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

[Loversleaper]

I presume he means that you would get screenshots just like the ones you keep posting. Lots of chances for you with a small ratio of goals and few chances for the opposition with a large ratio of goals.

Whether you win the matches or not doesn't really matter. It's the ratio of chances to goals that you seem to take issue with.

Thank you for simplifying what I was trying to get accross. To misunderstand this cannot be due to misunderstanding...

[Hammer1000]

You know what, it's all a big joke. You say that there is a mechanism that turns your strikers into donkeys and opposition gk's into superkeepers, and this mechanism is activated when the Human User "out-shoots" the AI massively with "high impact" tactics. I have suggested a way to artificially put the ME in a situation where it will not be able to disregard the ammount of shots (game in and game out) we will inflict on AI teams, and all you can say is.... what?????

This speaks loud volumes. I don't even have to take the micheal out of you, you are capable of doing it to yourself...

You obviously have issues, so i'll leave you with them.

If you do want to answer my question do so at your own leisure.

[Jack Rudd]

In order for the run to come to an end, you will have to lose an individual match. The odds against winning or losing that individual match will remain the same or, in the case of improvements in your morale, etc, it will become steadily more likely that you will win it.

Yes, but this is not the relevant probability. The relevant probability is that of the winning streak's coming to an end some time, not that of its coming to an end in the next match. If the former probability is 1, then no counterweight mechanism will be needed.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Ok, I am an understanding human being, how would you interpret them then?

Maybe later. I'm at work now, and shouldn't really be posting on forums!

[Rupal]

The only place where this falls down is that wwfan uses tactic sets and changes them accordingly depending on what is happening in the game. This is the big main difference between his way of playing and Hammers.

So really, the only two people who could run any such test properly would be Hammer and wwfan.

Of course, I totally agree that it would be by far the best thing if wwfan and Hammer1000 did the test - there would be no doubt at all that way.

[Loversleaper]

You obviously have issues, so i'll leave you with them.

If you do want to answer my question do so at your own leisure.

I have issues? You come on to the forums with all of this, I didn't. I am just tying to get to the bottem of what you have been posting for three whole years, and you might hold this against me but nonetheless, I have decided to take the bull by the horns. Judging by the contradictions and the lack of any common sense, leads me to believe that some are just here to be disruptive and this is why I am going in hard on your thread. Try to cast a bad light on me, I don't care, but I know when people read through the thread that true colors will appear. So degrade me, I can take it...

[TeeWee]

Sorry, but that is the same sort of fallacy as suggests that because you have tossed a coin and it has come down 15 times heads in a row it is bound to come down tails next time or very soon. Casinos have made a fortune over exactly this mistake. In reality, the chance for each throw remains 50:50, of course.

If your morale, team gelling, squad harmony etc, etc get better with each match then the odds become steadily better that you will win the longer you go on. So that's why I'm suggesting that there may be a counterweight, to stop this happening.

You're misrepresenting my case. I'm not saying that the odds of winning suddenly decreases because of the winning streak (which is what you're describing and indeed is a fallacy), but that a long streak is unlikely anyway. Even with good win-odds, and surely 70% is already good for a match, it's unlikely to get a 10 win streak.

Experiment:

Roll a die. You win on all rolls except 6. This is about 83% chance of winning. For each individual roll, the chance is very good and I wouldn't bet against you. But the chance that you'll get a 10-win streak? I'd take that bet (that's about 16% chance that you'll win). I'm not saying that once you get to 9 wins, your chance of rolling a 1-5 magically decreases to 16% (which is the fallacy you describe). Given a 9 win streak, a 10 win streak is very likely and I wouldn't bet against it. But turning a 9 win streak into a 19 win streak? There's a bet I'd take again.

That's the difference: if you have a 7 win streak and lose a game in the coming 10 matches, you're claiming it's evidence that a leveller is at work. I'll see it as the odds coming through. As long as the odds don't turn into a certain 100%, given enough samples, it's bound to occur somewhere sometime. And matches are nowhere near as certain as those 100%. So given the amount of games in a season, breaking a streak (win or lose) is almost assured to happen. That's why long streaks are rare and noticeable No need for a leveller to induce a loss: just let the odds and large numbers work for you.

