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

[Rupal]

And how does it calculate this 'accuracy'? By using all the available data. This includes your tactics and your press relationships and the weather and how fatigued your star striker is etc, etc, etc.

Or is it your contention that the ME doesn't take into account your team talks after all, for example???

[Hammer1000]

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

So could it not also "calculate" when these settings are "so accurate" for example, that they would lead to an unrealistic result and as such change the said "calculation" through the "luck" ratio or whatever, to make the result more realistic?

Or something to this effect via the coding?

[Loversleaper]

And how does it calculate this 'accuracy'? By using all the available data. This includes your tactics and your press relationships and the weather and how fatigued your star striker is etc, etc, etc.

Or is it your contention that the ME doesn't take into account your team talks after all, for example???

It has been a known issue for the years now that eveything from training, to gelling, team talks, ect... has effected the accuracy of tactical settings. Can't believe this is misunderstood...

[RT--]

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.

1) I reckon you'd need to back up that assertion by showing us some stats from *randomly selected games*, not just games that we're cherry-picking.

2) We're back to assuming that all CCCs are comparable, and that there's no reason to think that a team attacking a defensive side will create different sorts of CCC to one looking to counter-attack their more attacking opponent.

3) The number of CCCs created will probably be affected by whether or not the attacking side scores and when - by definition, tight games or games were the attacking team lose 1-0 will see them attacking for most of the match, and creating more chances. If a team scores early, they're not likely to throw players forward as much, and so not likely to create as many chances.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this out of hand, just that you need to provide a bit more evidence and convincingly rule out alternative arguments. Hammer appears to have convinced himself now, regardless of what other people (some of who are closely involved with ME development) have suggested.

Is Cleon involved with the ME development in any way? With respect to him - his tactical threads are always very interesting - I'm not sure why Hammer is taking his opinion as gospel.

[Cleon]

I think the post I made earlier in a different thread seems to have caused a little confusion Hammer for you. While I admit the number of CCC's does need reducing for teams with quality players to maybe match the conversion rate a little bit better. But that doesn't mean its a massive ME fault or flaw, all I meant was maybe the data could be presented a little better to us. Although I'm not sure of a better way atm cos I've not really gave it much though.

I knew blame for such results etc would be put down to CCC's, not so much on FML but for FM I knew this would happen. Because a CCC stat now exists people assume thats why they are losing. When in reality thats not how it works. Someone posted a link a while back in a topic (forget which atm) that took all the English, Italian and Spanish leagues and came up with an average for CCC's being scored in real life. It worked out that 1 in every 4.2 was scored on average as a whole. I actually think it was reported in The Telegraph a couple of months back too, as it was their research.

The game will always have something implemented to keep scores realistic and it will never be ideal no matter what as its only a game so cannot reflect real life aspects.

Originally Posted by Rupal

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.

Rupal you are correct, everything determines the results. The only thing that doesn't have an impact on tactics yet is training. Tbh how the training module currently works in my games I can survive without it. It just simply has no impact whatsoever on the game in all honesty. I can go all my career ignoring training if I wished and it would have no diverse effects on any results. I hope in future versions though, it has more impact though on the actual formations you use.

[Cleon]

1) I reckon you'd need to back up that assertion by showing us some stats from *randomly selected games*, not just games that we're cherry-picking.

2) We're back to assuming that all CCCs are comparable, and that there's no reason to think that a team attacking a defensive side will create different sorts of CCC to one looking to counter-attack their more attacking opponent.

3) The number of CCCs created will probably be affected by whether or not the attacking side scores and when - by definition, tight games or games were the attacking team lose 1-0 will see them attacking for most of the match, and creating more chances. If a team scores early, they're not likely to throw players forward as much, and so not likely to create as many chances.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this out of hand, just that you need to provide a bit more evidence and convincingly rule out alternative arguments. Hammer appears to have convinced himself now, regardless of what other people (some of who are closely involved with ME development) have suggested.

Is Cleon involved with the ME development in any way? With respect to him - his tactical threads are always very interesting - I'm not sure why Hammer is taking his opinion as gospel.

I am yeah. But Hammer is reading more into them that was meant. He's seeing something alot more meaningful that I posted.

[Rupal]

But you earlier denied this Loversleaper. You have said that the fact that the ME is a calculating machine in some way proves that Hammer1000's problem is tactical. If that was so then only his tactical input would matter. Now you say that these other things do, in fact, matter after all (which was obvious in the first place).

Either training, team talks, etc, matter, (in which case your point that ME is a calculating machine proves nothing whatsoever about tactics being the reason for Hammer1000's difficulties) or they don't matter (in which case your last post is wrong). Which is it please?

Edit - please see Cleon's post above.

[MadGamer]

Im also loosing a lot of matches. Perhaps i should just pick a tactic from the pre set menu and stick with it, or will it even then require tweaking?

[Loversleaper]

But you earlier denied this Loversleaper. You have said that the fact that the ME is a calculating machine in some way proves that Hammer1000's problem is tactical. If that was so then only his tactical input would matter. Now you say that these other things do, in fact, matter after all (which was obvious in the first place).

Either training, team talks, etc, matter, (in which case your point that ME is a calculating machine proves nothing whatsoever about tactics being the reason for Hammer1000's difficulties) or they don't matter (in which case your last post is wrong). Which is it please?

Edit - please see Cleon's post above.

Come on, woman... I never denied it. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I can't help to think what this is all about. It's alright, no need for this argument. I think it's time to read through the thread and if there is anything in any post that you would like to bring forth then we can do it as long as there are good intentions behind it. It seems more that the confrontation part is taking over the discussion and sorry, but you won't see me stooping that low...

[boywonder9]

1) I reckon you'd need to back up that assertion by showing us some stats from *randomly selected games*, not just games that we're cherry-picking.

2) We're back to assuming that all CCCs are comparable, and that there's no reason to think that a team attacking a defensive side will create different sorts of CCC to one looking to counter-attack their more attacking opponent.

3) The number of CCCs created will probably be affected by whether or not the attacking side scores and when - by definition, tight games or games were the attacking team lose 1-0 will see them attacking for most of the match, and creating more chances. If a team scores early, they're not likely to throw players forward as much, and so not likely to create as many chances.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this out of hand, just that you need to provide a bit more evidence and convincingly rule out alternative arguments. Hammer appears to have convinced himself now, regardless of what other people (some of who are closely involved with ME development) have suggested.

Is Cleon involved with the ME development in any way? With respect to him - his tactical threads are always very interesting - I'm not sure why Hammer is taking his opinion as gospel.

