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

[Rupal]

Surferosa, it's rather like Hammer saying that grass is red and wwfan saying that it's purple and wwfan showing that it isn't red and insisting that it has to be purple then.

[backpackant]

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.

I don't think I've heard a more ridiculous analysis of FM09's match engine. Well done.

And no, I very much doubt Sir Fergie gives C.Ronaldo very specific instructions at before the match and at half time about how attacking to be, whether he should track back or not, watch out for a particular player; when Rooney goes in two-footed on a defender and gets a yellow I really doubt that Fergie tells him to tackle less strongly and close down less often; I'm sure that when Chelsea play with their 4-3-3 and Lampard or Ballack are running forward and get pushed wide, Hiddink ISN'T going to want them to cross the ball.

Anyone who says managers don't need to give world class players very specific instructions every single game clearly knows nothing about real football.

[Surferosa]

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 2) then 1) must be correct. That simply isn't true (see my edit about claiming it was my superior team talks).

Well, actually I partially agree and I partially disagree.

wwfan is presenting a theory. He has also presented it with more evidence attached to it than anything else in the thread- and by some some distance. In fact- so convinced by his own evidence and observations- he is convinced of its accuracy. He has therefore 'proven' it with as much evidence as he can; when his evidence has been challenged he has provided more evidence to try and explain further points as they arise.

On the other side of the table- it would appear that we have someone claiming a 'ME cheat' (and I agree its a loose definition that we are using to simplify the discussion), but without producing any evidence.

As I stated, the argument is centered around are the issues tactical or non-tactical. As far as I can see- wwfan has presented evidence that suggests they are tactical- we have no evidence to suggest it is otherwise. You may not draw the same conclusions as wwfan- but seeing as you are not presenting any evidence to the contrary- it is difficult to conclude anything other than tactical based. Especially so given how often the debate creeps into the belief of secret-levelling logic (the ME cheat) that has been flatly denied by those involved.

I have no issue believing that non-tactical reasons are a factor in success. But the evidence for Garry's tactical shortcomings presented by wwfan also seems strong. For me to believe in something that has been denied time and time again (and also not experienced by a large number of people posting) Id need to see proof. None has been presented thus far.

[Rupal]

As far as I can see- wwfan has presented evidence that suggests they are tactical

Well, that's the point at issue, isn't it? I don't believe that he has. All he's done is to quote figures which may show that he gets better results than Hammer and that may show that Hammer's conspiracy theory is unlikely (though I bet that Hammer will dispute these things). But that's not the same thing at all. Showing that grass isn't red doesn't show that it's purple.

Could it not be possible that it's actually green and that they are both wrong?

[Surferosa]

Surferosa, it's rather like Hammer saying that grass is red and wwfan saying that it's purple and wwfan showing that it isn't red and insisting that it has to be purple then.

Interesting analogy. I would say its more like SI saying the grass is green, Hammer saying its purple becuase when he looks at it its purple; wwfan telling him its his camera thats broken, and 'prooving it' by showing you green photos hes taken- and then you coming along and saying 'actually you'd need to repeat the same tests at Garry's house becuase of all the variables'.

This is starting to remind me of the Flying Spagetti Monster. If you make a (delusional) statement that goes against accepted evidence- the onus of proof is on you to back it up. 'Belief' that your right doesn't cut it with me- then again, Im not religious.

As I came into this thread- I was questioning why Garry was (metaphorically) banging his head against a brick wall with this issue. No amount of evidence presented by anyone will be good enough- either anecdotal, testing or otherwise. It will all be flawed and contrary to his own (subjective) experience. So, with the greatest of respect- it seems that the thread remains either futile or flamebait.

PS: Knap- big fan of the work you do with regarding tactic testing mate. As we have discussed (some time ago) its flawed as well- but its still better than anything else around. I think you'd be an ideally placed person to provide some controlled testing. Go for it!

[chopper99]

Well, that's the point at issue, isn't it? I don't believe that he has. All he's done is to quote figures which may show that he gets better results than Hammer and that may show that Hammer's conspiracy theory is unlikely (though I bet that Hammer will dispute these things). But that's not the same thing at all. Showing that grass isn't red doesn't show that it's purple.

That's not all that he's done as it's not only wwfan who is avoiding these issues. As has been said many times, there are many people managing to overachieve while avoiding the issue Hammer constantly has. If this is not proof that the issue is with something Hammer is doing differently and not down to some sort of 'leveller' then what is?

While it is true that the things these people may do differently may not be tactical, I doubt that this is the case. There are very few team talk options, very few different levels of moral etc, but a lot of different things that can be changed tactically. Also, like Ched I've in the past managed to overcome issues like this by changing only my tactics. I've always ignored media interaction completely and have used the same team talk system since they were first introduced. In the past I have spent much time in the tactics forum and have seen many people with the same issue overcome it by changing their tactics. That's all the proof I, and most other people, need that it is tactical.

Again, this has been proven time and again in the tactics forum. If you don't believe this to be true then it really is up to you to provide proof to the contrary. Remember, this has nothing to do with whether wwfans tactic is 'better' than Hammers, but whether Hammers issue can be resolved with tactical changes. Many other people with similar issues have resolved them using tactics, but Hammer refuses to entertain the idea that it could be tactically related in any way.

[backpackant]

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.

QUOTE]

I thought they could scout matches same as the human user. You get limited knowledge from this but still know enough to make decent player selections and tactics etc.

[Surferosa]

Well, that's the point at issue, isn't it? I don't believe that he has. All he's done is to quote figures which may show that he gets better results than Hammer and that may show that Hammer's conspiracy theory is unlikely (though I bet that Hammer will dispute these things).

I agree. We can refer to this as circumstantial evidence.

So, the case against the ME is (tell me if Im wrong or Ive missed anything); individual screenshots and statistics from isolated games; objective end-user experience.

The case for the defense is; expert witness denial (everyone from SI), circumstantial evidence that refute one of the key arguments against the ME (being the invidual statistics posted from isolated games), objective end-user experience (which, I would argue is much greater seeing the large number of people that have had success on various levels).

The whole thread is geared up towards the 'cheat' consipiracy theory. And yet nothing has been presented that leads me to believe its not just the frustrations of someone that wants to enjoy the game and yet cannot grasp the tactical subtlities to do so. Garry has my sympathy- as I said I think a 'low-detail' mode would bring many users like him back into the fold- but consipiracy? I don't think so.

Also- apologies over the disjointed nature of my posts. People are ruining an interesting discussion by actually making me work today

[Rupal]

Interesting analogy. I would say its more like SI saying the grass is green, Hammer saying its purple becuase when he looks at it its purple; wwfan telling him its his camera thats broken, and 'prooving it' by showing you green photos hes taken- and then you coming along and saying 'actually you'd need to repeat the same tests at Garry's house becuase of all the variables'.