Experiment within FM context:

Build the longest streak, reloading is allowed. That is, every time you fail to extend the streak, reload and try again. If the leveller exists, over the course of time, you'll need more and more reloads until (presumably after a ridiculously large winning streak of e.g. 200+) it will become nigh on impossible to extend it even with reloading the match. If the leveller doesn't exist, than the amount of reloads necessary will not increase and probably even decrease over time as morale and gelling increases. But you'll see that to get a season's worth of a winning streak will probably require a few reloads, no matter how good your team gets.

[Rupal]

Yes, but this is not the relevant probability. The relevant probability is that of the winning streak's coming to an end some time, not that of its coming to an end in the next match. If the former probability is 1, then no counterweight mechanism will be needed.

The relevant probability, surely, is the likelihood of the sequence coming to an end at any particular point in time. A sequence is made up of a series of matches. For any and all members of that series the odds of winning and losing will remain exactly the same. That is, it is no more likely that you will lose on the 10th match than you will on the 11th or the 15th or on any other occasion that you choose.

[Jack Rudd]

Hmmm, let's see. As I see it:

The probability of the sequence's finishing on the nth match goes down as n increases, because the probability that it will already have finished mounts up.

The probability of the sequence's finishing on the nth match if it has already reached the n-1th match goes down as n increases, because of the morale factor.

The probability of the sequence's finishing by the nth match goes up as n increases, because again, the number of ways it could have finished already mounts up.

[Hammer1000]

I have issues? You come on to the forums with all of this, I didn't. I am just tying to get to the bottem of what you have been posting for three whole years, and you might hold this against me but nonetheless, I have decided to take the bull by the horns. Judging by the contradictions and the lack of any common sense, leads me to believe that some are just here to be disruptive and this is why I am going in hard on your thread. Try to cast a bad light on me, I don't care, but I know when people read through the thread that true colors will appear. So degrade me, I can take it...

I am not trying to degrade anyone, neither do i wish to fall out with anyone.

You keep assuring everyone that your calm and even that you find this thread funny, but your posts would suggest your agitated, i'm sure i'm not the only one who thinks so?

I was just asking you at what point would you be satisfied that something was indeed wrong? would you expect me not to win the league easily during this test? i just dont see the point of taking time out to do such a test and post my results, only for you to then say "i think you cheated" or something else that would have made the whole thing pointless?

[Rupal]

You're misrepresenting my case. I'm not saying that the odds of winning suddenly decreases because of the winning streak (which is what you're describing and indeed is a fallacy), but that a long streak is unlikely anyway. Even with good win-odds, and surely 70% is already good for a match, it's unlikely to get a 10 win streak.

Experiment:

Roll a die. You win on all rolls except 6. This is about 83% chance of winning. For each individual roll, the chance is very good and I wouldn't bet against you. But the chance that you'll get a 10-win streak? I'd take that bet (that's about 16% chance that you'll win). I'm not saying that once you get to 9 wins, your chance of rolling a 1-5 magically decreases to 16% (which is the fallacy you describe). Given a 9 win streak, a 10 win streak is very likely and I wouldn't bet against it. But turning a 9 win streak into a 19 win streak? There's a bet I'd take again.

That's the difference: if you have a 7 win streak and lose a game in the coming 10 matches, you're claiming it's evidence that a leveller is at work. I'll see it as the odds coming through. As long as the odds don't turn into a certain 100%, given enough samples, it's bound to occur somewhere sometime. And matches are nowhere near as certain as those 100%. So given the amount of games in a season, breaking a streak (win or lose) is almost assured to happen. That's why long streaks are rare and noticeable No need for a leveller to induce a loss: just let the odds and large numbers work for you.

Experiment within FM context:

Build the longest streak, reloading is allowed. That is, every time you fail to extend the streak, reload and try again. If the leveller exists, over the course of time, you'll need more and more reloads until (presumably after a ridiculously large winning streak of e.g. 200+) it will become nigh on impossible to extend it even with reloading the match. If the leveller doesn't exist, than the amount of reloads necessary will not increase and probably even decrease over time as morale and gelling increases. But you'll see that to get a season's worth of a winning streak will probably require a few reloads, no matter how good your team gets.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

I think something like your FM experiment has been encountered by various people, in fact. I remember someone claiming that his friend tried to win a game with Liverpool where the odds should have been in his favour for over three hours without being able to do so. If I remember correctly, he said that this showed that matches were 'fixed'. A lot of people thought he was crazy to try this, of course (and I reckon they were right, too!).