I fully realize I don't back up anything. It's pointless in these threads. Any screens I post are cherry picked. Any numbers I put together would point to tactical flaws within my team. Or shortcomings of my players attributes. Or my team talks. It really is pointless.

I could give you a my CCCs vs. goals scored vs. the AI's CCCs vs. goals scored over a season, since I was favorites for every game last season in League 1 it might demonstrate my point (at least in my mind) about teams that are significantly stronger recieving a reduced coversion rate of CCCs. But people would still point to other potential reasons why this happens to me, and we're back to square one. And the CCCs to goals scored ratio is blurry, since there is no way to tell whether your goals are being scored from CCCs or in other ways.

I'm not worried about convincing people that this is an issue - I'm only interested what other people who seem to be having the same issue think of it.

[Hammer1000]

Is Cleon involved with the ME development in any way? With respect to him - his tactical threads are always very interesting - I'm not sure why Hammer is taking his opinion as gospel.

I'm never easily convinced by anything(just read through a few of my posts) but i have to say that with what Cleon has said, plus my own personal thoughts and those from others on this matter, that this makes absolutely perfect sense.

It clicked with me immediately and i have since sat and thought about it, but cannot think of any issue that cannot easily be explained away, if this were actually true?

If anyone else can? i would appreciate them posting it here, maybe i am missing something important?

As Cleon has just stated though in his last post...

The game will always have something implemented to keep scores realistic and it will never be ideal no matter what as its only a game so cannot reflect real life aspects.

I'm aware that Cleon is not actually agreeing with me here, but thats o.k., i doubt i'll ever get an actual confirmation that this is in fact whats happening, but i honestly feel that a breakthrough has been made here and i'm quite happy to wallow in it, confirmation or not?

[Rupal]

Loversleaper

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...

Now those are your own words, not mine.

I don't think there's any need to get heated at all. This is a friendly discussion about a game OK?

[Loversleaper]

Loversleaper

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...

Now those are your own words, not mine.

I don't think there's any need to get heated at all. This is a friendly discussion about a game OK?

Where does it say I deny anything at all? The level of misunderstanding is causing the discussion to loose it's point. When people generally put words in other peoples' mouth it is usually a cheap shot to try to ridicule someone, maybe I was wrong this time around. You are also assuming how I am as a person. But have your fun, I will let you guys sort it out. I've always enjoyed a good debate and that is why I participated. If I have offended anyone I apologise. Thanks...

[RT--]

I could give you a my CCCs vs. goals scored vs. the AI's CCCs vs. goals scored over a season, since I was favorites for every game last season in League 1 it might demonstrate my point (at least in my mind) about teams that are significantly stronger recieving a reduced coversion rate of CCCs.

I think it'd be more telling if you looked at AI v AI games as well, to rule out the possibility of it being something specific to your tactical setup (assuming you don't think this only happens to human players?)

[RT--]

I am yeah. But Hammer is reading more into them that was meant. He's seeing something alot more meaningful that I posted.

Fair enough - cheers.

[Rupal]

Just to be very clear.

Loversleaper said that the fact that the ME was a calculating machine showed that Hammer1000's problem was tactical.

Later on, he said this,

It has been a known issue for the years now that eveything from training, to gelling, team talks, ect... has effected the accuracy of tactical settings. Can't believe this is misunderstood...

Now you can't sensibly believe both those things at the same time. So when he said the second thing I pointed out that his earlier post about the 'proof' provided by the ME being a calculating machine effectively denied what he said in this later post.

If I didn't put things very well, I'm really sorry. But the point remains true.

And now I'm going to watch the Spurs match on the telly!

[boywonder9]

I think it'd be more telling if you looked at AI v AI games as well, to rule out the possibility of it being something specific to your tactical setup (assuming you don't think this only happens to human players?)

No, I don't think anyone is picking on me, or me alone. I'll take a look at the numbers for top AI teams in Premier League to look for similar pattern.

[Loversleaper]

Just to be very clear.

Loversleaper said that the fact that the ME was a calculating machine showed that Hammer1000's problem was tactical.

Later on, he said this,

It has been a known issue for the years now that eveything from training, to gelling, team talks, ect... has effected the accuracy of tactical settings. Can't believe this is misunderstood...

Now you can't sensibly believe both those things at the same time. So when he said the second thing I pointed out that his earlier post about the 'proof' provided by the ME being a calculating machine effectively denied what he said in this later post.

If I didn't put things very well, I'm really sorry. But the point remains true.

And now I'm going to watch the Spurs match on the telly!

But my dear lady, both statements proove that it is a calculating machine and that there are no other 'magical' programming or thinking machines. I'm just telling you it is not the computer from I, Robot. Things can be dealt with (back to the calculating machine part...) and not entirely out of Gamers hands as suggested...

[TeeWee]

Wow, impressive bouts of mudslinging going on!

Hammer, one question up front; take this at face value, no sneers or offense meant, but what kind of help do you require if not tactical? Is it the "do teamtalk X" or "get striker Y"? I can't really imagine any advice which would not touch on the tactical side of things, if only to work around any perceived or real levelling mechanism.

Second, I do feel for your issue, for I experience it in some form in my game too. I do really well against the top tier, especially the top 4 (playing ManCity). It's lower-midtable down and second tier teams (Villa, Everton) which are hardest and the results do seem to suffer from similar symptoms.

Anyway, do understand my position: I am on the side of the fence that thinks that tactical tweaking can improve your issue. Because it's a far bolder claim that the engine uses a levelling device than that your or my tactics create the wrong kind of chances, "clear cut" or no. The onus is therefore on you to prove this point.

I also think that we overestimate the conversion rate of a good striker. We as a footballing audience are, at a guess, fairly poor at estimating these sorts of statistics because we are fairly biased. This confounds the discussion.

Now, an exercise to see if I understand your position correctly. Base assumption for me is that the match engine, in its barest essence, is just a big spreadsheet which just rolls lots of weighted dice for lots of small events to get to an end result which we see. I hope we can agree on this. I think you believe that there is a levelling mechanism which calculates the amount of CCCs, SoG, SoT etc. and adjusts conversion rates accordingly. So a 10 CCC producing side A against a 2 CCC producing side B will result in side A having a conversion rate smaller than side B. For argument's sake, let's assume then that A has an actual CCC-adjusted conversion rate of 1/8 while A will have a CCC-adjusted conversion rate of 1/2. End result will still favour side A a little bit, but in a single game (due to low numbers) a little bit of luck can swing the game in either way. Hence, good luck results in a small win for A, bad luck will result in a bad draw or even worse, a small loss. The leveller works not necessarily on team rep or anything, but rather on #CCC in any given match.

