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

[Hammer1000]

and there's the whole problem - you're asking a question and already professing to know what the answer isn't, and when anyone claims otherwise you spit the dummy.

No dummy spitting here fella, please dont project your own issues onto me.

[Ched]

No dummy spitting here fella, please dont project your own issues onto me.

and there you go again, how old are you ffs?

[Cleon]

Cut it out please

[Surferosa]

Thats the thing, its only more complex in appearance, its still the same old game with a little pointless dressing.

Its not harder either, it just takes a little longer to find the right slider settings and such.

And as for the flawed ME, no offence, but if you dont see it then you are probably the only one?

None taken.

When I said flawed, I meant in terms of what you are describing (a ME cheat). Saying its flawless would be pretty daft (especially the bionic goalkeeper leaps that happen ) So, no I dont think Im alone in thinking the ME cheat is a interesting yet false consirpacy-theory.

Anyways, not quite sure how you dont think its got more complex. More sliders, player & press interaction, more stats.. pretty hard to argue that the game hasnt increased in complexity over time (unless you are just referring to recent history- but I thought you had played longer than that).

If you want a trip down memory lane- go download CM 01/02 for free from the championship manager website. You'll play it for about an hour and it will get rid of those rose tinted spectacles your wearing (well, it did for me anyhow). Maybe its what you need- something unchallenging to chill with before you come back refreshed for the new patch

[Ched]

Cut it out please

Would it not be better if this thread was just closed? It's not going anywhere anytime soon. wwfans tried and if he can't get through then why don't you just close the thread?

[Hammer1000]

None taken.

When I said flawed, I meant in terms of what you are describing (a ME cheat). Saying its flawless would be pretty daft (especially the bionic goalkeeper leaps that happen ) So, no I dont think Im alone in thinking the ME cheat is a interesting yet false consirpacy-theory.

Anyways, not quite sure how you dont think its got more complex. More sliders, player & press interaction, more stats.. pretty hard to argue that the game hasnt increased in complexity over time (unless you are just referring to recent history- but I thought you had played longer than that).

If you want a trip down memory lane- go download CM 01/02 for free from the championship manager website. You'll play it for about an hour and it will get rid of those rose tinted spectacles your wearing (well, it did for me anyhow). Maybe its what you need- something unchallenging to chill with before you come back refreshed for the new patch

I play FM09 like i played CM 01/02 tbh, i'd rather the game be more in depth, but like i said all the extras are basically decoration which make little impact on the game as a whole.

I still have my boxed CM 01/02 game as it happens.

I have my fingers crossed that the 9.03 patch will make the game more playable, but i've had my fingers burnt enough to know that i'm probably grasping at straws.

Ched - Do everyone a favour will you.

[Crpls]

(especially the bionic goalkeeper leaps that happen )

That's more of a problem with the display of a generated result in the match engine than a problem with the match engine itself.

For all the talk about how great 01/02 was, imagine if you linked that match engine to a 3D (or even just 2D) display. I imagine the results would be even more maddening than people are feeling towards 09.

[wwfan]

That's a bit unfair mate. It's obviously in response to my earlier post, in which I attempted to bring both parties together just a little by agreeing with wwfan that Garry needs to change his tactics in order to overcome this perceived problem of his, while at the same time keeping an open mind about the possibility of additional outside-influences that could have some increasingly ever-so-slight adverse affect on the team, but could maybe be counteracted by tweaking tactics appropriately.

Sorry, I didn't mean to have a go at you specifically, rather deconstruct the complexity of the levelling mechanism theory as a whole to show that it is simply smoke and mirrors. You just got caught in the crossfire.

For what it is worth, it is a total myth that the AI can work out your tactic. It simply reacts to how well you are doing generally. The better you are doing, the more conservative the AI's starting tactic and overall match strategy (i.e. it will stay defensive until late in the game if only losing by a slight margin), the worse you are doing the more aggressive the AI will be. Any suggestion that it can work out your tactic adds to the confusion, rather than help sort it out.

Before we have the normal subjective opinion argument, this is something I know, not think.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Sorry, I didn't mean to have a go at you specifically, rather deconstruct the complexity of the levelling mechanism theory as a whole to show that it is simply smoke and mirrors. You just got caught in the crossfire.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

For what it is worth, it is a total myth that the AI can work out your tactic. ...(snip) ... Any suggestion that it can work out your tactic adds to the confusion, rather than help sort it out.

Absolutely. I'm 100% with you on that score.