This is starting to remind me of the Flying Spagetti Monster. If you make a (delusional) statement that goes against accepted evidence- the onus of proof is on you to back it up. 'Belief' that your right doesn't cut it with me- then again, Im not religious.

As I came into this thread- I was questioning why Garry was (metaphorically) banging his head against a brick wall with this issue. No amount of evidence presented by anyone will be good enough- either anecdotal, testing or otherwise. It will all be flawed and contrary to his own (subjective) experience. So, with the greatest of respect- it seems that the thread remains either futile or flamebait.

PS: Knap- big fan of the work you do with regarding tactic testing mate. As we have discussed (some time ago) its flawed as well- but its still better than anything else around. I think you'd be an ideally placed person to provide some controlled testing. Go for it!

Nah, you are saying that SI are saying it's green because that's the colour we know that in fact it is! Clever, but that won't wash!

I've said all along that I personally think it's very likely to be Hammer's tactics. But I don't know that this is true and, until wwfan proves it, I am not going to say that I do. The whole point is that there just ain't any 'accepted evidence' as you put it, there's just a lot of opinion masquerading as fact. I would be as happy as a pig in mud if wwfan would provide some evidence; that's what I've been trying to get him to do and he resists this all the time, so that I feel that I am beating my head against a brick wall.

I respect wwfan's work on tactics enormously. I am in the middle of a game now where I am trying a tactic out based on his ideas and am winning 5-0 after 43 minutes! (I am currently waiting for patch 9.3 and using the time to try to polish my tactics). I know that they work. I am very grateful for all the hard work which I know he has put in, as we should all be. But that respect and gratitude do not make me willing to accept that something is true just because he says so. If you are happy to do the opposite, then that is up to you.

Let me put it this way. If I come on here and insist that it is Garry's team talks which are all to pot and that I know that that is what is wrong (which isn't necessarily an especially stupid idea at all - we know that team talks have quite a big influence) are you going to believe me just because I say so? If not, why should you believe wwfan when he says that he knows that it is Garry's tactics? Neither of us has proved what we've said. I know that (in fact) you would believe wwfan but that's because you happen to believe that it's Garry's tactics already.

Anyway, I am getting very weary of continuously trying to make people see the importance of proper methodology. I do enough of that with my work. If wwfan or you or anyone else can't or won't see it, that's just too bad. But it does not alter the fact that it is absolutely necessary to use it. But, as I said, I'm just tired of beating my head against the brick wall of people's stubbornness on this issue. Believe what you want!

[chopper99]

Let me put it this way. If I come on here and insist that it is Garry's team talks which are all to pot and that I know that that is what is wrong (which isn't necessarily an especially stupid idea at all - we know that team talks have quite a big influence) are you going to believe me just because I say so? If not, why should you believe wwfan when he says that he knows that it is Garry's tactics?

Please refer to my previous post. The proof is there because many people have overcome or avoided this issue using tactics. The same cannot be said for team talks.

[Rupal]

Please refer to my previous post. The proof is there because many people have overcome or avoided this issue using tactics. The same cannot be said for team talks.

For the very last time I will say this.

Many people may have overcome this issue after they have made tactical changes.

This does not mean that you have proved that the issue has been overcome because of those changes.

I have turned these games round after telling my players that I 'want more from them'. I have also turned these games round after drinking coffee, stroking the cat and going to the loo. Does this prove that it was these things which caused the turnaround? No it does not.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc has been known to be unsound since the days of Aristotle.

[Surferosa]

Nah, you are saying that SI are saying it's green because that's the colour we know that in fact it is! Clever, but that won't wash!

The analogy holds. The denial by SI- ie the implication being that tactics effect the outcome of the match and no levelling logic- holds much greater plausability than Garry's conspiracy theory. Therefore the 'green' in the analogy is fundamentally correct. For the record, maybe its not actually green- maybe its a faded yellow-brown; but either way, its not a paranoid-purple

Let me put it this way. If I come on here and insist that it is Garry's team talks which are all to pot and that I know that that is what is wrong (which isn't necessarily an especially stupid idea at all - we know that team talks have quite a big influence) are you going to believe me just because I say so? If not, why should you believe wwfan when he says that he knows that it is Garry's tactics?

The point you continuiously don't acknowledge is that the burden of evidence is on Garry- and he has presented none. The evidence presented by wwfan makes Garry's theory less credible- even if it neither proves or disproves it. And the denials from SI when placed with the subjective experiences of others- as referenced by chopper99- make it sound implausible.

If I held a view so vehemently that I was utterly convinced of its fact- given going against popular opinion and official denail- I'd want to prove it to the world. The lack of evidence beyond subjective individual experience- despite the crusade rolling on for 3+ years- leaves me deeply sceptical.

[Rupal]

The burden of proof is on both of them. You insist on demanding that Garry prove his theory and do not do the same with wwfan. I presume that you would also insist that I proved my 'team talks' theory (which I hasten to add is purely here as an example). This is psychologically probably because you already believe that wwfan is correct.

I also believe that wwfan is correct. But I still insist that he has as great a necessity to prove his case as Garry has. That is where you and I differ. There is no good intellectual reason that I can find to support your contention that one of them needs to prove things and that the other one doesn't.

wwfan is not just saying that it isn't a conspiracy (like SI saying that the grass is green). He is also saying that it is something else - namely Garry's tactics - which is NOT the same thing at all. Denying that there is a levelling mechanism is not the same as saying that the cause of the problem is tactical. Thus the analogy falls.

[chopper99]

For the very last time I will say this.

I very much doubt that this is true.

I have no need to ask wwfan for proof as I have seen the proof myself already, as I've tried in vain to point out.

Until you've suffered these issues, tried the solutions suggested, overcome the issues and then taken part in discussions with many other people trying to overcome these issues in the tactics forum, you will not get the proof that you're so determined that you need.

I have done all of the above and therefore have my proof. Without proof to the contrary why should I believe that this is anything other than tactical, considering the actual proof I have already seen?

[Surferosa]

The burden of proof is on both of them. You insist on demanding that Garry prove his theory and do not do the same with wwfan. I presume that you would also insist that I proved my 'team talks' theory (which I hasten to add is purely here as an example). This is psychologically probably because you already believe that wwfan is correct.

I also believe that wwfan is correct. But I still insist that he has as great a necessity to prove his case as Garry has. That is where you and I differ. There is no good intellectual reason that I can find to support your contention that one of them needs to prove things and that the other one doesn't.

wwfan is not just saying that it isn't a conspiracy (like SI saying that the grass is green). He is also saying that it is something else - namely Garry's tactics - which is NOT the same thing at all. Denying that there is a levelling mechanism is not the same as saying that the cause of the problem is tactical. Thus the analogy falls.