[Rupal]

Hmmm, let's see. As I see it:

The probability of the sequence's finishing on the nth match goes down as n increases, because the probability that it will already have finished mounts up.

The probability of the sequence's finishing on the nth match if it has already reached the n-1th match goes down as n increases, because of the morale factor.

The probability of the sequence's finishing by the nth match goes up as n increases, because again, the number of ways it could have finished already mounts up.

Well, I am happy to bow to your superior mathematical knowledge . In any case, TeeWee said that I had misunderstood the point he was making so that's my fault.

[RT--]

Hammer: any views on my #699?

Or are you looking up the match stats just to check I'm not making it up?

[fm_macuser]

I was just asking you at what point would you be satisfied that something was indeed wrong? would you expect me not to win the league easily during this test? i just dont see the point of taking time out to do such a test and post my results, only for you to then say "i think you cheated" or something else that would have made the whole thing pointless?

Again Hammer, I presume he means that you would get screenshots just like the ones you keep posting. Lots of chances for you with a small ratio of goals and few chances for the opposition with a large ratio of goals.

Whether you win the matches or the league or not doesn't really matter. It's the ratio of chances to goals that you seem to take issue with.

[Hammer1000]

Hammer: any views on my #699?

Or are you looking up the match stats just to check I'm not making it up?

I actually meant to reply to this, but got sidetracked.

Funnily enough, the stats i've seen for Man Utd last two games have shown them to have had the same amount of sot's than the opposition, so i'm not convinced.

Anyway, i'm sure if you look back at those stats you will see that the difference in stats in almost all cases will be astronomical.

For instance, Chelsea v Hull the other week, Chelsea had just 3 shots on target to Hulls 1, which is hardly the kind of thing your likely to see in FM is it?

I cant help but feel i'm missing a bigger point to make here? one which i've made in the past, but am overlooking on this occassion, i'll post it later if it clicks.

[Rupal]

Just as a matter of interest, Hammer, I honestly can't remember if you said that you altered tactics in matches or not, without reading through about 715 posts! Do you tweak when things don't seem to be going so well?

[Hammer1000]

Again Hammer, I presume he means that you would get screenshots just like the ones you keep posting. Lots of chances for you with a small ratio of goals and few chances for the opposition with a large ratio of goals.

Whether you win the matches or the league or not doesn't really matter. It's the ratio of chances to goals that you seem to take issue with.

OK thanks, the obvious issue here then would be just how good the players would be?

If it was the Man Utd squad, i would imagine you would manage to win every game and score a lot of goals, such would be the difference in player quality.

Hard to say what to expect in terms of my theory as the game is not coded to cope with such a gulf in player quality match after match in a league set up?

[Hammer1000]

Just as a matter of interest, Hammer, I honestly can't remember if you said that you altered tactics in matches or not, without reading through about 715 posts! Do you tweak when things don't seem to be going so well?

No, if i am outplayed i can accept it, its more realistic this way at least.

It does'nt happen much though.

Its generally a case of my players missing a bagful of sitters, whilst the opposition bag a 40 yarder, or something along those lines?

[Rupal]

OK thanks, the obvious issue here then would be just how good the players would be?

If it was the Man Utd squad, i would imagine you would manage to win every game and score a lot of goals, such would be the difference in player quality.

I said what amounted to exactly the same thing to him (Loversleaper) earlier.

[RT--]

I actually meant to reply to this, but got sidetracked.

Funnily enough, the stats i've seen for Man Utd last two games have shown them to have had the same amount of sot's than the opposition, so i'm not convinced.

Anyway, i'm sure if you look back at those stats you will see that the difference in stats in almost all cases will be astronomical.

For instance, Chelsea v Hull the other week, Chelsea had just 3 shots on target to Hulls 1, which is hardly the kind of thing your likely to see in FM is it?