But by the same token, that's why I personally wouldn't necessarily rule out any sort of added functionality in the code that attempts to give the impression of such a thing happening. After all, as we both know, in real life if a team played exactly the same tactics week-in-week-out, opposing managers would soon suss them out. Whilst FM can't really do that, maybe in order to retain that overall balance of realism, it has another discrete way of punishing you for your predictability...

Gahhh, I have to stop myself from saying anymore here. ... For what it's worth, I'm not a conspiracy-theorist - honestly! But I do have quite a lot of experience programming AI in computer games. As such I know a lot about the sort of "mechanisms" that go on behind the scenes in order to achieve a believable end-result. And I also know that if the general public got wind of any of it, the angry mob would find some reason to cry "zOMG! CHEAT!" and be out in full-force with torches and pitchforks!

So, while I find threads like this interesting, I don't really want to keep digging further. However SI achieve their statistically-realistic results over hundreds/thousands of matches, whether it be by fair means or foul, it's better to immerse yourselves in the fantasy, rather than to shatter the illusion.

[r0x0r]

Why do you think that after every release or patch that your old tactics dont work? the simple answer is that people work out the best slider settings and the game once again becomes to easy, thus, changes must be made which will again have people trying to work out what does what until yet again they hit upon the best settings.

Oddly enough, my tactics don't tend to change too much version to version. I set them up depending on how i conceptualise the team playing, then tweak to get it right. There's a whole ton of things I haven't ever tested, millions of combinations I'd never end up anywhere near, as they don't suit how I like my football played.

And the tweaks needed? Well, sure the match engine is evolving. As such a few settings need tweaking to get the players to do what I want them to do. If they do that, I'll play well and get decent results under any modern match engine.

[wwfan]

@ Squirmy Rooter: I agree that it could be done, but as Paul says it isn't, and as, thus far, all of the evidence stands in opposition, then I firmly believe it isn't part of FM code.

It seems that Garry is adding yet another proviso to his theory:

• If my team isn't good enough to win the league, I won't win the league, but unfairly because my tactic is so good.
  
• When my team is good enough to win the league, then I'll win the league, because the AI won't decide I shouldn't.
  

Given Occam's Razor, then the tactical or AI deciding part of the theory is unecessary and thus almost certain to be wrong. The base argument should be:

• If my team isn't good enough to win the league, I won't win the league
  
• When my team is good enough to win the league, then I'll win the league
  

We can add certain provisos:

• It is possible to win the league with a substandard squad via tactical excellence, but unlikley with less than excellent tactics
  
• It is very difficult to win the league even with a good enough team if your tactics are substandard
  
• As long as the tactics are at least adequate, then a good enough team can win the league
  

This allows for Garry's tactics to be better than the AI's, in that he can win the league with a top-six quality side, but not so good that he can do so with a mid-table one. Furthermore, all of these fit with every piece of evidence yet given and provide a much simpler and more logical theory than Garry's. I suggest we look at it dispassionately to see if there is any of it we can disagree with, in terms of real life or virtual football.

Or, we could still keep clinging absurdly on to the 1 in a few thousand billion chance that Garry has managed to discover the ME-busting tactical sets for the last three versions of FM and that SI, in anticipating this, have coded the game to react.

[r0x0r]

For what it is worth, it is a total myth that the AI can work out your tactic. It simply reacts to how well you are doing generally.

Actually, back in the day the game used to record which tactics worked well against you and which didn't, which eventually led to tactics being "cracked" if kept for too long. While this was moved away from when the AI became more intelligent and proactive rather than merely reactive, the idea has probably stuck in the community psych that a tactic will eventually be "cracked".

[Loversleaper]

Comedy genius coming from a man(i presume) that only seems to take in parts of peoples posts that suit his reply(around 10%)

Full of misquotes and childishness, yet you dare to consider I'M what is fundamentally wrong with society???

All i have done is poke a little harmless fun and if it did'nt bother you like you say, that would show in itself that that was indeed what it was.

The thing is Hammer, there is a difference between letting it effect me and me not letting you get away with it. I have not at any point made any comments that suggests that you have inferior intelligence or anything personal towards you in that sort of manner. All I have done is quote you and apparently it hasn't fallen well with you, isn't that ironic.

The problem here is that through the last years you have litterly laughed up in the face of everybody that has put any time into helping you understand the mechanism in the game. People have even taken time to take your tactics and test them so they can give some form of clarification, yet you time after time show these people disrespect and say "you love them" at the same time. I can't help but really wonder what you are all about, especially with the mocking attitude role you have decided to play.