I feel we are inching ever closer to an agreement

There is a key conceptual reason why the burden of proof is on Garry- not on wwfan. When one is attempting to move an opinion away from an established, assumed conclusion to an alternative, opposing conclusion- the burden of proof lies on the person proposing the move. This maxim is typically applied in both legal parlance- but more relevant here perhaps, in scientific debate; the key principle being the presentation of evidence.

necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Clearly, after 15+ years of football simulation development, official denial, the success of tactics sets (which by definition introduce variables such as motivation, morale, players, teams etc, etc)- the status quo here is that tactics are the reason why Garry cannot succeed. Garry profers an oppposing view to those factors- 'cheat logic'. In any logical reasoned debate- the burden of proof is definitely on Garry

And the analaogy still holds. wwfan's evidence is not absolute in its disproving of Garry's argument (no single evidence is generally absolute; it is the cumulative build up different evidence that 'prooves'). However, it clearly respresents a credible alternative view of how the issue could be tactical (something that Garry refuses to acknowledge from the outset).

Rupal- wwfan has posted his pictures showing the green grass. Its the best evidence we have. However, who knows- maybe we are all deluded and Garry is right and the grass is purple after all. But given the evidence to hand- there is more than enough reasonable doubt to apopt Garry's 'cheat' theory- and wwfan's evidence certainly contributes to that conclusion and leads to the much more credible explination that it is (on the whole) a tactical issue.

[Rupal]

I very much doubt that this is true.

I have no need to ask wwfan for proof as I have seen the proof myself already, as I've tried in vain to point out.

Until you've suffered these issues, tried the solutions suggested, overcome the issues and then taken part in discussions with many other people trying to overcome these issues in the tactics forum, you will not get the proof that you're so determined that you need.

I have done all of the above and therefore have my proof. Without proof to the contrary why should I believe that this is anything other than tactical, considering the actual proof I have already seen?

My 'very last time' remark was intended to explain that I wasn't prepared to repeat the point that just because something happened after something else it didn't mean that it was caused by it. That was because I've tried to say this in lots of different ways in this thread and it doesn't appear to get through to people. Sorry if I was unclear - my fault entirely.

If you are satisfied that what you have obtained is 'proof' then fine. I'm happy for you. I have tried to explain why it isn't proof as clearly as I can but if you don't accept what I say, then that is up to you. I have no axe to grind at all here - I also happen to believe that it is Hammer's tactics, but, unlike you, I know that nobody has proved it to my satisfaction. OK?

[Zebedee77]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc has been known to be unsound since the days of Aristotle.

But considering likely probabilities as absence of evidence has been unsound since Bayes. We're not discussing the decline of piracy as being responsible for global warming but that verifiable input will result in verifiable results even given other random factors.

Wwfan, thanks for taking the time to post on this subject. Most invaluable to understanding how the match engine works.

[Rupal]

I feel we are inching ever closer to an agreement

There is a key conceptual reason why the burden of proof is on Garry- not on wwfan. When one is attempting to move an opinion away from an established, assumed conclusion to an alternative, opposing conclusion- the burden of proof lies on the person proposing the move. This maxim is typically applied in both legal parlance- but more relevant here perhaps, in scientific debate; the key principle being the presentation of evidence.

necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Clearly, after 15+ years of football simulation development, official denial, the success of tactics sets (which by definition introduce variables such as motivation, morale, players, teams etc, etc)- the status quo here is that tactics are the reason why Garry cannot succeed. Garry profers an oppposing view to those factors- 'cheat logic'. In any logical reasoned debate- the burden of proof is definitely on Garry

And the analaogy still holds. wwfan's evidence is not absolute in its disproving of Garry's argument (no single evidence is generally absolute; it is the cumulative build up different evidence that 'prooves'). However, it clearly respresents a credible alternative view of how the issue could be tactical (something that Garry refuses to acknowledge from the outset).

Rupal- wwfan has posted his pictures showing the green grass. Its the best evidence we have. However, who knows- maybe we are all deluded and Garry is right and the grass is purple after all. But given the evidence to hand- there is more than enough reasonable doubt to apopt Garry's 'cheat' theory- and wwfan's evidence certainly contributes to that conclusion and leads to the much more credible explination that it is (on the whole) a tactical issue.

If your second paragraph were correct, it would have been incumbent on an atheist in 18th century England to prove that God did not exist, as the established assumed conclusion at that time would have been that He did. As such a proof is impossible, you would have quoted this inability to prove things as some sort of evidence to suggest that the atheist was being unreasonable and that you had somehow demonstrated that it was more likely that God (as opposed, for example to many Gods or no God at all - different theories just to be consistent) did, in fact, exist. That's really the same argument. And you would have been quite wrong to do this.

wwfan has posted pictures which purport to show that the grass is not purple. That is all.

[Loversleaper]

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?

Ok, I will take it upon myself to explain what is going on in the above screenshot, well aware that I will probably get attacked for it even though I had nothing to do with the programming of the FM game. I am not doing this for Hammer1000's sake as he does/should know this by now, but more for the people reading this thread as this dilemma in the presented screenshot actually has a reason behind it. I am not here to say what is right or wrong, but what I do suggest should make sense and if I am wrong in my assumption please feel free to comment, but please do it in a decent fashion. Thanks...

To understand the screenshot above we have to find out how the components in this computer game add up, giving things values which are translated onto the ME. I know some might say "what is he on about". Please give me time to explain as it all is quite simple but just hard to actually explain.

The components in the game are the 'adding' up of the slider settings that a Human User implements giving the ME certain 'values' (this goes for the AI as well) in the attacking and defending mechanism the game apparently has, and I am sure this is done by a % system. The player attributes are also a 1-20 scale so this must effect the accuracy of the slider settings a Human User implements.

Now, since the game has a 'defensive' mechanism and an 'attacking' mechanism, the Human User's settings (+players attributes) influences the effects that we see in the ME. I, pesonally, think the AI uses slider settings to over-power human settings, but still I think the 'defensive' mechanism is the one that most Human Users have a hard time understanding (but I think they did it this way so Human User's can still overachieve with lesser teams).

This is the main reason that a Human Users' tactical settings eventually fall down, it is not due to a "levelling" system, but an attempt from the AI to over-ride the Human Users' attacking capability. If it succeeds and you don't do something tactical to over-ride the AI's defensive capability then the Human User struggles and ends up having difficulties winning until your form is so bad that the AI actually activates the 'attacking' mechanism again that the Human User's tactical settings have an easier time dealing with causing the Human Users team to go back to winning ways. The winning ways will again cause the AI to activate the 'defensive' mechanism once more causing the Human User difficulties and the cycle continues (the re-ranking theory).