Do I understand your position correctly? You are saying that the number of CCCs (or SoG/SoT) are a main factor in a "conversion rate" variable in the match engine.

Problems I have with this reasoning is that it can easily be explained by poor luck. In the 10CCC vs 2 CCC case, a single goal is going to massively skew the conversion rate. So the collection of statistics is only going to be meaningful in the course of an entire season or even multiple seasons (if I were a statistician, I'd have a worthwhile opinion about the amount of samples we'd need) if we are to draw conclusions about them. So far, I haven't really seen them.

Second, confirmation bias is a trap all of us can fall into rather easily. This means we see anecdotes which prove our own position as evidence and don't notice or disregard anecdotes which disprove our own position. So I'm asking you in a most brutally honest manner: do you think you are suffering from confirmation bias?

Third, the quality of CCC-argument which you disregard does hold some water. I think we do agree that not all CCCs are equal. They cannot be: a 1on1 is classified the same way as an open goal tap-in. Unfortunately, CCCs are one-dimensional and cannot capture this difference. The only difference we have is between normal SoG and CCC (which are like super-SoG) and that's simply not enough for us mere mortals to do something with. Where you and e.g. WWFan disagree is that you do not believe it's possible to create tactics that can consistently produce better CCCs than another tactic.

But this part of the position I do not understand. We agree that not all SoGs are equal, because we have a subset that's significantly better (i.e. CCCs). We've also established that not all CCCs are similar in quality in the same manner, even if this difference is not evident in the match stats. So perhaps your tactics are great at creating CCCs from the lower end of the scale and creating lots of them. While e.g. WWFan is great at creating fewer CCCs on the high end of the scale. Perhaps his tactic is all about defending and controlling unless there's a high quality CCC. Intuitively, this tactic will create less CCC (like a sniper: don't take the shot unless you know it will hit its mark), but they will be more accurate. Thus, there's an explanation for a consistently lower conversion rate for your CCCs. WWFan has even identified the type of CCC which are more easily converted (be it because of realism or match engine quirk): good crosses from the byline. I know it's tedious, but have you tried to cout your CCCs and divide them into "cross-induced CCC" and "other CCCs". If WWFan is correct, the first category should get a much higher conversion rate than the second.

I have no evidence one way or the other. I do have eyes and do see that the match engine has certain tendencies like the issue under discussion. However, I do think that they can, in part, be explained by tactics. We all agree that the game, especially the match day controls, are inadequate. I often do feel the need to communicate some simple idea to my squad but feeling unable to. It just hasn't crossed my mind yet that it's actually the engine that tweaks my conversion rates depending on the #CCC.

[Oliolioli]

I really want to add my opinion on this thread, i'm hoping that SI are true to their word in turnimg to these forums for feedback.... i've (like many) have been playing the fm series for years but have found it a lot less enjoyable in the last 2 versions, i've read a lot of the tactical threads on this site (such as the tactical theorems thread) and have taken in all the info and more importantly understand it but it just does not work for me, i've spent too much time trying to get to the bottom of the reasons why. Maybe its because i'm using 9.2 or only using tottenham (a lot of threads have stated success in the lower leagues so i don't know). I feel i haven't taken any advice from this forum that has actually helped (even though it seems good advice). I would say that i'm going to stop playing fm2009 but that has happened a while back all ready (i've gone back to 2007, it's old now but at least it's more enjoyable). One last thing i'd like to say to anyone who agrees with me, is don't buy fm2010 as a solution to the faults of 2009, si are far too complacent at the mo, the customer power is seriously low as everyone on this board will buy fm2010 regardless, even the ones who don't like fm2009 will think it will rectify all the flaws. Fm is very time consuming, we all want to be good at it, at least in 2007 if you put in the time you were rewarded suitibly. I could rant alot more because i feel so strongly.... i'm mad beacause i paid £50 for 2 versons which are still despite all the good new features inferior to fm2007. anyway rant over!!.

[wwfan]

Given that a major part of Hammer's argument is that it is impossible for the user to get results in the manner of the AI, and it is always him that gets the raw end of the statistical stick, then the following should be impossible.

I already know the response, which will be that my tactic is obviously only average as the match stats show, which is why it never gets penalised as Hammer's does. That I'm 2000-1 to win the league and was a major long shot for the above match, of which I have other similar examples, making a draw an excellent result, never enters the equation. We can also check to see how well I do against the teams I expect to beat, as if I can't win easily against them, then my arguments obviously hold no water.

Likewise, if I can't totally dismantle teams trying to shut up shop, and score from all over the pitch (the multi-dimensional chances I referred to) I don't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I don't pay much attention to results like the Marlow and Malmo games, as they are friendlies. However, until I have a world class side, I'm not going to be able to prove I can do this at the top level, so they'll have to do.

As I constantly state, if you can't do all three of the above, there is a tactical reason. You might have cracked one or two, but in order to do really well, you have to crack all three.

[Rupal]

But my dear lady, both statements proove that it is a calculating machine and that there are no other 'magical' programming or thinking machines. I'm just telling you it is not the computer from I, Robot. Things can be dealt with (back to the calculating machine part...) and not entirely out of Gamers hands as suggested...

But what it does not prove is that it is Hammer1000's tactical input which is the cause of the problem, which is what I understood you were claiming. One thing simply doesn't follow from the other.

[Rupal]

Just (another ) observation about different quality CCCs. This is for TeeWee especially.

I have never suggested that some CCCs are not easier than others. They are. What I have been maintaining throughout, though, is that you can't simply look at a match and decide automatically how difficult one was. To do that you need additional information and I've given some obvious examples of where this is the case.

That's why it really isn't good enough for wwfan to say that he can tell that Hammer1000's tactics are producing lower quality CCCs just by looking. He can't.

As far as I understand things, long, long ago in a universe far, far away, Hammer1000 was told that his tactics didn't produce such good scoring opportunities as wwfan's. He was told that this was why he had these problems and that this explained things because, although he had many more shots than the AI, the latter's were more likely to result in goals. I imagine (please correct me if I am wrong wwfan or Hammer1000) that there was a certain element of disagreement about this. So wwfan told Hammer1000 that when SI introduced CCCs into the match stats this would prove his point, for the AI would have many more of these.