There is a right way of prooving your case and there is a wrong way. wwfan has said himself that he also had problems with one of the older FM versions, yet we did not hear once from him anything in the lines of "Doesn't matter what people say, even PaulC, there is a conspiracy going on and nothing will convince me otherwise" and all those that don't agree must have "lack of intelligence". I am sorry, but I don't think this is going to help you out if you really want to make any positive influence on the game.

You have suggested that you are here to set me straight, forgive me for having to say this, but I am here to set you straight. Now there are many computer games that I either don't like, find too complex, others I just find boring and some I am just not good at (I have gotten over it all the same), but at no point what so ever did I go out to any of their forums and presented my case in the fashion you have, perposely seeking confrontations and mock the ones that are kind enough to try to help me understand (for years on end) as it would be incredibly embarressing...

[wwfan]

I'm very sorry about my flat earther comment. That was a low blow and I shouldn't have said it! Please forgive me.

I know I'm very irritating and I'm sorry about that too. All I want to do is to try to stop mistakes being made, honest. It just comes over as nagging I suppose. But it's not meant that way.

I understand your need for empirical evidence, but not why you are arguing for it here. You also seem to have started reading the thread as if it were about a direct comparison between my and Hammer's tactics. It isn't. What it is about is debating Hammer's theory, that it isn't his tactics that are the issue, as they are 'perfect' and the AI levels his performance in order to unfairly stop him running away with the league.

In order for that to be true, Hammer must have 'discovered' the magically perfect slider combination the AI can't cope with, forcing it into 'levelling' mode. He must also have done this for the previous three editions of FM, as he made the same arguments then.

This is an impossible claim. Given the number of sliders, slider notches and their potential combinations, to discover the prefect formula, you'd have to correctly balance the following:

Player Variables (to be multiplied by 11)

Mentality: 20 options

Creative Freedom: 20 options

Passing Style 20 options

Closing Down: 20 options

Tackling: 3 options

FWRs: 3 options

RWB: 3 options

Long Shots: 3 options

Through Balls: 3 options

Cross Ball: 3 options

Marking: 2 options

Tight Marking: 2 options

Free Role: 2 options

HUB: 2 options

Team Variables

Focus Passing: 5 options

Target Man Supply: 4 options

Use Target Man: 2 options

Use Playmaker: 2 options

Play Offside: 2 options

Counter Attack: 2 options

Width: 20 options

D-line: 20 options

Tempo: 20 options

Even before we add in further set piece routine variables, which would add many zeros to the total, that means finding a hypothetically perfect slider combination is a 1 in 26,276,659,200,000,000 chance. Hammer believes he has found it three times, a 1 in 78,829,997,760,000,000 chance. Even allowing for there to be a 1,000, or 10,000 or even 100,000 combination errors that still allow for a perfect slider range, it remains astronomically impossible. When put against a theory that, because humans are fallible, their decision making will be too, and thus it is largely their fault that they lose the games they do (which I believe would be given 1 in 1 odds by any bookie), there is no need for any empirical testing.

You are obviously an intelligent lady. I sincerely don't understand why you are continuing this quest for evidence when the competing theory is so far-fetched. Although, given all the vitriol the 'Theory of Evolution' attracts from those that believe in talking snakes and 900-year lifespans (notwithstanding how exactly Cain got married when there were only thee humans on the planet and the other two were his parents), I suppose I'm not surprised.

[Jack Rudd]

26,276,659,200,000,000 is a massive underestimate, actually. The Mentality, Creative Freedom, Passing Style and Closing Down options by themselves give you 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities.

[wwfan]

Maths was never my strong point. How do you get to that figure?

[joepublic]

Probability isn't my strong point but I think it's 20 raised to the power of the number of variables so 20 to the power 44.

Edit: Actually Jack you've underestimated it as well

It's actually 1,759,218,604,441,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities.

I assume you did it in your head and forgot the 16^11 part or something like that?

[wwfan]

Either way, we'd agree it was a statistical improbability of some scale

[Rashidi]

A long time ago in SI Land there was a tactic that came along and hammered every team from here to kingdom come. As time passed, the King of SI Land decided that henceforth all teams should be given personalities that would allow them to adapt to different opponents, the age of the one ring that ruled all had come to an end.

Today in SI land success only comes when captains realise that different teams require different approaches, and while one tactic may be good in the long run, changes need to be made. If a king decides to put up the walls and defend with all his might, a foolish general who hurls his forces headlong may find them decimated by the archers at the ramparts. A smarter general would bide his time and look for ways to breach the defences with clinical strikes.

[wwfan]

Likewise, current generals can't take advantage of the Maginot Line lying between the two central defenders that a forward running MC can wander through unnoticed and unstoppable.