The 'defensive' mechanism is hard to over-ride (but not impossible) and that is why we can go back to the screenshot presented above. Chelsea's 'defensive' capability is so strong that Hammer1000 settings (and maybe player attributes) apparently cannot override this mechanism, even though the match stats appear to show he is. If they (the SI)made a game where all teams that dominate possession and shots on goal to win then choosing a bottem team would become obsolete because it will cause you to automatically loose as you don't have the 'components' that can over-ride AI settings/capability.

Learning how to deal with the two mechanisms (attacking and defending) is the only way you are going to get around results like these, and are these mechanisms really that unfair? This is how I think the AI has thought out how to make the game as realistic as possible, but in the FM World you can actually win over the AI as long as you know how to deal with two mentioned mechanisms and understand how they work (as opposed to RL scores many have experienced week after week). This is the reason that it has been discussed why there is a need for different mentality frameworks (to over-ride AI settings) and this is why FM has included three different Mentality-Framework tactics in the game itself.

I know that you will say that Hammer1000 has shown that he can over-ride these settings but I beg to differ. It has been explained but I think this terminology simply won't be accepted by few, and I don't think that there really is anything that will convince them otherwise. Even if the programmers were to come and tell them this, you can't win everygame you dominate in FM or in the Real World, but all I can say is that there are settings that over-rides AI settings because I have seen them and tried them. If you believe me or not will be your own personal oppinion. The game could have better feedback to describe this, but this is not for me to decide.

I know this all seems complicated for some, but I think the youth of today has a much more understanding of how 'components' in computer games work, better than the generation before that (and the one before that, and so on...). I know this will probably spark a "that is the end of FM for me" attitude from some, but all I can say is this game is probably not built for them personally, and for that I (personally) am truely sorry. But please remember it is not my fault nor do I defend it to the death, but the theory that ME cheats is simply not feasable, as computer games don't think for themselves yet. You can debate this from now until Christmas, if you don't understand the mechanisms in the game you will never be able to have a constructive debate...

[chopper99]

My 'very last time' remark was intended to explain that I wasn't prepared to repeat the point that just because something happened after something else it didn't mean that it was caused by it. That was because I've tried to say this in lots of different ways in this thread and it doesn't appear to get through to people. Sorry if I was unclear - my fault entirely.

If you are satisfied that what you have obtained is 'proof' then fine. I'm happy for you. I have tried to explain why it isn't proof as clearly as I can but if you don't accept what I say, then that is up to you. I have no axe to grind at all here - I also happen to believe that it is Hammer's tactics, but, unlike you, I know that nobody has proved it to my satisfaction. OK?

I also have no axe to grind and, despite how it may look have enjoyed this debate. I'm just having a bad day at work.

I understand what you're saying when you say you haven't had sufficient proof either way, and that's fine. As I said, I feel I have and this is what has formed my opinion.

Anyway, home time now so I'll leave you to it. I'll leave you with the only thing left to say:

'It's your tactics'

[Rupal]

But considering likely probabilities as absence of evidence has been unsound since Bayes. We're not discussing the decline of piracy as being responsible for global warming but that verifiable input will result in verifiable results even given other random factors.

Wwfan, thanks for taking the time to post on this subject. Most invaluable to understanding how the match engine works.

There is a good deal of plausibility in the theory that it is Hammer's tactics. I have said this myself on a number of occasions.

What I am also saying, however, is that while it is very reasonable to believe that this is what the situation is nobody (including wwfan) has shown that it must be true.

Chopper99's statement that people have changed tactics and have overcome these problems doesn't itself show that the first thing caused the second. He said this to take issue with my 'theory' (which I do NOT believe) that it was team talks, suggesting that it proved something which it actually didn't. It's very likely that this was, in fact, the reason but does not amount in any way to a proof of it.

[Rupal]

I also have no axe to grind and, despite how it may look have enjoyed this debate. I'm just having a bad day at work.

I understand what you're saying when you say you haven't had sufficient proof either way, and that's fine. As I said, I feel I have and this is what has formed my opinion.

Anyway, home time now so I'll leave you to it. I'll leave you with the only thing left to say:

'It's your tactics'

Big hug! It's great fun to chew these things over! So safe journey and God bless!

Now, as it's my birthday, I am going to have a nice big drink and wait while my husband cooks me a lovely meal! Take care, people!

[Surferosa]

If your first paragraph were correct, it would have been incumbent on an atheist in the 18th century to prove that God did not exist, as the established assumed conclusion at that time would have been that He did. As such a proof is impossible, you would have quoted this inability to prove things as some sort of evidence to suggest that the atheist was being unreasonable and that you to do so.

That is precisely what occurred in a round about way. Darwin was largely rounded-upon when he released the Origin of Species in the 19th Century- certainly the religious estabishment didn't react particularly well that one of the existing pillars of 'belief'- creationism- could be undermined. The onus was most certainly on Darwin when it was released

Fast forward a couple of hundred years and the weight of evidence is now vast. Despite this, you will still hear the religious view that it cannot be proven with 100% certainty; or alternative views of creationism (intelligent design) are proposed. These are not widely accepted by society simply becuase the lack of evidence.

So, I can assure you with absolute certainty that the burden of proof is always on those willing to challenge the status quo Think about it: if I come onto these forums tomorrow with the theory;

"Hey- only pick players that have the same letters as your own name- it cracks the ME!!!"- would you believe me if I didn't provide any evidence? Would you accept my theory that this is the key to unlocking FM success- the burden of proof being on others to proove it was nonsense? Or would you be sceptical until I had provided the proof myself?

wwfan has posted pictures which show that the grass is not purple. That is all.

I partially agree. It also shows that that the grass is much more likely to be green (on the basis of strength of evidence and reasonable doubt).

[Zebedee77]

There is a good deal of plausibility in the theory that it is Hammer's tactics. I have said this myself on a number of occasions.

What I am also saying, however, is that while it is very reasonable to believe that this is what the situation is nobody (including wwfan) has shown that it must be true.

Chopper99's statement that people have changed tactics and have overcome these problems doesn't itself show that the first thing caused the second. He said this to take issue with my 'theory' (which I do NOT believe) that it was team talks, suggesting that it proved something which it actually didn't. It's very likely that this was, in fact, the reason but does not amount in any way to a proof of it.

I see the logic of where you are coming from Rupal. You want absolute proof. Sadly, without extensive human team vs human team which I doubt anyone would be willing to submit themselves to, I doubt such proof will be forthcoming. And even then one can cast doubts over the validity of such testing if one wanted to do so.