And the thunder rolled and the lightning flashed and the SI Gods in their infinite wisdom created these CCC stats.

But lo! It appeared that Hammer1000 actually produced more CCCs than the AI. Which was very unexpected.

Now Hammer1000 is being told that although he has many more CCCs than the AI, the latter's are more likely to result in goals. Doesn't this sound just a tiny bit familiar? Presumably wwfan will argue that if the SI Gods moved again and produced stats about good CCCs and not-so-good CCCs this would prove his point, for the AI would have many more of these. I can fully understand Hammer1000 feeling a little restive at this point. Would we eventually have stats about not-so-good-good CCCs rearing their heads or even more subdivisions? How many stages would this process have to go through??

There is an underlying assumption amongst some people that this has to be tactical. When the facts don't appear at first glance to support this (as in the case of the CCCs) those people, very understandably, blame the stats not their theory. In effect, the 'good' and 'poor' CCC argument is doing just that. The gist of what they are saying can be summed up thus:

The problem must be tactical.

Therefore Hammer1000 must be producing lower quality CCCs. We know this, even though we may not be able to demonstrate it.

Just like saying that there have to be little invisible angels pushing the clouds along because we see them move.

Now this problem may indeed be tactical. But nobody has proved it, in spite of what they have claimed. And the only relevant indisputable data which we have (the number of CCCs) suggests that it isn't tactical in any direct sense at all.

[wwfan]

That's why it really isn't good enough for wwfan to say that he can tell that Hammer1000's tactics are producing lower quality CCCs just by looking. He can't.

According to you. Most of Hammer's CCCs are one on ones on the break with his forward being pursued by multiple defenders and the keeper coming out to narrow the angle. Most of mine are six yard tap ins with the player in front of his marker and the goalie out of position. No matter how you try to argue this, mine are better chances. Real life research would give Hammer's player a 20-25% chance of scoring, whereas my player would have a 50% chance. No matter what the player attributes are, one is significantly better than the other.

As far as I understand things, long, long ago in a universe far, far away, Hammer1000 was told that his tactics didn't produce such good scoring opportunities as wwfan's. He was told that this was why he had these problems and that this explained things because, although he had many more shots than the AI, the latter's were more likely to result in goals. I imagine (please correct me if I am wrong wwfan or Hammer1000) that there was a certain element of disagreement about this. So wwfan told Hammer1000 that when SI introduced CCCs into the match stats this would prove his point, for the AI would have many more of these.

I don't like the facts to get in the way of a good yarn, but... As I have always explained to GArry, the reason the Ai scores against him is down to the problems in his defensive outlook. For 08, he isolated his FBs, leaving them lacking in support in attack and defence and totally knackered during the last 20 mins becasue of it. As his opposition tried to get back in the game, the Fbs got horribly overrun, leading to desperate defending and errors all around. When he sent me some pkms for 09, his defensive line was detached from his midfield, leaving opposing midfielders all the time in the world to pick their through balls. On both occasions I explained the tactical problem, but Garry preferred his buggy ME position.

With the CCCs, it was Millie who thought it would help Garry. As I stated earlier, I was afraid he would use them to further his 'unfair/cheating/levelled ME' arguments if there was any discepency between his scoring rates and the AIs.

It appeared that Hammer1000 actually produced more CCCs than the AI. Which was very unexpected.

Not if 20 yard one on ones are included as CCCs. Then it is very expected, as that is his favourite method of chance creation. Again, only roughly 1 in 4 of these will go in. Should that be considered a CCC? Perhaps that is what we should be complaining to SI about?

Now Hammer1000 is being told that although he has many more CCCs than the AI, the latter's are more likely to result in goals. Doesn't this sound just a tiny bit familiar? Presumably wwfan will argue that if the SI Gods moved again and produced stats about good CCCs and not-so-good CCCs this would prove his point, for the AI would have many more of these. I can fully understand Hammer1000 feeling a little restive at this point. Would we eventually have stats about not-so-good-good CCCs rearing their heads or even more subdivisions? How many stages would this process have to go through??

In the end it always comes down to the same thing, the ability of the user to read the match. Hammer admits to barely even watching matches now. He just looks at the stats, finds the examples and complains. He never proactively or reactively tries to manage his team on match day. Even when alternative, easier ways of scoring are illustrated, which he can then place against his one dimensional one on ones, they are ignored in favour of stats. Football isn't stats. It is action. Watchig the action is far more imporant than looking at the post match stats. Until he does that, and learns to interact with it, he'll never get past this problem.

There is an underlying assumption amongst some people that this has to be tactical. When the facts don't appear at first glance to support this (as in the case of the CCCs) those people, very understandably, blame the stats not their theory. In effect, the 'good' and 'poor' CCC argument is doing just that.

See the above paragraph. For those who closely watch and understand the ME, it is blindingly obvious which chances are better than others.

The problem must be tactical.

Therefore Hammer1000 must be producing lower quality CCCs. We know this, even though we may not be able to demonstrate it.

Just like saying that there have to be little invisible angels pushing the clouds along because we see them move.

Now this problem may indeed be tactical. But nobody has proved it, in spite of what they have claimed. And the only relevant indisputable data which we have (the number of CCCs) suggests that it isn't tactical in any direct sense at all.

Two elements of proof:

1: I have watched many of Hammer's pkms of the type of match he complains about, and he doesn't create many good CCCs. Most of his chances are hurried or from that 20 yard distance with the defence in pursuit.

2: It doesn't happen to me, as I put into plan the tactical changes I suggest would sort his issue. That suggests to me that they work and it is a tactical issue he has, which he continues to do nothing about.

[Rupal]

wwfan I can only refer you to what I have said before. You would need to conduct a proper test, using the same club as Hammer1000, over an extended period, factoring in all the variables of the sort which I have mentioned in several posts, whilst ensuring that all other input (team talks etc) remained identical and compare your individual CCCs. You would even then be relying on a subjective assessment about how relatively difficult each individual CCC was (assuming you could even identify from the matches all of the incidents which the ME had classified as CCCs in the first place). We have already seen from other people's posts that they couldn't even agree over how many of four CCCs were good or not-so-good and I am sure that they are sincere in their disagreement. If people can't agree over a sample of such a small size you would find it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to get agreements over these subsets over a very large number of examples. You haven't conducted any such test and what may be 'blindingly obvious' to you is not, it appears 'blindingly obvious' to Hammer1000 and might equally well not be 'blindingly obvious' to others. Assertion is not the same as proof.