[kiwityke]

Although, given all the vitriol the 'Theory of Evolution' attracts from those that believe in talking snakes and 900-year lifespans (notwithstanding how exactly Cain got married when there were only thee humans on the planet and the other two were his parents), I suppose I'm not surprised.

WHAT this is not true I feel lied to....

On a more serious note, FM/CM have been the same as far as I am concerned for years, you can win a rediculous amount of games with a decent tactic, but then lose a rediculous amount of games with the exact same tactic and team, for no apparent reason.

FM09 is no different.

Although I would agree statistically like Hammer1000 I lose more games that I should win, than I should. But then again I would argue I win more games I should lose statistically, than I would expect.

Although this is all subjective.

[Rupal]

I understand your need for empirical evidence, but not why you are arguing for it here. You also seem to have started reading the thread as if it were about a direct comparison between my and Hammer's tactics. It isn't. What it is about is debating Hammer's theory, that it isn't his tactics that are the issue, as they are 'perfect' and the AI levels his performance in order to unfairly stop him running away with the league.

In order for that to be true, Hammer must have 'discovered' the magically perfect slider combination the AI can't cope with, forcing it into 'levelling' mode. He must also have done this for the previous three editions of FM, as he made the same arguments then.

This is an impossible claim. Given the number of sliders, slider notches and their potential combinations, to discover the prefect formula, you'd have to correctly balance the following:

Player Variables (to be multiplied by 11)

Mentality: 20 options

Creative Freedom: 20 options

Passing Style 20 options

Closing Down: 20 options

Tackling: 3 options

FWRs: 3 options

RWB: 3 options

Long Shots: 3 options

Through Balls: 3 options

Cross Ball: 3 options

Marking: 2 options

Tight Marking: 2 options

Free Role: 2 options

HUB: 2 options

Team Variables

Focus Passing: 5 options

Target Man Supply: 4 options

Use Target Man: 2 options

Use Playmaker: 2 options

Play Offside: 2 options

Counter Attack: 2 options

Width: 20 options

D-line: 20 options

Tempo: 20 options

Even before we add in further set piece routine variables, which would add many zeros to the total, that means finding a hypothetically perfect slider combination is a 1 in 26,276,659,200,000,000 chance. Hammer believes he has found it three times, a 1 in 78,829,997,760,000,000 chance. Even allowing for there to be a 1,000, or 10,000 or even 100,000 combination errors that still allow for a perfect slider range, it remains astronomically impossible. When put against a theory that, because humans are fallible, their decision making will be too, and thus it is largely their fault that they lose the games they do (which I believe would be given 1 in 1 odds by any bookie), there is no need for any empirical testing.

You are obviously an intelligent lady. I sincerely don't understand why you are continuing this quest for evidence when the competing theory is so far-fetched. Although, given all the vitriol the 'Theory of Evolution' attracts from those that believe in talking snakes and 900-year lifespans (notwithstanding how exactly Cain got married when there were only thee humans on the planet and the other two were his parents), I suppose I'm not surprised.

It is extraordinary that you should so misunderstand my very simple position so let me be crystal clear.

I am not concerned with what is NOT causing this but with what IS.

It is not a matter of simply assessing Hammer's theory. It is also a matter of assessing yours.

You could disprove Hammer's theory 1000 times over and that would still not prove that your theory (ie that it is his tactics) was correct. As I have said several times, in the first place, we do not even know that you actually are any more successful in these 'dominating' matches over a reasonable period than Hammer is. You have assumed it. Until we have tested this we do not even know whether Hammer actually has any more of a problem than you or anybody else has.

If, indeed, a test showed that Hammer1000 was less successful because he lost a greater proportion of these matches than you did then that by itself wouldn't prove it was his tactics alone either. It could be his team talks or his press relationships or his player relationships, etc, or a combination of any or all of the factors which he inputs, possibly but not necessarily including his tactics. To show that his tactics and only his tactics were to blame you would have to eliminate these other variables. This is absolutely elementary.

You are making a claim that Hammer1000's tactics are at the root of his problems. It is no good just saying this. You have to establish it properly. Otherwise, you have to show proper humility in your statements and say that you 'believe' that it is his tactics and not to mislead people by saying that you know when you don't.

I have suggested a possible way in which you could prove your point. Either conduct such a test or devise a suitable one yourself or stop making unsubstantiated claims.

[Crpls]

It's cute how you keep telling people when, how and what to say in their posts. Notice how nobody listens? Get the hint? Probably not.