I cant help but feel i'm missing a bigger point to make here? one which i've made in the past, but am overlooking on this occassion, i'll post it later if it clicks.

The difference in stats will almost always be astronomical? Do you mean the opposite?

The Chelsea-Hull game you referred to - Chelsea had 3 shots on target, but 24 shots altogether and 63% of the posession - that sounds like sometihng not too dissimilair to some of the screenshots you've posted up before now Against Newcastle, 0-0, they had 33 shots on goal (9 on target). Against West Ham, 1-1 (I'm sure you remember!) they had 31 shots on goal (9 on target) to West Ham's 6 (2 on target).

I've posted some of the stats from Liverpool's draws on a thread before, and they're similarly lop-sided. Same for Manchester United.

My point is, when top teams lose or draw with sides that aren't right up there with them, they invariably totally dominate the game in terms of basic match stats. It happens. They have off days, and the opposition sometimes score despite only creating one or two chances.

Of course, there's a reason it happens to a team like Liverpool more often than it happens to Manchester United. We could argue that it's because United have better players, are set up better tactically to deal with defensive teams, are more motivated by their manager's team-talks, or whatever. It's not because there's a balancing effect against Liverpool, is it?

[RT--]

Funnily enough, the stats i've seen for Man Utd last two games have shown them to have had the same amount of sot's than the opposition, so i'm not convinced.

Manchester United absolutely battered Fulham in their last but one game, so I can't imagine that's true.

[Hammer1000]

The difference in stats will almost always be astronomical? Do you mean the opposite?

I meant between RL and FM mate.

The Chelsea-Hull game you referred to - Chelsea had 3 shots on target, but 24 shots altogether and 63% of the posession - that sounds like sometihng not too dissimilair to some of the screenshots you've posted up before now Against Newcastle, 0-0, they had 33 shots on goal (9 on target). Against West Ham, 1-1 (I'm sure you remember!) they had 31 shots on goal (9 on target) to West Ham's 6 (2 on target).

I've posted some of the stats from Liverpool's draws on a thread before, and they're similarly lop-sided. Same for Manchester United.

My point is, when top teams lose or draw with sides that aren't right up there with them, they invariably totally dominate the game in terms of basic match stats. It happens. They have off days, and the opposition sometimes score despite only creating one or two chances.

Very different to FM, in FM mediocre players regularly take on and beat a whole midfield and back four before scoring and long shots have a massively better chance of hitting the back of the net in FM.

IRL when the likes of Chelsea/Liverpool/Man Utd are having so many shots off target, its because they are creating a distinct lack of CCC's and most of these efforts can be descibed as "speculative" to say the least.

This is poorly represented in FM as i've explained above and many times before, the game is in fact still far to easy, when somebody inevitably comes across the premium slider settings the realism is lost.

[Loversleaper]

OK thanks, the obvious issue here then would be just how good the players would be?

If it was the Man Utd squad, i would imagine you would manage to win every game and score a lot of goals, such would be the difference in player quality.

Hard to say what to expect in terms of my theory as the game is not coded to cope with such a gulf in player quality match after match in a league set up?

Then what happened to the coded program theory then, you honestly think that a "levelling" mechanism can distinguish between what you are saying? This is my big problem with the assumption that when (and I am quoting you here) a Human User creates a high impact tactic (such as yours) and massively "out-shoots" the opponent then this "levelling" mechanism activates. It more seams as though the ME is biased towards you in a personal manner, which is simply not feasable. The feasable solution is that you need to change your ideology (tactically) or we will forever hear this shallow theory.

Hammer1000, you know as well as me we have lot's of people come here to vent their frustrations, but you should be larger than that. You have been around for a good ammount of years, and the way you have presented your theories borderlines a conjuration of a mocking behavior towards some of the members that have put an incredible ammount of energy into helping people, which is incredibly unfair. If you want to set out in 'prooving' your ideologies you could do it in many constructive ways, but reading page one suggest that you just want to be destructive which, as you should see by now, isn't helping your case at all. They way you are presenting your case is that you want to bring together all the boo-boys to gang up and attack all of the fan-boys (us against them).