Hammer1000 has said that you assured him that he wasn't creating enough good chances. It appears that the CCC stats don't support this as they stand (sorry that I misunderstood who told him about them and how they would help). It sounds as though you wish that they hadn't been provided (you say that you were 'afraid' that Hammer1000 would use them to further his 'unfair/cheating/levelling' arguments). Are you really suggesting that it would be better if we had less evidence?

Now if SI is counting things as CCCs which shouldn't be counted as CCCs that is a different argument which you would have to take up with them. But as it stands, isn't this a case of you saying 'so much worse for the facts'?

My point throughout is that we can only base our judgements in this sort of situation on ascertainable facts. As things stand, the number of CCCs which Hammer1000 produces in the matches which he has shown us exceeds the number produced by the AI. THAT is an ascertainable fact.

You may very well be right. Hammer1000's tactics may be at the root of his difficulties. But you certainly haven't proved it. Cleon has provided a possible alternative to your explanation. He may be wrong. I don't know. I just think that conclusions should be drawn from verifiable evidence and that theories should not be presented as though they were proofs.

[Mitja]

let's assume wwfan is right and Hammer's problem is tactical indeed. is there any feedback in the game to point out our problems? does the menual say anything about creating one type of chances? think about people who don't visit these forums, what would they think about creating 20 shots per match and 5 CCCs and constantly missing them? they will think the game cheats or they will just stop playing it. there's no real life logics behind all this. how can you blame a person who exploits ME by playing lots of TBs, if it's so bloody obvious they produce chances (far to many). instead of producing good defnsive ME just tune down 1on1's. then suggest him to spread play on flanks, while crossing has been flawed since CM4. then there's no way to instruct your winger to cut or move centrally, a tactic so common in top football for breaking packed defences (Messi, Cristiano, Ronaldinho...). i could go on with this. people have been vocal about these problems for years now and i think FM09 reached the point where tactical interface doesn't support ME anymore. we need to experiment with numbers of sliders what could be replaced with 1 click. look at how many people are saying they can't enjoy 09, they're going back to 07 or just stop playing the series.

[Rupal]

I think what Mitja says is very true. The way forward here is to improve feedback, to improve clarity and to improve the ME. Once the ME begins to give us something which looks like a proper football match and produces a sensible number of chances of various types with a realistic conversion rate and a tactical system which enables us to give the instructions which we want to our players straightforwardly and makes sure that they follow them, then we might well find that this problem disappears.

[Mitja]

just for example in Hammer's case the assistent could point out if he wants to get anything out of those matches against packed defences, he needs to play wider to strech them, full backs need to get more involved in attack to support wingers and make that extra man for opponents to think about, higher his d-line, close down earlier, lower time wasting and things like that. we shouldn't need to come to these forums for such information. but again if tactical inteface was clearer we could use our real life football knowledge much easier, which is not the case right now. i also think the importance of tactics is too big.

[Loversleaper]

Ok, Rupal. What is it then if it is not tactical? The cry for proof is just a shallow diversion from the enlighten insights that several people have tried to imput and you are actively seeking the circular debate ploy. Let's go back to Hammmer1000's Aston Villa game, for a sec shall we... I saw his post and his cry that he couldn't win at all. He was 3rd bottem after he 'over-achieved' in the first season. Now, the theory with you guys has been that the computer would determine that you don't win due to a 'balancing' result mechanism, so how is this possible with the Aston Villa save? He is already underperforming, so why should the computer be calculating that he shouldn't win? It contradicts the theory in itself... or are we going to change the ploy and just say the AI won't let you win at all instead?.

Mitja: you say that a lot of people are getting fed up with the game and going back to FM07, is that a fact?

Now you two, time to turn the tables. You cry for proof...what is yours?

[Rupal]

If I knew what it was, Loversleaper, I would be able to make a big thread about it and give everyone the benefit of my insight and I'm sure that they'd all be ever so grateful. Sadly, I don't know. So I don't have anything to prove because I'm not claiming anything.

What I do know is, however, that neither you nor wwfan nor anybody else has proved that it's tactics. It might be. Or it might be that Cleon's idea is the right one. Or they might both be wrong.

As I said, I don't know. And I don't think that anybody else does either. We've all got opinions. But opinions aren't the same as knowing.

[Loversleaper]

If I knew what it was, Loversleaper, I would be able to make a big thread about it and give everyone the benefit of my insight and I'm sure that they'd all be ever so grateful. Sadly, I don't know. So I don't have anything to prove because I'm not claiming anything.

What I do know is, however, that neither you nor wwfan nor anybody else has proved that it's tactics. It might be. Or it might be that Cleon's idea is the right one. Or they might both be wrong.

As I said, I don't know. And I don't think that anybody else does either. We've all got opinions. But opinions aren't the same as knowing.

Forgive me for being blunt, but why are you in a debate if you don't know what it is? You could put in a little theory, at least. But I see now that eveything has been in vain, you are just here to chat...

[Mitja]

i'm not seeking for proof nor providing any evidence. i said many times that i don't care even if there is a balancing thing and i lost interest with this thread's purpose but it clearly shows problems of ME and tactical interface. the only thing i'm looking for is whether SI plan to do something about it and how they will do it.

about your second question - that's my general feeling what people think about 09. there's no doubt the majority will keep playing 09 instead of going back to 07.

[Mitja]

Forgive me for being blunt, but why are you in a debate if you don't know what it is? You could put in a little theory, at least. But I see now that eveything has been in vain, you are just here to chat...

wow just wow. ok, you won

[JimbobWWFC]

Now, the theory with you guys has been that the computer would determine that you don't win due to a 'balancing' result mechanism, so how is this possible with the Aston Villa save? He is already underperforming, so why should the computer be calculating that he shouldn't win? It contradicts the theory in itself

I think the point of the 'leveller' being mentioned is because it appears that Hammer is now underacheiving. The fact that he may be underachieving now is because he overachieved the previous season. It may be that the levelling mechanism (or whatever) is making him underperform this season, as a kind of 'punishment' for his previous success. I'm not saying this is completely true, I would just like to point this out in terms of this discussion.

[Loversleaper]

I think the point of the 'leveller' being mentioned is because it appears that Hammer is now underacheiving. The fact that he may be underachieving now is because he overachieved the previous season. It may be that the levelling mechanism (or whatever) is making him underperform this season, as a kind of 'punishment' for his previous success. I'm not saying this is completely true, I would just like to point this out in terms of this discussion.