[Rupal]

It's cute how you keep telling people when, how and what to say in their posts. Notice how nobody listens? Get the hint? Probably not.

Why am I not surprised that you can't take the trouble to look at the sense of what has been said in my post and simply use the opportunity to make a cheap point I wonder?

[Yasko75]

Its Hammer1000`s tactics together with Knaps tactics that have kept me playing this version of the game. Both are very good. I also tried with those T&Twhatever type guidline ending with my team getting r***ed by the AI after couple of games, allways underarchiving. So you should think twice before saying that his tactics are bad...

[Hammer1000]

Its Hammer1000`s tactics together with Knaps tactics that have kept me playing this version of the game. Both are very good. I also tried with those T&Twhatever type guidline ending with my team getting r***ed by the AI after couple of games, allways underarchiving. So you should think twice before saying that his tactics are bad...

I think the problem with wwfan's way of playing is that you are never going to know if the tactical choice you made was right or wrong, because of other elements such as good luck/bad luck, poor form low morale, opposition good form etc, he even says himself that it can take up to three seasons to work it out?

I have used tactical sets before with a modicum of success. Often the set i'm using has been based on the TT&F stuff and whilst it was producing good results, i was becoming more and more frustrated with the whole Matchday Experience, games were often pitiful to watch in terms of an actual football match taking place, so i switched to something simpler.

Suprisingly, what i found was that i was just as likely to concede using a SUS tactic than i was just leaving my one tactic to play out the 90 minutes. Likewise, when needing an equaliser?

I carried out stringent tests with different teams and actually found that i was amounting a greater points total just using that one tactic than using the tactical set.

Of course, there is always going to be the perfect excuse for those producing these tactical sets and that is that you are simply not using it properly?

[TeeWee]

I would just like to know that considering what you've already said about managers needing to change their tactics, and that these sorts of games (that Garry is hitting the wall on) happen in real-life from time-to-time, and that PaulC has said that the game has been balanced to produce realistic results over hundreds of matches, and (pauses for breath) that we already know that there are things other than tactics that have an effect on your team's performance, then... why is it apparently such a ridiculous notion that there may, just may, exist some other factor - let's call it "complacency" or "predictability" that can have an increasingly adverse reaction on your performances/results, in a similar way that poor morale could?

Easy to find out: just play with 1 tactic, reload each time you don't win and continue. If "complacency" or "predictability" is a factor then it should result in a progressively increasing number of reloads per win.

[Rupal]

Easy to find out: just play with 1 tactic, reload each time you don't win and continue. If "complacency" or "predictability" is a factor then it should result in a progressively increasing number of reloads per win.

Would the wretched random element ('butterfly effect') get in the way of this? Not being difficult here, I honestly don't know the answer.

[TeeWee]

Would the wretched random element ('butterfly effect') get in the way of this? Not being difficult here, I honestly don't know the answer.

Two answers to this:

First answer is methodological: the random elements should even out. I'm talking about a long run here and the numbers should even out over that run. Even so, repeat the runs (with different teams if necessary) should add weight to the results.

Second answer is about the hypothesis in the first place: if the hypothesis is that the mechanism is strong enough to "level out" the overachievers, than it should be noticeably stronger than any random effect over a sustained run. If the mechanism is not consistently causing the levelling out (i.e. making it more difficult to win), than the hypothesis will have to be changed to: "SI have created a complex levelling mechanism that doesn't work noticeably". Which of course could be true, but that would require a modicum of incompetence on SI's part. And if it doesn't work noticeably, then I'll posit: If a tree falls down in a forest and nobody's around to see it....

[Rashidi]

I'm trying to understand one thing here...are players like Rupal using one tactic in a game without making any changes or are they adapting? For example, in most games, my starting point is usually a balanced tactic that I use which is reasonably conservative, as I study how the AI is attacking me, and then once I'm pretty certain there are areas for me to exploit, I either switch the tactic or I make slight changes.

In some games I've started with my balanced 442 and then opted to have my fullbacks make FWR often and take up a wider posture. In other matches I may actually take more risks and push my dline up before pulling it back and going narrow. Sometimes I change the emphasis of my attack. If I see the AI launching wing attacks I opt for a formation that allows for quick counters such as my 4321 formation, or if I find their MCs straying too often I switch to a 4312.

In fact I have a stable of 8 tactics that I use to switch things around in a game. I admit to treating teamtalks with disdain, opting for the more general ones "faith" for morale good and below and "anger" for superb and ratings of 6.5 and below. I could play with one tactic throughout the season, but that would ONLY HAPPEN if i have the right 11 players. As a personal challenge I usually start with one premiership team every season that is not expected to win and have them overachieve without any new signings. My Newcastle side narrowly lost out on the premiership title in my first season in charge by a miserable point...so I can't say I've ever had any problems.

