calculating Machine? It should be common sense how the valuables in a Computer Game are made up. This is turning into a night-mare. Tell me why you even play the game...

[Hammer1000]

This has been answered further up the thread somewhere, let me find it.

Here:

"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..."

Everything has been covered, but we keep going in cicles. If you do not undertand the above statement we can have a contructive debate about it, just promise me you think about it first...

What i actually said was that if this was true, it would prove that it could not be a tactical issue(amongst other stuff)

All i know, is that the explanation above covers everything and it actually makes BOTH parties correct.

It is a tactical issue, in the sense that this kind of tactic will produce plenty of good chances and CCC's, therefore the need for the coding to reduce the number of goals scored, but it also shows a massive flaw within the ME, having to cover up its weaknesses with some code to keep the scores respectable at the cost of ridiculous looking games.

Like i said, give me some reasons why this could not be the case?

[Hammer1000]

What in God's name do you mean by this? We have talked about it, you said that I was the first to actually answer your question and then you ask me to go though the whole thing again. It's all a big joke, but don't worry I finally got it...

Are you having a breakdown of some kind?

[Rupal]

You want us to proove that the ME is not The Matrix? Again I ask you, do you seriously think the ME it is not a Calculating Machine? It should be common sense how the valuables in a Computer Game are made up. This is turning into a night-mare. Tell me why you even play the game...

Of course the ME is a calculating machine. Whoever said anything else?

How on earth does that prove that Hammer1000's problems are tactical?

Given the number of variables which go into the match calculations, why should you single out tactics rather than any of the others or a combination of them all for heaven's sake????

It's your opinion but that's an entirely different matter.

Try to argue logically.

[Hammer1000]

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?

Is this what you are talking about?

Like i said, if it WAS on the level?, it would negate my theory as well as the tactical one.

Not sure why you seem to be having a conniption fit(lol)

[Loversleaper]

Are you having a breakdown of some kind?

Hey look kid, what is your trip? Are you serious? It's a shame that you can't come up with anything else, expecially after what you wrote in the post above that statement. It is borderlining delusion...

[Hammer1000]

Hey look kid, what is your trip? Are you serious? It's a shame that you can't come up with anything else, expecially after what you wrote in the post above that statement. It is borderlining delusion...

Kid?, i'm 37 and 6ft of manly muscle(lol)

Post my quote and i will try to set you straight?

[Loversleaper]

Of course the ME is a calculating machine. Whoever said anything else?

How on earth does that prove that Hammer1000's problems are tactical?

Given the number of variables which go into the match calculations, why should you single out tactics rather than any of the others or a combination of them all for heaven's sake????

It's your opinion but that's an entirely different matter.

Try to argue logically.

Tactics are built up around the Calculating Machine. You think that a computer program can distinguish between things, as if it could think...then it wouldn't be a calculating machine but a thinking machine. Come on, woman...

[Rupal]

But it isn't only tactics which go into the calculations. So do team talks, the weather, morale, the pitch size, relationships between manager and individual players, relationships between players themselves, mind games with the opposition manager, player stats, player hidden stats, etc, etc, etc. All these variables and probably a number of others go into determining the result.

It's all data. The ME calculates the result from all the data not just tactics!

Think about it.

[boywonder9]

This has been answered further up the thread somewhere, let me find it.

Here:

"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..."

Everything has been covered, but we keep going in cicles. If you do not undertand the above statement we can have a contructive debate about it, just promise me you think about it first...

OK. First, I'm not Mitja. So why something you talked about with him applies to me...I don't know. We are both in agreement that there is an issue, and seem to be thinking along the same lines, but I don't know that we have the same theories about what is happening.

I've never said teams intentionally throw games, or that it the game is trying to block teams for overachieving, or anything in that post.

All I've said is that teams that produce significantly more CCCs than their opponents recieve a significantly lower conversion rate. Teams that produce significantly less CCCs than their opponent receive much higher rates of conversion. Teams evenly matched are roughly even in terms of converting CCCs. As a result, strong teams face way too many tight matches in games that should occasionally be tight, but more often should be a fairly comfortable win.

That is a different argument than saying the AI is blocking me from winning. The AI is giving me a reduced rate of converting chances, and as a result keeping many games close that without levelling would likely be comfortable wins. Those are two very different arguments.

[Loversleaper]

But it isn't only tactics which go into the calculations. So do team talks, the weather, morale, team talks, the pitch size, relationships between manager and individual players, relationships between players themselves, mind games with the opposition manager, player stats, player hidden stats, etc, etc, etc. All these variables and probably a number of others go into determining the result.

It's all data. The ME calculates the result from all the data not just tactics!

Think about it.

No. It calculates the 'accuracy' of the settings you implement...