I wish it were different but I simply can't see anything else constructive here. You should know by now that the AI plays differently from game to game (attacking or defending) and you have the knowledge to help people steer away from the tactics that cause this "random effect" yet you choose not to. It really makes one wonder why...

[Hammer1000]

Then what happened to the coded program theory then, you honestly think that a "levelling" mechanism can distinguish between what you are saying? This is my big problem with the assumption that when (and I am quoting you here) a Human User creates a high impact tactic (such as yours) and massively "out-shoots" the opponent then this "levelling" mechanism activates. It more seams as though the ME is biased towards you in a personal manner, which is simply not feasable. The feasable solution is that you need to change your ideology (tactically) or we will forever hear this shallow theory.

Hammer1000, you know as well as me we have lot's of people come here to vent their frustrations, but you should be larger than that. You have been around for a good ammount of years, and the way you have presented your theories borderlines a conjuration of a mocking behavior towards some of the members that have put an incredible ammount of energy into helping people, which is incredibly unfair. If you want to set out in 'prooving' your ideologies you could do it in many constructive ways, but reading page one suggest that you just want to be destructive which, as you should see by now, isn't helping your case at all. They way you are presenting your case is that you want to bring together all the boo-boys to gang up and attack all of the fan-boys (us against them).

I wish it were different but I simply can't see anything else constructive here. You should know by now that the AI plays differently from game to game (attacking or defending) and you have the knowledge to help people steer away from the tactics that cause this "random effect" yet you choose not to. It really makes one wonder why...

No point replying to you mate, you appear unwilling to consider anything that is'nt black and white?

There are many other things to take into consideration here, but you expect 2+2 to always add up to 4, which is not possible.

I dont mind you believeing that you have pulled my theory to pieces, nobody else appears to think you have done so, so carry on and good luck to you!

[wwfan]

The thing is, Garry, the burden of proof is on you, not us. Reasons:

1: The head ME programmer has stated there is no levelling mechanism

2: Anyone who has ever been involved with Beta testing the ME would confirm that as the processes involved would make the existence of a levelling mechanism unfeasible

3: All the better tactical thinkers state the issues you complain about do not happen to them

4: The only 'endorsed' guide to FM tactics states you need to change tactics during a game

5: Teams in real life change approaches for and during each game. The manager does not simply walk away after kick off and watch the match back on video later

6: Real life match statistics indicate that good teams regularly fail to score despite creating lots of chances, a claim you 'subjectively' dismiss via relative quality of chance (so here you are allowed to be subjective, whereas I'm not?)

7: An example match you uploaded indicates your tactic is far from being as statistically dominant as you claimed

8: You refuse to make the changes to your tactic that have been suggested would 'solve' the issue you are facing

9: You are not the only person who overachieves and others that do do not suffer the issues you claim will always happen to smaller teams doing too well

[knap]

The 1st game levelling mechanism is "Park the Bus"

Tested Chelsea v "Park the Bus" Bolton

Hammers tactic W3 D2

Unlock tactic W4 D1

With the Chelsea squad the tactic choice is easy, but with a less talented squad there is a risk attached to using an unlock tactic which would then tend to even out results.

There may be a small advantage to picking the right specific tactic but also a chance of a lost game.

[wwfan]

The 1st game levelling mechanism is "Park the Bus"

Tested Chelsea v "Park the Bus" Bolton

Hammers tactic W3 D2

Unlock tactic W4 D1

With the Chelsea squad the tactic choice is easy, but with a less talented squad there is a risk attached to using an unlock tactic which would then tend to even out results.

There may be a small advantage to picking the right specific tactic but also a chance of a lost game.

Which is tactical. Which is the point.

[Crpls]

All I am saying is that I think it is possible that a mechanism may be in place to prevent teams becoming virtually unbeatable.

Sure, it's possible. If SI wanted to program it that way. By the same token, it's entirely possible that there could be a mechanism that makes the human user lose every game 10-0. If SI wanted to program it that way. They've done neither and have said as such.

You can go look at the tactics forum and find plenty of people who have created "virtually unbeatable" clubs.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

1: The head ME programmer has stated there is no levelling mechanism

Do you happen to have a link to the quote you're referring to, by any chance? Thanks.