Before it was a mechanism that makes you not over-perform, now it is a mechanism that makes you under-perform? I simply can't see how a computer program can distinguish between all of this, and I think you are overestimating the power of computer programming. There are plenty of screenshots around the forum of people overperforming, but this must be an illusion because how were these people going to get around the programming part?

[Hammer1000]

Instead of trying to reply to such a mixed bag of posts, i'll simply re-iterate on an earlier post that i think answers both sides of the argument and if anyone believes there are any outstanding issues that the following does'nt cover? please post them.

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!!!

I'm only quoting Cleon because his post gave me the Eureka moment, i understand that he does not agree that this is in fact 100% correct.

[JimbobWWFC]

Before it was a mechanism that makes you not over-perform, now it is a mechanism that makes you under-perform? I simply can't see how a computer program can distinguish between all of this, and I think you are overestimating the power of computer programming. There are plenty of screenshots around the forum of people overperforming, but this must be an illusion because how were these people going to get around the programming part?

I am not supporting this, I merely explained what was going on. In my previous post, I said "I don't feel this is true".

If it exists, that is why it is called a leveller, to make things even, to 'compensate' for earlier success. Like I said, I don't know if it is totally true, or even slightly true. But there seems to be a few instances where the leveller is apparent (or this could just be a kind of 2nd season syndrome or whatever)

[Rupal]

Forgive me for being blunt, but why are you in a debate if you don't know what it is? You could put in a little theory, at least. But I see now that eveything has been in vain, you are just here to chat...

Oh dear!

I've already said that it's possible that it may be down to something like Cleon describes. I've also said that it may be tactics. There are two theories for you. Is that enough? No? Well here's a third.

There might be a tendency for the ME to limit the number of conversions of CCCs where lots are created in order to avoid unrealistic scores. This would apply equally to AI and human managers. This 'toning down' effect might have been a little overdone, in part because the ME creates too many chances to be fully realistic in the first place.

Because Hammer1000's tactics lead to more CCCs being created than some other people's he may encounter this situation more often than they do. That would explain why he appears to have a problem that others don't have (I said much the same in an earlier post) and also why people like boywonder find that they seem to score more goals when they dominate matches less.

If you like this is similar to some things which Cleon has been saying but with a different emphasis.

This is very probably wrong. But it fits the facts as well as the 'tactics' theory.

I just don't know , OK?

[Loversleaper]

I am not supporting this, I merely explained what was going on. In my previous post, I said "I don't feel this is true".

If it exists, that is why it is called a leveller, to make things even, to 'compensate' for earlier success. Like I said, I don't know if it is totally true, or even slightly true. But there seems to be a few instances where the leveller is apparent (or this could just be a kind of 2nd season syndrome or whatever)

It has always been a case of the AI playing differently setting-wise. When people overachieve the AI plays more tactically the next time around. You have to know how to break down these formations because the AI is overpowering your settings with high/timewasting defensive settings. You can overpower any setting the AI uses as long as you know what you are doing. People are having a hard time realising that sometimes they are up against an AI attacking mechanism and at other times they are up against a defensive mechanism. People should be learning the hints in the ME which is a dead give-away how the AI are playing their game/tactics. It is simple as that...

[TeeWee]

Just (another ) observation about different quality CCCs. This is for TeeWee especially.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope you have thick skin and lots of patience, because I'm going to ask a lot of questions to understand your arguments. Again, no offense meant.

I have never suggested that some CCCs are not easier than others. They are. What I have been maintaining throughout, though, is that you can't simply look at a match and decide automatically how difficult one was. To do that you need additional information and I've given some obvious examples of where this is the case.

That's why it really isn't good enough for wwfan to say that he can tell that Hammer1000's tactics are producing lower quality CCCs just by looking. He can't.

Let's take the entire subspecies of CCCs as a whole; forget about everything that's not a CCC. Within this class of events, we can probably find two sets of events:

a: there is a subset of CCCs which we all agree on that are of the highest pedigree and should score often. For example, a simple tap in with nobody in sight.

b: there is a subset of CCCs which we all agree on that are only marginally a CCC and are qualitatively worse than others. For example, a longer shot with the goalie in good position and perhaps multiple defenders nearby.

I'm not saying my set of highest pedigree CCC is the same as yours (I haven't even thought of CCCs in these terms before), but that there is a subset where we both can agree on that that is the highest pedigree. Same for class b.

We can probably rank a lot of the CCCs relatively to each other. Not 100% correctly, but over a large range, I wouldn't be surprised that the relative rankings don't differ too much.

8< -- 8< -- 8<

Now Hammer1000 is being told that although he has many more CCCs than the AI, the latter's are more likely to result in goals. Doesn't this sound just a tiny bit familiar? Presumably wwfan will argue that if the SI Gods moved again and produced stats about good CCCs and not-so-good CCCs this would prove his point, for the AI would have many more of these. I can fully understand Hammer1000 feeling a little restive at this point. Would we eventually have stats about not-so-good-good CCCs rearing their heads or even more subdivisions? How many stages would this process have to go through??

I understand your frustration. The "wait for an even better statistic" argument does run thin in a manner of the boy who cried wolf. Fortunately, I only buy a new incarnation of FM once every few years (the one before FM09 is CM4), so my patience may be a lot higher because of this.

The main thrust of wwfan is, if I read his posts correctly, that if you view the match in its entirety instead of looking just at the statistics, you will see things that are not apparent in those statistics. At a guess, I believe him. Why? Because the collected statistics only say so much. 60% possession in your own third means something different from 60% possession in opponent's third. This type of nuances can't be learned just from the overall statistics, but become apparent when you view the match. I see no reason why, if you have enough time, that viewing the match will give you an idea of what type of CCCs you're creating.

There is an underlying assumption amongst some people that this has to be tactical. When the facts don't appear at first glance to support this (as in the case of the CCCs) those people, very understandably, blame the stats not their theory. In effect, the 'good' and 'poor' CCC argument is doing just that. The gist of what they are saying can be summed up thus:

The problem must be tactical.

Therefore Hammer1000 must be producing lower quality CCCs. We know this, even though we may not be able to demonstrate it.

Just like saying that there have to be little invisible angels pushing the clouds along because we see them move.

Now this problem may indeed be tactical. But nobody has proved it, in spite of what they have claimed. And the only relevant indisputable data which we have (the number of CCCs) suggests that it isn't tactical in any direct sense at all.