[Rupal]

Two answers to this:

First answer is methodological: the random elements should even out. I'm talking about a long run here and the numbers should even out over that run. Even so, repeat the runs (with different teams if necessary) should add weight to the results.

Second answer is about the hypothesis in the first place: if the hypothesis is that the mechanism is strong enough to "level out" the overachievers, than it should be noticeably stronger than any random effect over a sustained run. If the mechanism is not consistently causing the levelling out (i.e. making it more difficult to win), than the hypothesis will have to be changed to: "SI have created a complex levelling mechanism that doesn't work noticeably". Which of course could be true, but that would require a modicum of incompetence on SI's part. And if it doesn't work noticeably, then I'll posit: If a tree falls down in a forest and nobody's around to see it....

Fair enough. You'd have to do a good long run though, because it would be too easy for your first loss to need 5 reloads and your second 4 and your third 9 and your fourth only 2 and so on because of it.

[TeeWee]

Fair enough. You'd have to do a good long run though, because it would be too easy for your first loss to need 5 reloads and your second 4 and your third 9 and your fourth only 2 and so on because of it.

I was thinking in terms of multiple seasons' worth of reloading.

[Rupal]

I'm trying to understand one thing here...are players like Rupal using one tactic in a game without making any changes or are they adapting?

I adapt. I use 3 basic tactics (normal, attacking and defensive) based on TT&F guidelines ('2-6-2 mentality')although because I play in the lower leagues I tend to allow less creative freedom and to use rather longer balls than the exact suggestions in the manual, which seems to make sense because my players aren't very clever or very talented. I will tweak in match too.

It's Hammer1000 who doesn't change tactics.

[Rupal]

I was thinking in terms of multiple seasons' worth of reloading.

That would work OK I'm sure.

[ron.e]

There was a time when i was hammering teams and only coming away with draws. It was so frustrating!!! what i did was put the tempo slider in middle, width middle and d-line a little deeper just to try and draw them out. The result was i had fewer shots and quality chances and then i started to win games again. In that phrase of play i got lucky because it worked. The biggest problem there has been since 07 is, you can sometimes see what's going wrong but you just don't know what to do about it. And it's 10x worst when you're at the stage of the season where you're on the verge of winning things and then it all starts going wrong. Add to that also the nonsense of the ME. One game you see your team playing like a team and having the understanding. The next game the whole team play like they have just been thrown together last minute (no excuse for that) plus the nonsense incidents of the match engine as well. That's why people think the ai is cheating. This is just my view anyways

[PAFC]

I find that I can occassionally be on the right end of an against the run of play 1-0 win or draw 1-1 fortuitously through taking an infrequent chance. Therefore I have no complaint when this happens against me.

It stands to reason if I dominate more games, then I should have this happen more often against me than for me.

I have no comment regarding whether it is hard coded, but would prefer to believe that the game runs as per the wwfan's comment earlier e.g. if I have the best players and an adequate tactic I should be successful more often than not.

One area that is sinister for me in terms of coding is the reduced performance after a cup tie e.g. is it me or do teams perform at less than their best following a cup-tie.

Although this may be seen as realistic in the past, and perhaps currently when there is nothing to play for in the league, the value of league status is now so commercially valuable that this feature could be turned down (if it is not a figment of my imagination) and even off in certain circumstances e.g. top four premiership teams following a league cup tie.

[Hammer1000]

On a slightly different note, i was wondering if anyone could shed any light on what happened to me at the end of my previous season?

I was 10 points clear in the EPL with 5 games left having up to this point W 25 D 7 L 1

Suddenly we lost 3 games in a row and after a win and a draw in our final two games, we lost the title by a point, as Man City won their final 5 games.

We were also flying in the CL and held a comfortable 4-1 lead after the SF 1st leg against Roma.

In the 2nd leg we were pulled apart by one player, who despite picking up an early 1st half injury, continued to tear my quality defence to shreds, before scoring two unbelievable goals late in the second half in a game we managed to lose 4-0.

We had already lost in the C Cup Final to a Liverpool side who had 2 shots on target and managed to win the game 2-1.

Worse was to come as we had also reached the FA Cup Final in which we played Chelsea.

This result topped the whole season off nicely.

Personally i've never seen such a thing(not in 09 anyway) although i've read posts from others who have.

I was wondering what the take on this was amongst those who have been posting here in this thread, as well as anybody else who might take an interest of course?