Given wwfan's position in helping tweak the match engine, given the limitations and discretion his posts must maintain because of his position, and given that the likely probability is agreed to be that tactics are causing the results Hammer is seeing, then I think what we're coming down to is a philisophical disagreement over the nature of 'proof' rather than a fundamental disagreement over how the match engine works.

This has been a fascinating thread, and thank you for drawing so much information from wwfan in a non-antagonistic way. All the best.

[Surferosa]

And finally- it has reached the time where I can also go home, turn on my computer and probably have one of those fist-through-screen FM moments myself.

Thanks once again for contributing to an engaging hour or two at work

Until the next time...

[Rupal]

That is precisely what occurred in a round about way. Darwin was largely rounded-upon when he released the Origin of Species in the 19th Century- certainly the religious estabishment didn't react particularly well that one of the existing pillars of 'belief'- creationism- could be undermined. The onus was most certainly on Darwin when it was released

Fast forward a couple of hundred years and the weight of evidence is now vast. Despite this, you will still hear the religious view that it cannot be proven with 100% certainty; or alternative views of creationism (intelligent design) are proposed. These are not widely accepted by society simply becuase the lack of evidence.

So, I can assure you with absolute certainty that the burden of proof is always on those willing to challenge the status quo Think about it: if I come onto these forums tomorrow with the theory;

"Hey- only pick players that have the same letters as your own name- it cracks the ME!!!"- would you believe me if I didn't provide any evidence? Would you accept my theory that this is the key to unlocking FM success- the burden of proof being on others to proove it was nonsense? Or would you be sceptical until I had provided the proof myself?

I partially agree. It also shows that that the grass is much more likely to be green (on the basis of strength of evidence and reasonable doubt).

All sides have an equal obligation to provide rigorous proof of assertions that they know things as opposed to believing them. People once 'knew' that the sun and the stars went round the earth and that the latter was at the centre of the universe. Not only did they 'know' this, but they were prepared to use the power and authority of the Church to silence those who might disagree with them.

We should be sceptical of all who claim certainty where there is none or knowledge where there is only opinion. Question everything!

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

but the theory that ME cheats is simply not feasable, as computer games don't think for themselves yet.

I see this sort of logic used quite a lot. Computers do not actually need to "think for themselves" or have any sort of conscience in order to "cheat". They simply follow their programming, and if they are programmed to cheat, then yes they can cheat. Sure they may not get any smug self-satisfaction, in a "ha ha, fooled you!" sort of way, but technically it's still cheating. Here, let me write you a short, but rather extreme, example :-

while (TRUE)
{
  printf ("I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10. Can you guess what it is?\n");

  input = GetNumberFromKeyboard ();

  if (input == 3)
  {
     printf ("Sorry, you lose. I was thinking of the number 7\n");
  }
  else
  {
     printf ("Sorry, you lose. I was thinking of the number 3\n");
  }
}

[Surferosa]

All sides have an equal obligation to provide rigorous proof of assertions that they know things as opposed to believing them. People once 'knew' that the sun and the stars went round the earth and that the latter was at the centre of the universe. Not only did they 'know' this, but they were prepared to use the power and authority of the Church to silence those who might disagree with them.

We should be sceptical of all who claim certainty where there is none or knowledge where there is only opinion. Question everything!

With all due respect- those statements are just blather and nonsense. It is not representative of history; it is not representative of our legal system; it is not representative of scientific practise. Go google the principles involved.

Saying we should all question everything is a soundbite. It doesn't bring in anything useful- in fact it has left me a little deflated that where I thought I saw rationality- I now only see someone being argumentative.

[mista T]

This irritated me. Seems my strikers can't hit a cow in the arse with a tennis racket.

[mista T]

I've just had 2 very similar results. Screenie coming in a mo.

[mista T]

there you go. My arse is that a fair game.

[mista T]

[wwfan]

Unfortunately, Rupal, the objective level of proof you are requesting would be impossible to produce. You say you'd be satisfied if I played out a few seasons with West Ham, given that Garry reports the phenomena happening in every one of those seasons. However,the moment I started that game, it would deviate from Garry's. I'd get different injuries, the AI would buy different players, as would I, the media would ask me different questions, I'd get a different draw in the cups. In a very quick space of time, the game would be as much 'mine' as the one I'm currently playing and would have little relationship with Garry's. Once again, the 'proof' would become subjective. There would be no way to show that better performance in 'dominating' matches is tactical. It could have related to the different manner in which I answered a question about who would win the league, which my players found favourable, whereas they reacted negatively to Garry's answer.

The proof we have provided is as good as it is ever going to be. We have shown that Garry's theory cannot be true given its fundamental unfalsifiablility, its complete failure to fit with the principles of Occam's Razor and the astronomical odds of a single person managing to achieve the claims. Likewise, we have produced evidence that it is not statistically dominant across the board as Garry had previously claimed, given the number of key passes it allows. In contrast, we have provided evidence of 'dominating' tactics scoring and conceding at much higher and lower rates than Garry believes is possible.

Given that Garry believes the phenomenon to happen no matter which team he manages (unless it is a world class side) why on earth do I need to do a control test with West Ham? Garry claims he has seen the same thing when managing Spurs, Darlington, Newcastle, Uncle Tom Cobbly's Best Eleven and all. He's just using West Ham as an example for this thread. Is there anything that excludes my current side from being objective enough when Garry is claiming it is an across the board phenomenon? He's not claiming it just happens when he is managing West Ham, or just in his current game. Every team, every game, every version of FM for the last 3.5 years. If that is his claim, which it is, what possible reason can you give me for having to manage West Ham to prove that it is tactical?

[Loversleaper]

I see this sort of logic used quite a lot. Computers do not actually need to "think for themselves" or have any sort of conscience in order to "cheat". They simply follow their programming, and if they are programmed to cheat, then yes they can cheat. Sure they may not get any smug self-satisfaction, in a "ha ha, fooled you!" sort of way, but technically it's still cheating. Here, let me write you a short, but rather extreme, example :-

while (TRUE)
{
  printf ("I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10. Can you guess what it is?\n");

  input = GetNumberFromKeyboard ();

  if (input == 3)
  {
     printf ("Sorry, you lose. I was thinking of the number 7\n");
  }
  else
  {
     printf ("Sorry, you lose. I was thinking of the number 3\n");
  }
}

Well, it is not quite the quessing game that you have suggested. Look, I definatly know that many haven't found the tactical rules that make feasable tactics and I know there will always be some that never will. People today don't have time to read posts and complain about reading altogether, and I am not in a position to say that people should or shouldn't. I wish that the SI made more comprehensible way to teach FM gamers how to make feasible tactics, because when FM gamers get the strategy right they will avoid the randomness that a lot of gamers experience. How will some gamers know how to deal with the strategy if they don't know what ideologies build up the game?