[wwfan]

Do you happen to have a link to the quote you're referring to, by any chance? Thanks.

No, but he's said it quite a few times when this type of thread has come up in the past.

[Crpls]

At some point in this thread, there's a quote about the match engine and such from Paul C.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

At some point in this thread, there's a quote about the match engine and such from Paul C.

This was the only one I found:

"The match results are not pre-determined. And we have no artificial limits on any scoreline. All we have done is tune things so that the stats over 100's of game match up as close as possible to the stats we have for real life football."

That, to me, is not really the same as saying "There is no levelling mechanism".

6: Real life match statistics indicate that good teams regularly fail to score despite creating lots of chances,

Could it not follow then, that the FM match engine attempts to simulate that, somehow?

I don't know if you read my post from earlier...

However, what Rupal has been describing (recently at least) is a much more subtle and gradual effect that applies to all teams (AI + Human) and all tactics, but is more noticeable in some types of tactics than others perhaps. This "mechanism" behaves more like a "spring", as your morale etc. keeps on increasing throughout winning streaks, so the spring is stretched tighter and tighter and pulls more and more in the opposite direction. Thus not making it impossible to win, but just more difficult, meaning that sooner or later your winning streak will eventually come to an end.

What I meant to add, and sadly forgot, was that if something like that existed, then it might also be the case that changing tactics and adapting closely to your opposition from game-to-game, helps "loosen the spring" and keeps your winning streak going. Whereas maybe if you rigidly stick to the same tactic, however successful it may appear to be statistically, eventually the game is going to "find you out" and punish you. As I said before, not in a way that it suddenly makes it impossible for you to win, but it just gets progressively slightly more difficult and requires you to take extra care to compensate.

Would you agree that something like that is possible? Nothing that I have described there can be directly contradicted by Paul's quote at the top, I don't believe. And it would explain why Hammer experiences the problems he does by keeping with the same tactic, and why you and others do not suffer from these type of "unlucky" matches to the same extent.

Maybe I'm just looking for something that suggests both "camps" are actually right - even just a little bit. But then again maybe it really is just Hammer's tactics and nothing more.

Either way, maybe it's time to stop digging. At the end of the day, AI is all smoke and mirrors, and it's the illusion that matters - not the tricks behind it.

[Ched]

That, to me, is not really the same as saying "There is no levelling mechanism".

And there was me thinking "we have no artificial limits on any scoreline" was fairly self explanatory...

[Ched]

Pithyness aside - i use only a single tactic and do not experience the phenomena that hammer experiences - which sort of rules out the "loosened spring" theory.

[Loversleaper]

I dont mind you believeing that you have pulled my theory to pieces, so carry on and good luck to you!

Ah, come on, my friend, no need to give me any of the credit...you did it all on your own. I would like to say good luck to you too and I hope there are no hard feelings...

[wwfan]

It's amazing the knots people are tying themselves in to explain such simple phenomena.

• You win matches because you are using a suitable tactic, have properly motivated your players and/or have a strong enough team, or a combination of the above
  
• You lose matches because you are using an unsuitable tactic, have failed to properly motivate your players and/or don't have a strong enough team, or a combination of the above
  

The only reason we are having this whole debate is because Hammer has subjectively decided he didn't deserve to lose certain matches as he had more shots on goal than the opposition and the goals against him were unfair. He is trying to justify this by claiming his tactic has the most 'perfect slider' combination, despite blatant pkm/statistical evidence to the contrary, and he can thus only lose because of a hypothetical levelling mechanism which handicaps his tactic. In order for this to be the case, we have to accept that his exact arrangement of sliders overpowers all AI variants, which would have a statistical likelihood of roughly 1 in 2,771,266,400,000. In addition to this, he has done it for three consecutive FMs with different slider combinations, which is a 1 in 8,314,099,200,000 chance. Even if we allow for a hypothetical range of perfect slider settings, it is still staggeringly unlikely. We also have to accept that although SI don't know what this perfect range is, the AI will know it when it sees it and jump into action.