[Wee Aja]

Hammer, if I'd had a season finish like that, I'm not sure my laptop would've survived to aftermath tbqh.

[wwfan]

As I have said several times, in the first place, we do not even know that you actually are any more successful in these 'dominating' matches over a reasonable period than Hammer is. You have assumed it.

Matches I dominate I win, pretty much all the time. However, as I wouldn't expect to dominate better Premiership sides away from home with West Ham, I'd tend not to play a tactic that is designed to spread play and attack. Instead, I'd keep it tight and hope to win on the counter. Given that Garry seems to be implying he dominates a good 75% of his matches, whereas I'd be lucky to dominate more than 1/2 of my home games opening season at West Ham, I don't see what the test would prove. But, as you asked, I'll check anyway.

In the matches I played where I had a significant statistical dominance (double shots and/or double CCCs) over the other team in my last full season (league games only), my playing record is:

P 10, W 8, D 2, F 17, A 2, Pts 26

Given that I was 2,000-1 for the title and predicted to come dead last, I don't think that is too bad a set of results. The shots breakdown works out as follows:

My Team

Shots: 132

SOT: 58

CCCs: 30

Opposing Team

Shots: 54

SOT: 13

CCCs: 7

Thus, for such matches, I score at a ratio of 1 goal per 7.8 shots, 3.4 SOTs and 1.8 CCCs. I concede at a ratio of 1 goal in 27 shots, 6.5 SOTs and 3.5 CCCs. That would stand in stark opposition to Garry's observations.

Can we end this now, Rupal?

[Hammer1000]

Hammer, if I'd had a season finish like that, I'm not sure my laptop would've survived to aftermath tbqh.

If i had'nt laughed first, i might well have put my fist through my monitor or booted my PC.

Its not like i dont know the drill, i have'nt put together a squad of cowardly youngsters who would baulk at the first sign of pressure.

I have a mix of ages and a squad filled with players who are, Highly Ambitious, Proffesional and who "apparently "love the big games", so this should not have been an issue.

We did have a bit of an injury scare, despite rotating all season, which the AI does'nt do, but generally we had the right players in the right places and in top condition to.

[Rupal]

Matches I dominate I win, pretty much all the time. However, as I wouldn't expect to dominate better Premiership sides away from home with West Ham, I'd tend not to play a tactic that is designed to spread play and attack. Instead, I'd keep it tight and hope to win on the counter. Given that Garry seems to be implying he dominates a good 75% of his matches, whereas I'd be lucky to dominate more than 1/2 of my home games opening season at West Ham, I don't see what the test would prove. But, as you asked, I'll check anyway.

In the matches I played where I had a significant statistical dominance (double shots and/or double CCCs) over the other team in my last full season (league games only), my playing record is:

P 10, W 8, D 2, F 17, A 2, Pts 26

Given that I was 2,000-1 for the title and predicted to come dead last, I don't think that is too bad a set of results. The shots breakdown works out as follows:

My Team

Shots: 132

SOT: 58

CCCs: 30

Opposing Team

Shots: 54

SOT: 13

CCCs: 7

Thus, for such matches, I score at a ratio of 1 goal per 7.8 shots, 3.4 SOTs and 1.8 CCCs. I concede at a ratio of 1 goal in 27 shots, 6.5 SOTs and 3.5 CCCs. That would stand in stark opposition to Garry's observations.

Can we end this now, Rupal?

No, I'm sorry that we can't.

You need to conduct a proper test with the same team along the lines which I suggested.

You have already made one condescending post with unnecessary references to Evolution theory where you attempted to establish your position by statistical means. Now you are trying another statistical approach. But let's give you for the moment that your statistics with a different team under different circumstances are valid.

You will still have not shown that it is your tactics which are the cause of the statistical difference. I covered this point perfectly clearly before and what you have said here has made absolutely no difference.

[wwfan]

Why? How could such huge statistical differences possibly be related to which team I choose. Garry argues that his FCs only score 1 time in 7-10 shots. My whole team scores at a better ratio than that.

Despite my condescending remark (which was chosen partly in response to your 'flat Earth' jibe), surely you can see you don't have a leg to stand on any more. Garry's theory has such a statistical improbability of being correct that we can discount it without any evidence in the first place, and secondly, when evidence is produced that is so conclusively different to what he says happens that the small variable of changing a team shouldn't make much, if any, dent in the results.

Do you really, really think that my stats would suddenly shift to the 1 goal in 20 ratio just because I'm managing West Ham? Really? Or that I'd suddenly concede 1 in 10? There's a difference between doubt and obstinacy and you've crossed the line.