I really sympathise if they don't have time to learn the game the way that the FM creators had intended. 20 pages is described as if it would take weeks to read, and the pick up and play ideology has gone out the window which is incredibly annoying for some. But what would you like for the people who try and help out to do? Join some parade that condems a game so we can again sit and watch some colored line move back and forth in front of your eyes? When we have found the perfect tactic we can just bin the game as who honestly keeps playing a game you just kick the living daylights out of all the time? I think the strategy in the game is just too complex for some people but I don't think mocking me or anyone else will change this...

Of course there will be some type of random element, but lets look at that for a minute. Certain parts of the pitch create better chances than others, and anyone who knows professional foootball would agree that this is a fact. There are coaches that (using statistics) get their team to get the ball into these positions to maximise chances for getting better results. I think they have tried to mimic this, and that is why the % of the scoring chance will be higher in some places than others, and this has to be in conjuction with the over-riding of the AI settings. It sometimes is the role of a dice if you chances go in or not, but if they favor you, you should do better than worse in the long run.

You can call it "cheating" that the AI changes it's mentality (and other settings) to over-ride the Human Users' settings/capability, but still they don't render the Human User with absolutely no chance. You can still over-ride any AI settings you just have to know how. The hard thing is that how will FM Gamers actually find out what settings that need to be implemented in this situation, and this I can really understand. Some found it through looking at AI tactics to see how they build their tactics and found patterns in the AI's settings that could build feasable tactics, some found it through ideologies or pure luck, and there are those that already know what they are talking about. It is not as impossible as people think.

The quessing game is not so difficult once you have noticed the small messages in the ME that are giving FM Gamers hints on how the AI is playing. I see it pretty much this way: The AI has basically three attacking ideologies (mentality-wise) and three defensive. The one attacking is obvious, because it's the All-Out-Attack that they throw at you that we all experience form time to time, and the other obvious one is the really defensive that frustrates many gamers. After excluding these two there are only a few options left on both sides (of the mechanism), but you won't be able to crack them if your starting tactic is not feasable in the ME. The game is a computer game and it has it's own set of rules, we can't expect it to obey by our rules and ideologies as we have to obey to it's ideology or it simply won't undestand. When it doesn't understand, it makes us suffer. I know that many don't want to hear this, but I really don't know how else to explain it...

[wwfan]

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.

There is no such thing as a tactic with a 1.8 CCC ratio. There are just matches in which you make the right tactical decisions.

I always use different tactical strategies depending on the team I am playing. For example, against Everton, the match in which I was most statistically dominant, I played with a Standard strategy until I scored, then switched to a Counter Attacking variant, as it was a game I didn't actually expect to win. I then stuck with the Counter-Attacking one as they were failing to put my defence under any pressure at all. If I'd started to look shaky, I'd have switched to something different.

At home to Bolton, I played with an Attacking strategy for 70 mins before switching to a Counter Attacking and then a Defensive one to see out the game. I changed things both times because they were obviously becoming more aggressive and it was looking like they could get back into the game.

Against Burnley in the Cup (a game I didn't include in my analysis) I played with an Attacking Strategy for about 60 mins and then switched to an Overloading one as I still hadn't broken through, despite being hugely on top. When I did finally score, I switched to Counter and saw out the rest of the game with ease.

In a match I totally dominated in my current season (1-0 win away to Liverpool), I played with a Defensive mindset until the 85 minute, when I scored, at which point I switched to SUS. If Liverpool had started to look dangerous against the Defensive strategy, I'd have gone SUS earlier as I felt a draw would have been a good result. However, they didn't, so I stayed with it and got my just reward for remaining that little bit more aggressive.

I doubt there is a single game in which I stuck to the same tactic/strategy throughout. Your one off test would depend on too many random variables for it to mean anything. If you generated a random match seed in which your team was a little more confident than usual, you could be 3-0 up at half-time simply using the Attacking strategy. However, if you generated one in which Bolton were up for it, it could be 0-0 with 20 mins to go, which would mean you needed to change things. Playing the same match twice could produce massively different successful CCC counts.

The whole point of the exercise is that my argument for good managerial decision making (i.e logical tactical changes based on reading the match) leads to a hugely superior performance than simply sticking to the same tactic. Thus, running a test in which you simply stick to the tactic I supply proves absolutely nothing, other than you cannot always be successful by simply sticking to one tactic, which is the point I wish to prove in the first place. Whether, in that test, you score at a ratio of 1 per 1.8 CCCs is totally irrelevant.

For Rupal: Over a set time period (FM07-FM09), I have played in, or close to, this way and consistently performed at the same level of success, no matter which team, no matter which country, no matter which division. As with you, I use passing and creative freedom differently at lower levels than I would do at high. I also lower closing down. This forces the team into the playing patterns I anticipate, which is required as their lower level attributes stop them from successfully pulling off more technically, mentally and physically demanding duties. At higher levels, I give certain players their head as it encourages them to do the unexpected, which can often be the deciding factor between a draw and a win. However, the broader-based tactical ideas (match strategies) hold throughout the divisions.

In all this time, Garry has been making the same argument about the 'levelling ME', in various shapes and forms. The one constant element of difference in how we play is our tactics. For example, I argue with Garry that he shouldn't be buying so many new players in as it will harm his team's performance, but he does it anyway. So do I, but in anticipation of the potentially worse performance, I play a far more conservative tactic than I would with a gelled side and my results stay roughly the same. Garry's don't. So, despite similar buying strategies, performance is different, with the only major variable being my tactical approach.

For FM08, in which Garry vigorously pursued the 'cheating ME' argument, he did, for one moment, actually listen to me when I outlined why his teams couldn't hold onto a lead. I explained that he needed to shore up his flanks as his FBs ran out of energy and were unable to cope with the AI team flooding the flanks, leading to a lot of defensive errors and fouls near/in the box. Garry began to make his forwards move to the flanks via a backwards diagonal arrow when he wanted to hold on to a narrow lead, and in doing so, went on a massively long unbeaten run. He even almost began to believe his theory was wrong. Unfortunately, he then lost a match which he felt he should have won which cost him a trophy and he relaunched his 'cheating ME' claims. However, he continued to use the 'darrowed' FCs method as it patently improved his chances of winning matches in which he had a narrow lead. Thus, he proved that a tactical change could make a major difference.