One thing we also have to consider is that, in the matches he's complaining about, he is hardly super-dominant. He generally has a few more shots, but, as we've seen, he certainly doesn't dominate across the board. Why, then, for pity's sake, is the onus of proof on those who say it is tactical. If someone is positing a theory that has a one in a thousand billion chance of being correct, why are there people claiming that we must disprove it in order to satisfy their lust for empirical objectivity. I'm all for empirical proof, but only when you have two theories that have some degree of equal weight.

I posit that when I lose matches it is because I have done something wrong, tactically, motivationally or in choosing the team I selected, which, given human imperfection, is pretty much a 1 in 1 chance. We can add a dose of luck allowing me to lose some matches when my decisions were good and to win some when they were flawed, but we can expect this to roughly even out over time and thus not upset the overall result.

Garry posits that when he loses matches it is because the AI recognises his 'perfect' or 'close to perfect' slider combinations and launches its handicapping mechanism. Given that hitting on a 'perfect' slider combination weighs in at roughly 1 in a couple of thousand billion, or perhaps 1 in 55,000,000,000 if we allow for a range of fifty slider errors, why are we even discussing this?

Personally, it's because I like Garry. I want him to see the errors of his conceptions, shift his mentality, and learn to enjoy FM again. What I don't understand is why people with an obvious grounding in empirical methodology are trying to make me prove anything. There is no way Garry's theory, as he is currently positing it, can be true. No way at all.

[pauly1616]

Hammer- in all seriousness, don't worry about it. Let's forget for a moment that playing FM is a near total waste of time, and realise that on top of that that this version is simply screwed beyond recognition. So many of my friends who were previously successful with the game are unable in this version, and those who were unsuccessful are now dominating:> in multiplay i'm talking here.

It's almost as if things which were previously considered errors are now working and logic is tickling the ribs of the broken match engine. to win, previously successful players have had to break down their own logic. Which I'm unable to do. (I'm never going to ask my wingbacks to press or my central midfielder to cross in a formation designed for him to stay central just because it works)

those of us who don't use downloads have all tried countless tweakings, and probably mostly either come to one of three conclusions:

a) that the ME is bugged

b) that the tactical instructions/sliders are not representative of what they actually do in this version

c) that the ME is responding to things I would never think of trying, because I would think of them as illogical/unrealistic and or tactical errors.

I say this primarily because of play in multiplay. Playing with a regular group, we've found that people who were previously successful with the game have been totally unable in this version, and the main reason for that is the.. not "overcomplication" of the slider settings needed.. but just the fact that they don't make sense anymore in footballing terms. There is no reason why world class players should get consistent 5's playing simply, with mixed instructions and a simple mentality just because you haven't hit on some absurdly finite group of slider systems.

[wades209a]

I agree with this thread. happens to me all the time. and although yes it happens every now and then in real life dominating games week in week out and losing is not realistic! Def a prob i hope is fixed in the next patch. but i remember this problem with 08 aswell.

[Loversleaper]

... just because you haven't hit on some absurdly finite group of slider systems.

It's too bad you haven't been following the thread. Hammer does have these settings and he probably could send them to you, all you would have to do is ask...

(ps:couldn't resist)

[wwfan]

So, we can conclude:

1: Hammer can't win certain games because he has found the perfect slider combination

2: pauly1616 can't win certain games because he hasn't found the perfect slider combination

3: Ched can win these games because his slider combinations fall into the interesting third category of 'not too good to kick in the levelling mechanism but not too bad so he loses through tactical inadequacy'.

4: I can win because I trick the AI out of its initialising of the levelling mechanism by sneakily changing my tactic for each game, such as playing more defensively away to Man Utd than I would at home to West Brom. This also stops the AI from working out my tactics so it can play an optimised super-tactic to counter my game plan, which it would do after roughly 10 games.

5: Only shots count when it comes to analysing a match to see whether the result was fair or not. Other stats, such as key passes, can be ignored, despite them indicating how many times your defence was stretched.

6: My analysis of any graphical representation of a goal is highly subjective, whereas Hammer can objectively decide whether a goal was unfair or not, because average players with average attributes should not be able to dribble through his perfect tactical settings, nor ever score from range.

7: Likewise, because CCCs are the most important stat and not relative to or affected by their position on the pitch, nor the actions of opposing players, we should use them as an absolute guide to how good any tactic is. Simply, whever team has the most CCCs should always win.