[Mitja]

Personally i've never seen such a thing(not in 09 anyway) although i've read posts from others who have.

I was wondering what the take on this was amongst those who have been posting here in this thread, as well as anybody else who might take an interest of course?

well at least you got nice chalange infront of you next season you looser

on a more serious note, when is that patch coming out?

[Rupal]

wwfan, please read my post 891 carefully. Can you see paragraph 4?

It is not good enough for you just to show that Garry's theory is implausible.

Your theory that it is his tactics requires proof. You have not provided any evidence to support it.

The most that you have shown (assuming that we accept your contention that it is right to use stats involving another club under different circumstances, which I'm happy to do for the moment but I expect that he would dispute) is that Garry is, indeed, less efficient in matches of this sort than you are. Let us also accept that your statistics have previously shown that his theory of levelling is unlikely (which he would no doubt argue about again. But I'll gladly accept them pro tem).

What you have not shown is that this is because of his tactics. To do this you have to eliminate the other variables which I have mentioned previously.

What is so hard to understand about that?

To ape what you said earlier. You are an intelligent man. I cannot understand for the life of me why you are so reluctant to accept the very obvious truth of what I have said here.

Edit: let's just suppose that I came on here claiming that Hammer's problems are because of his team talks and that I could quote statistics just like yours. I could establish that I did better in these sorts of games and could proudly insist that it was because my team talks were so superior. Would you accept this? Of course you wouldn't. So why should Hammer or I or anybody else be different, just because you insist that it is his tactics?

Further edit: Just for the record, my 'flat earth' remark was not originally a jibe but was a serious point about the importance of testing things properly. I used it in a way in which I should not have later and apologised for it. Read all the relevant posts to see the context.

[Yasko75]

Suprisingly, what i found was that i was just as likely to concede using a SUS tactic than i was just leaving my one tactic to play out the 90 minutes. Likewise, when needing an equaliser?

Well, i have the same experience in FM09.

[Mitja]

i believe i've seen an experiment where someone showed there wasn't much difference in result, when playing normal formations like 442 and freaky ones (without defense/midfield). does anyone happen to know what was that the tittle of that tread?

[knap]

I can win games without a defence (hopefully fixed for 9.3) but I still have pkm, and no midfield both in 9.1 and 9.2.

Anyone see the Acidburn screenshots - an unbelievable 0-0.

[Surferosa]

It is not good enough for you just to show that Garry's theory is implausible.

Your theory that it is his tactics requires proof. You have not provided any evidence to support it.

Im unsure why you so strongly feel that the burden of proof should fall on the accused? So far as I can see- the facts are;

1. Garry is accusing the match engine of cheating; despite denials from the developers.

2. wwfan has provided pretty detailed analysis explaining how a different tactical philosophy would (he maintains) explain the result conditions he is experiencing.

3. Garry has so far presented no evidence or analysis; merely speculatition, subjecture and isolated examples.

From what I can see, even if you view wwfan's analysis as incorrect, circumstantial or explained by the miriad of other variables that could exist- its the closest this thread has so far come to actual 'evidence'. Instead of rubbishing it- it would be better if you treated it a a control set to prove the 'ME cheat' theory.

There is no onus of proof on wwfan here- he is not the one presenting a conspiracy theory. As I alluded to earlier on- Im not sure that his time is best being spent writing another post defending the ME against allegations of cheating when there is no rational argument being presented to him in the first place.

Give him something to think about rather than just rehashing old suppositions and objective observations. If you think the ME cheats- prove it.

[Rupal]

I am saying that anybody who says that they know what the cause of this is has a duty to prove it.

wwfan is presenting a theory. He says that the problem is caused by Hammer's tactics and that, if Hammer was wise enough to change to his approach, his difficulties would disappear. That has an onus of proof just as much as Hammer's 'conspiracy theory' does.

People are assuming that the only possible explanations are either that 1) the ME is 'cheating' (don't like the word but it's just shorthand here, OK?) - Hammer or 2) that Hammer's tactics are wrong - wwfan, and that, if you disprove 1) then 2) must be correct. That simply isn't true (see my edit about claiming it was my superior team talks).

Edit - Garry may well have not produced any evidence or analysis proving that there has been a 'conspiracy'. Unfortunately, wwfan has not produced any evidence or analysis to prove that it is his tactics which explain his claimed better results either. They are both in the same boat.

[knap]

Surferosa

I have offered to test a tactic which has a 1.8ccc ratio with a Chesea side with odds of better than 2000-1.