Team Talk Variables: When Millie and I were testing the TT&F tactical theories out during the latter stages of FM08 and the early Beta stages of FM09, we decided to let the AssMan do all the team talks in order to ascertain whether just picking the right match strategy would be enough for success. We'd let the AssMan make the talk and then simply make tactical reactions to the way the match was going. If the team looked as if it was playing badly, we'd move down a strategy to see out the half (i.e. Attacking to Standard), wait for the AssMan's half-time team talk and try to become more aggressive afterwards. We saw little, if any, difference in end-of-match performance. We'd experience more bad halves than we were used to via our own team talk methodology, but we could control it simply by switching tactics.

Any more variables I need to remove, or are we getting closer?

[Hammer1000]

Ok, I will take it upon myself to explain what is going on in the above screenshot, well aware that I will probably get attacked for it even though I had nothing to do with the programming of the FM game. I am not doing this for Hammer1000's sake as he does/should know this by now, but more for the people reading this thread as this dilemma in the presented screenshot actually has a reason behind it. I am not here to say what is right or wrong, but what I do suggest should make sense and if I am wrong in my assumption please feel free to comment, but please do it in a decent fashion. Thanks...

To understand the screenshot above we have to find out how the components in this computer game add up, giving things values which are translated onto the ME. I know some might say "what is he on about". Please give me time to explain as it all is quite simple but just hard to actually explain.

The components in the game are the 'adding' up of the slider settings that a Human User implements giving the ME certain 'values' (this goes for the AI as well) in the attacking and defending mechanism the game apparently has, and I am sure this is done by a % system. The player attributes are also a 1-20 scale so this must effect the accuracy of the slider settings a Human User implements.

Now, since the game has a 'defensive' mechanism and an 'attacking' mechanism, the Human User's settings (+players attributes) influences the effects that we see in the ME. I, pesonally, think the AI uses slider settings to over-power human settings, but still I think the 'defensive' mechanism is the one that most Human Users have a hard time understanding (but I think they did it this way so Human User's can still overachieve with lesser teams).

This is the main reason that a Human Users' tactical settings eventually fall down, it is not due to a "levelling" system, but an attempt from the AI to over-ride the Human Users' attacking capability. If it succeeds and you don't do something tactical to over-ride the AI's defensive capability then the Human User struggles and ends up having difficulties winning until your form is so bad that the AI actually activates the 'attacking' mechanism again that the Human User's tactical settings have an easier time dealing with causing the Human Users team to go back to winning ways. The winning ways will again cause the AI to activate the 'defensive' mechanism once more causing the Human User difficulties and the cycle continues (the re-ranking theory).

The 'defensive' mechanism is hard to over-ride (but not impossible) and that is why we can go back to the screenshot presented above. Chelsea's 'defensive' capability is so strong that Hammer1000 settings (and maybe player attributes) apparently cannot override this mechanism, even though the match stats appear to show he is. If they (the SI)made a game where all teams that dominate possession and shots on goal to win then choosing a bottem team would become obsolete because it will cause you to automatically loose as you don't have the 'components' that can over-ride AI settings/capability.

Learning how to deal with the two mechanisms (attacking and defending) is the only way you are going to get around results like these, and are these mechanisms really that unfair? This is how I think the AI has thought out how to make the game as realistic as possible, but in the FM World you can actually win over the AI as long as you know how to deal with two mentioned mechanisms and understand how they work (as opposed to RL scores many have experienced week after week). This is the reason that it has been discussed why there is a need for different mentality frameworks (to over-ride AI settings) and this is why FM has included three different Mentality-Framework tactics in the game itself.

I know that you will say that Hammer1000 has shown that he can over-ride these settings but I beg to differ. It has been explained but I think this terminology simply won't be accepted by few, and I don't think that there really is anything that will convince them otherwise. Even if the programmers were to come and tell them this, you can't win everygame you dominate in FM or in the Real World, but all I can say is that there are settings that over-rides AI settings because I have seen them and tried them. If you believe me or not will be your own personal oppinion. The game could have better feedback to describe this, but this is not for me to decide.

I know this all seems complicated for some, but I think the youth of today has a much more understanding of how 'components' in computer games work, better than the generation before that (and the one before that, and so on...). I know this will probably spark a "that is the end of FM for me" attitude from some, but all I can say is this game is probably not built for them personally, and for that I (personally) am truely sorry. But please remember it is not my fault nor do I defend it to the death, but the theory that ME cheats is simply not feasable, as computer games don't think for themselves yet. You can debate this from now until Christmas, if you don't understand the mechanisms in the game you will never be able to have a constructive debate...

I THINK i know what you are saying and i have no issues with you personally, despite what you may think, but let me just go over a couple of things to make sure i am actually getting this right and i'm not just being a numpty.

Are you saying that my continued good form over nearly 4 seasons has persuaded the Chelsea boss to finally give me a little more respect and play more defensively against us?

The notion itself is not so hard to grasp, because i have already witnessed the same thing before this game, with Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool all having obviously taken a more defensive stance in games, which has usually actually led to better results for me, rather than worse?

I'll leave it there in case i have got the wrong end of the stick, but suffice to say, i have used this tactic for 4 full seasons now and have come across both attacking and defensive teams in the EPL as well as Europe and have continued to get results and early in season 5 i am sat 2nd in the EPL behind Man City, having already beaten a couple of the "Big Four".

Strange how it took until i was in a position to win all 4 of the competitions we had entered, that this suddenly manifested and then dissapeared again without a trace?

I'm not saying your wrong, i'm just saying that i have already come up against this without much of a problem, so it would be strange to single out the Chelsea Cup Final as a for instance of what you think has happened?

[Rupal]

Unfortunately, Rupal, the objective level of proof you are requesting would be impossible to produce. You say you'd be satisfied if I played out a few seasons with West Ham, given that Garry reports the phenomena happening in every one of those seasons. However,the moment I started that game, it would deviate from Garry's. I'd get different injuries, the AI would buy different players, as would I, the media would ask me different questions, I'd get a different draw in the cups. In a very quick space of time, the game would be as much 'mine' as the one I'm currently playing and would have little relationship with Garry's. Once again, the 'proof' would become subjective. There would be no way to show that better performance in 'dominating' matches is tactical. It could have related to the different manner in which I answered a question about who would win the league, which my players found favourable, whereas they reacted negatively to Garry's answer.

The proof we have provided is as good as it is ever going to be. We have shown that Garry's theory cannot be true given its fundamental unfalsifiablility, its complete failure to fit with the principles of Occam's Razor and the astronomical odds of a single person managing to achieve the claims. Likewise, we have produced evidence that it is not statistically dominant across the board as Garry had previously claimed, given the number of key passes it allows. In contrast, we have provided evidence of 'dominating' tactics scoring and conceding at much higher and lower rates than Garry believes is possible.