Anything I've missed? I just want to be clear on how this levelling mechanism/perfect slider combo theory breaks down.

[pauly1616]

or just that the match engine is ****ed buddy!

How can you explain simple settings scoring 5's for world class players? The ME is just ridiculously over-sensitive at best, at worst.. it's totally over-complicated itself into being broken.

and no, you couldn't conclude that, because If i ask my CM's in a 352 to cross wildly they jump up 2 points in rating. Basically I just have to make my 352 a 442 and all works well! no more 5's for Aquilani... It's brokey broke broken. It's funny that: with the same mentality/creative freedom/tackling/pressing, that changing a player with 20 for long shots, 12 for dribbling and 12 for crossing, FROM mixed run with ball and cross, and Often long shots, In Central Midfield, to run with ball often, cross often, and shoot mixed, not only pushes his rating 2 points higher per match, but it also gets him more shots on target.

in summary- if you want this car to turn left, push the wheel right.

[Jack Rudd]

Ah. Did nobody tell you this car was actually a ship?

[wwfan]

A couple of questions about this player:

1: Is he playing an attacking role or a supporting role within the tactical holistic (i.e what are his forward run and mentality settings)?

2: Does he have a free role?

[pauly1616]

Should it matter? This is Aquilani (his PA is in the top 10 CM's), playing flat Central Midfield in a 352. How can he get consisteny 5's on simple settings playing naturally and 7.6's when asked to do things that he is not good at, and which make no sense?

It's:

De Silvestri........................................Guardado.

..............Aquilani............De Rossi......................

...........................Diego...................................

..............Bendtner...........Aguero.....................

De Rossi is the defensive player, 6/20 mentality-ish, Aquilani is on about 10, Diego on about 14. If I recall correctly... Anyhow- i've tried 400,000 different things. Closer mentalities, different forward runs... different passing, closing down, surrounding players different. The ONLY thing that works is asking him to run with the ball and cross often. No free role, supporting. forward runs mixed in neutral tactic often in attacking.

[wwfan]

To start with I suggest you start reading some ideas on mentality. That will sort your immediate problems out. TT&F (stickied in the tactical forum) would be the ideal starting point.

Forward runs, mentality and free role matter enormously, because they determine the positions the player is going to get into during the game. If you are pushing your player forward (FWRs Often) then he is regularly going to be ahead of the ball. Thus, with Long Shots Often, he will have to turn and shoot, which means shots will be snatched and hurried. However, RWB and Cross will be more useful as he is commonly get himself into attacking positions high up the pitch.

If you want him to make better use of his Long Shooting, you have to ensure he is regularly in positions from which he has time to pick his shot, thus behind the ball. Setting a high mentlaity and FWRs Often will stop that from happening. Likewise, assigning him a free role will make him drift around, which will take him away from the deeper central positions you want him to be in when the ball drops/is played there.

Logical enough?

[pauly1616]

his mentality is 10 and forward runs are mixed..... what more can I do?

[wwfan]

his mentality is 10 and forward runs are mixed..... what more can I do?

Get your mentality system right by reading TT&F. From your description, that looks like your main problem, rather than the FWRs.

[pauly1616]

only if you can manage to say:

needing such specific settings to get a world class midfielder off consistent 5's is the symptom of a bizarre and unusual ME;)

[wwfan]

Unfairly low MC ratings are a known issue of 9.2.0, but your specific case isn't helped by having poorish mentality settings.

Good enough?

[pauly1616]

Unfairly low MC ratings are a known issue of 9.2.0, but your specific case isn't helped by having poorish mentality settings.

Good enough?

lol hehe.. not much of a compromise but ok. thanks for your suggestions

i've read your guide by the way.. doesn't include specific instructions for a 352, most of the settings/suggestions are for Full Backs but have generally applied principles you've set out there..

Again.. I wouldn't really suggest that players who get a lot of shots on from central midfield are those "on lower mentalities"... Lampard, Gerrard etc. etc. So no.. I wouldn't say it's logical...

It's so annoying, we shouldn't have to read your guide (not to say it's not good) to get World Class players across the board to play Average... In summary: It's not me, it's the game