I readily admit to assuming that the problem is tactical unless proven as not. It's a matter of control (or the illusion thereof). If it's not tactical, this means that come match day, there is nothing I can do to prevent this from happening and there is nothing, either directly or indirectly, that I can do to influence the end result. I find that notion abhorrent and runs counter to game design. Basically, you are saying that SI made a game where the user input does not matter in this aspect: the game will always automatically adjust the conversion rateof chances to match a realistic scoreline.

In the end, it's about settling down on a best-fitting hypothesis. At a guess, the "CCC-filter" is just a big calculation which has as input lots of factors (mainly position on the pitch and the degree in which defenders and goalies are nearby) and if the result is above the "CCC-threshold" it will show up as a CCC. There will therefore be CCC which are more "CCC" than others because they fulfill more criteria and are higher above the threshold than others. The higher above the threshold the CCC is, the more likely a player is to convert it.

I'm led to believe that your hypothesis is that the match engine sums all events that are over the CCC-threshold. Some are still more "CCC" than others, but they are assigned a "base conversion rate". The actual conversion rate is affected by an "#CCC adjustment factor", which tells the match engine to negatively impact the actual CCC conversion rate if the #CCCs in a match increases.

The easiest way to settle this discussion is to find a tactic which creates as many CCCs as Hammer's, while at the same time, those CCCs are of the type that wwfan advocates. If your hypothesis is right, over a large number of matches, you will get lower scorelines than expected purely from the stats. If wwfan's hypothesis is right, you will see scorelines which match or exceed the expectations based on the stats.

wwfan has formulated a criterion for the "right type" of CCC: broad angle passes resulting in CCCs from within the penalty box, because broad angle passes are easier than narrow angle passes. This may need some tweaking to get right, but this can be a working definition.

[Loversleaper]

Instead of trying to reply to such a mixed bag of posts, i'll simply re-iterate on an earlier post that i think answers both sides of the argument and if anyone believes there are any outstanding issues that the following does'nt cover? please post them.

I'm only quoting Cleon because his post gave me the Eureka moment, i understand that he does not agree that this is in fact 100% correct.

Hammer, just remember there is a huge difference between a CCC flaw and the assumption that a computer game was programmed for you to not win...

[Hammer1000]

Hammer, just remember there is a huge difference between a CCC flaw and the assumption that a computer game was programmed for you to not win...

So are you asking me which one i believe is true? if so, i think i've answered already.

[Rupal]

TeeWee thanks for your post.

I seriously question whether we are even going to find simple agreement over CCCs such as the 'tap in' one in all honesty, without knowing the other information which I have outlined.

An example. Player A finds the ball in front of an empty net. He is not fatigued, the pitch is dry, he has easily reached the ball because of his pace and acceleration - this is a golden opportunity to score and he has good bravery stats which make him unconcerned about the defenders who are rushing to clatter him. Grade 1 CCC

Player B finds the same situation. He is very fatigued, the pitch is really heavy, he is carrying a knock, he's slow, so he arrived out of breath and he's not got time to get his balance properly. He is also cowardly (bravery 1) so he's bothered about those defenders who are going to clatter him. Not Grade 1 CCC.

We could go on and on. We just can't take the appearance of the CCC alone in order to assess it. That's my point.

The reason why, on a purely gut instinct level, I lean towards the sort of explanation which I outlined in my post number 438 is that it also explains the phenomenon described by boywonder, where he observes that in matches where he dominates less he tends to score more. Assuming tactical mistakes doesn't seem to cover this situation and so we are left with another difficult problem for which we don't appear to have any rational explanation.

I'm claiming no proof. I'm not saying that I know anything at all here. I wish I had all the certainty which wwfan and others have. Unfortunately, I don't.

I can see much sense in your arguments. I think that mine have some too. You make the very sensible point that we need to test things. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. It's those who come on here claiming that they know what the situation is and who, in fact, don't who take the discussion out of the realms of fact and into those of speculation.

[Lyssien]

Some people are not trying to think, I am afraid.

About the game punishing overachievement:

If Hammer was being punished for overachieving, then ALL overachieving gamers would have to face this as well. I surely don't, I keep overachieving every season. End of case.

Of course, one may choose to not believe the ones who keep overachieving, and claim we are lying or cheating. I am not lying and I don't cheat. But I am not sure if there is a way to prove this to you. Believe me and try to make yourselves better or keep complaining until SI makes the decision to reward exactly your way of playing

About people suggesting that the engine punishes good play so that stats are balanced in the end. Of course it does, how else could it be? Try to think for a minute from a developer's perspective: You have made the engine and all stats come out great except e.g. there are too many high crosses that reach strikers who are all alone and score. You try your best to improve defending against crosses, but still this happens 1% more often than in real life. So, you make heading 1% worse for all players (not in the database- in the way the engine HANDLES the database, i.e. the heading stat), and everything turns up cool.

There is no way that this doesn't happen, anyone having done simulations in his life can confirm this. It's impossible to make a simulation without resorting to such measures. So that's not even a good question. The good question is this: Does this happen so much that it makes Heading opportunities less desirable in the game than they are in real life? That's the only good question on this.

And my answer is that more or less FM seems to handle opportunity conversion realistically. Are they *nearly* spot on? To me, it seems so. Also, WWWfan has provided statistical data that back up his point. I would expect the other side of this discussion to try to do the same, but I see no good statistical data anywhere to back up their point of view.

Good statistical data would be of this kind, as far as I am concerned: My striker has had 50 one on one opportunites throughout the season, in the centre of the opposition area with the ball on his good foot, no defender around and with the goalkeeper under hist posts. Striker is average class for the level. He converted X% while real life data prove that this should be closer to Y% in this case, with Y>>X. Something is wrong.

That I could accept, and I have no reason to believe that the ME is absolutely perfect (of course it is not and it will never be until the world comes to an end). But where is your data, people? You have no case at all the way you are making your arguments.

[Rupal]

And my answer is that more or less FM seems to handle opportunity conversion realistically. Are they *nearly* spot on? To me, it seems so. Also, WWWfan has provided statistical data that back up his point. I would expect the other side of this discussion to try to do the same, but I see no good statistical data anywhere to back up their point of view.

But is this so? We get back to the situation of somebody like Hammer1000 pointing to 14 shots to the AI's 1 and 6 CCCs to the AI's 1 and losing 1-0 or similar. Now this doesn't seem to him on the face of it to show that FM is handling opportunity conversion realistically and I must say that I have considerable sympathy with that point of view at first glance.

[TeeWee]

TeeWee thanks for your post.

I seriously question whether we are even going to find simple agreement over CCCs such as the 'tap in' one in all honesty, without knowing the other information which I have outlined.

An example. Player A finds the ball in front of an empty net. He is not fatigued, the pitch is dry, he has easily reached the ball because of his pace and acceleration - this is a golden opportunity to score and he has good bravery stats which make him unconcerned about the defenders who are rushing to clatter him. Grade 1 CCC

Player B finds the same situation. He is very fatigued, the pitch is really heavy, he is carrying a knock, he's slow, so he arrived out of breath and he's not got time to get his balance properly. He is also cowardly (bravery 1) so he's bothered about those defenders who are going to clatter him. Not Grade 1 CCC.

We could go on and on. We just can't take the appearance of the CCC alone in order to assess it. That's my point.

The reason why, on a purely gut instinct level, I lean towards the sort of explanation which I outlined in my post number 438 is that it also explains the phenomenon described by boywonder, where he observes that in matches where he dominates less he tends to score more. Assuming tactical mistakes doesn't seem to cover this situation and so we are left with another difficult problem for which we don't appear to have any rational explanation.

I'm claiming no proof. I'm not saying that I know anything at all here. I wish I had all the certainty which wwfan and others have. Unfortunately, I don't.

I can see much sense in your arguments. I think that mine have some too. You make the very sensible point that we need to test things. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. It's those who come on here claiming that they know what the situation is and who, in fact, don't who take the discussion out of the realms of fact and into those of speculation.

I can see that getting to agree on good CCC is perhaps harder than I thought it would be at first glance, though I do think that it's not quite as hard as you put it. I'm a natural "look at the middle ground" type of guy you see

Question: do you believe that there is a "quality measure" for a shot that has a threshold over which the shot becomes a CCC? What I mean is, there is an algorithm that takes into account all sorts of things (including the things you've stated) and results in a single number (say, between 1-100). If the result is higher than a certain number (say, 75) it's marked as a CCC in the statistics.

If you don't agree to this in principle, please clarify what you believe is the CCC-identifier.

If you do agree to this, then the following:

Camp A says that they can create tactics that result in CCCs that are consistently in the range of, say, 90-100 and state that Hammer uses tactics that consistently result in CCCs in the range of 75-85. Hence, Hammer suffers from bad results compared to stats.

Camp B says that after calculating the CCC-quality (which you agree now exists), there's an extra modifier. This modifier counts all the CCCs that have/will occur in this match and scales down the conversion rate accordingly. This modifier is rather sharp because the effect is highly noticeable. Since Hammer on average creates lots more CCCs than e.g. wwfan, he suffers from bad results compared to stats.

Anyway, I do think the experiment outlined in my previous post will go some way to moving opinions a bit. What we need to do is a tactic which creates a high amount of CCCs (high enough for the modifier to kick in) which are of sufficiently high quality (good enough for wwfan to say that there are good CCCs in there). I'm afraid that, since we have no objective measure to agree on the quality of CCC, we have to accept wwfan's statements (broad passes from wide > narrow through balls). If camp A's hypothesis holds, then the amount of goals should be higher than Hammer's results (Hammer is the control group). If camp B's hypothesis holds, then the amount of goals should be equal.

To get some sort of conclusive results, one should run this a lot of times (to average out the luck-factor).

I am in camp A because this explains the same symptoms with less mechanisms in the match engine. It does work under the assumption that some people are better at creating high quality CCCs than other people. But this is not such a big leap, because some people are better at creating CCCs than others, and higher quality CCCs is just a matter of degree and not a matter of principle (assuming you agree with the CCC-identifier mechanism).

[Loversleaper]

But is this so? We get back to the situation of somebody like Hammer1000 pointing to 14 shots to the AI's 1 and 6 CCCs to the AI's 1 and losing 1-0 or similar. Now this doesn't seem to him on the face of it to show that FM is handling opportunity conversion realistically and I must say that I have considerable sympathy with that point of view at first glance.

Ok, back to square one. Hammer has been walked through what could be going on, and it is not a case of all FM Gamers experiencing the same thing. If we did then it would be a case. The problem with your arguments are that you do not know what it is that could cause this, or present any theory. The only thing you are doing is choosing not to agree, the one minute you say proof then next you don't. I am sorry but I keep getting that feeling you are not here to make a constructive debate...

[Hammer1000]

About the game punishing overachievement:

If Hammer was being punished for overachieving, then ALL overachieving gamers would have to face this as well. I surely don't, I keep overachieving every season. End of case.

Of course, one may choose to not believe the ones who keep overachieving, and claim we are lying or cheating. I am not lying and I don't cheat. But I am not sure if there is a way to prove this to you. Believe me and try to make yourselves better or keep complaining until SI makes the decision to reward exactly your way of playing

I'll listen to anyone if when they post they take into consideration everything that has been said before hand? but your missing a massive point made about how the game is actually making those calculations which fits perfectly with the theory.

I am stating it IS in fact a tactical issue, but one that crops up only when at some point someone comes up with a certain kind of tactic in which the sliders are all set to generate at maximum impact.(basically the sliders through luck or judgement are set in their premium positions)

This is when the ME must recalculate to achieve the facade of a reasonable result.(missed CCC's)

If you stay within these boundaries, you may still overachieve(as you say you do) but you will never/rarely run into this kind of result.

There is probably a better way to explain it? but thats my attempt to do so.

[Rupal]

Ok, back to square one. Hammer has been walked through what could be going on, and it is not a case of all FM Gamers experiencing the same thing. If we did then it would be a case. The problem with your arguments are that you do not know what it is that could cause this, or present any theory. The only thing you are doing is choosing not to agree, the one minute you say proof then next you don't. I am sorry but I keep getting that feeling you are not here to make a constructive debate...

Read my post number 438. If that isn't presenting a theory what is it doing?

I am increasingly getting the feeling that you are simply ignoring what is said to you.

[Loversleaper]

I am stating it IS in fact a tactical issue, but one that crops up only when at some point someone comes up with a certain kind of tactic in which the sliders are all set to generate at maximum impact.(basically the sliders through luck or judgement are set in their premium positions)

Let us get this straight then. What you are saying is that when a FM Gamer achieves the most accurate tactical settings, a mechanism activates that turns your tactics into an obsolete value causing it to fail? So the settings you implement are these maximum impact tactical settings? I am sorry to disagree with you there. The best tactical settings I have experienced are those that Arsene of Arsenal use, but you need the right player attributes to pull it off as High Closing Down needs players with very high stamina...