Given that Garry believes the phenomenon to happen no matter which team he manages (unless it is a world class side) why on earth do I need to do a control test with West Ham? Garry claims he has seen the same thing when managing Spurs, Darlington, Newcastle, Uncle Tom Cobbly's Best Eleven and all. He's just using West Ham as an example for this thread. Is there anything that excludes my current side from being objective enough when Garry is claiming it is an across the board phenomenon? He's not claiming it just happens when he is managing West Ham, or just in his current game. Every team, every game, every version of FM for the last 3.5 years. If that is his claim, which it is, what possible reason can you give me for having to manage West Ham to prove that it is tactical?

The test which I was actually suggesting would have involved a double save on your part. You would save at the start of a season, play a match using your tactics, save under one file name, replay the match using Hammer's tactics and save under a second file name. You would continue with each 'string' and could compare the overall results at the end of a reasonable period. You would, of course, ensure that all other variables (players, team talks, etc, were identical for each match) Thus if a player were injured, for example, in one 'string' you wouldn't play him in the other. I appreciate that the 'butterfly effect' would interfere with this process to some extent but I think it would be reasonable to assume that, over an extended period, things would even out and that results would be representative of the difference between the two sets of tactics. Such a test would be as close as I can think of to getting proof one way or the other. But maybe you can think of something better?

Of course, Hammer could conduct such a test himself, but as he is not so used to the alterations which you make with your tactics during matches, it is, giving all due respect to him, more likely that he would make mistakes and not do your tactics justice. As Hammer doesn't alter tactics the same problem wouldn't exist for you.

We return as always to the simple point that the most which you have done (assuming that we accept the validity of your statistical claims for the moment) is to show that it is less likely to be a 'levelling' mechanism which is involved than it is to be something different which Garry does compared to what you do.

What you have not done, unfortunately, is to show that that 'something' is tactics.

When you can show that the 'something' is, indeed, tactics you will be able to justifiably say that you know that Garry's tactics are to blame and that he should alter them. Otherwise, you are really only entitled to state that you 'strongly believe' it (or words to that effect).

[Rupal]

With all due respect- those statements are just blather and nonsense. It is not representative of history; it is not representative of our legal system; it is not representative of scientific practise. Go google the principles involved.

Saying we should all question everything is a soundbite. It doesn't bring in anything useful- in fact it has left me a little deflated that where I thought I saw rationality- I now only see someone being argumentative.

Very well. Persist in your extraordinary assertion that when two different theories are being questioned and there are further theories which are not obviously ridiculous, only one of them requires proof. If you cannot see that this is an obviously foolish point of view there is no way in which I am likely to be able to persuade you.

I'm afraid that maintaining such a preposterous position shows that it is you who is being argumentative.

[Surferosa]

Very well. Persist in your extraordinary assertion that when two different theories are being questioned and there are further theories which are not obviously ridiculous, only one of them requires proof. If you cannot see that this is an obviously foolish point of view there is no way in which I am likely to be able to persuade you.

I'm afraid that maintaining such a preposterous position shows that it is you who is being argumentative.

Like I said, we dont have two theories. We have widely accepted belief (success via tactical adaptation) and a new theory (ME cheat). One is already assumed: one is proposed.

Burden of proof falls on the proposer in all legal, scientific and intellectual basis. From wiki:

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positive claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

Clearly you pseudo-intellectual justification and posturing over something that you have lately said that you dont believe to be true in any regard is perhaps an attempt at a face-saving climb-down? Either way- all that has (still) been presented in this thread is more of the tedious protestations regarding a ME cheat.

It has provided no evidence whatsoever. Something you cannot point the finger at wwfan. Although you do continually and embarrassingly continue to do.

[Rupal]

We have two proposers here not one - Hammer1000 proposes that the cause is levelling and wwfan proposes that the cause is tactical.

The number of people who assume one rather than the other is irrelevant. Both parties are making claims and neither of them has produced evidence to support them. Otherwise, the way of showing that one or the other was right would be to hold a ballot. Are you seriously suggesting that this would prove anything useful?

However, if you are prepared to be satisfied that because a lot of people say something it is necessarily safe to accept that it is true, that's fine by me. It's a good job that this is only about a game here, though. I can think of a lot of real life situations where such a belief could prove to be very dangerous and so I am not going to adopt it myself.

In the meantime, I will continue to assert that you cannot say that you know something without having provided evidence to show that it is true and having eliminated other possibilities. This has nothing to do with burden of proof or anything else but has everything to do with the meaning of the word 'know'.

Edit: Just to be clear, wwfan's evidence seems to show that he is better at dealing with these things than Hammer. However, this evidence does nothing to further his claim that this greater success is as the result of his tactics.

[Surferosa]

We have two proposers here not one - Hammer1000 proposes that the cause is levelling and wwfan proposes that the cause is tactical.

The number of people who assume one rather than the other is irrelevant. Both parties are making claims and neither of them has produced evidence to support them. Otherwise, the way of showing that one or the other was right would be to hold a ballot. Are you seriously suggesting that this would prove anything useful?

No. That would be ridiculous. Which is par for the course at the moment.

You are ignoring the fact we have 15+ years of established and agreed wisdom (ie tactics effect results without a ME cheat); the developers flat denail; the principle contributors and writers on FM; the anecdotal evdidence of the thousands of people who play the game LT; and the success of tactics sets where the any ME cheat would materialise.

wwfan is not proposing that the cause is tactical. wwfan is stating the bleeding obvious. If the bleeding obvious turns out to be incorrect- its for Garry (or someone else) to prove it so. However you dress this up- Garry needs to provide the proof otherwise we are all going to carry on assuming that Garry tactics cant break down a massed defense- not that his conspiracy theory is obviously true. I dont know how to put it any simpler than that.

Furthermore, I dont believe its worth being drawn into another semantical debate about the meaning of the word 'know' just becuase you've lost a debate into who owes a burden of proof.

[Surferosa]

Well, I will let the quality of that remark speak for itself.

In the meantime, I can only suggest that you use a dictionary rather than wikipedia and look up the meanings of words like 'know', 'establish', 'prove' and, dare I say it 'logic'.

Why do you continue to argue and ignore the underlying point being made? If you want to have a debate- lets continue- bit dont drag it into a pit of posturing and mudslinging.

You are ignoring the fact we have 15+ years of established and agreed wisdom (ie tactics effect results without a ME cheat); the developers flat denail; the principle contributors and writers on FM; the anecdotal evdidence of the thousands of people who play the game LT; and the success of tactics sets where the any ME cheat would materialise.

How can you say that the assumption of deficiency in Hammers tactics wouldn't be the assumption right from the off? Whenever someone posts that they are having problems with a tactic- do you immediate jump to the conclusion that its obviously another ME cheat thats been discovered? I mean, really?

[Rupal]

wwfan is not proposing that the cause is tactical. wwfan is stating the bleeding obvious.

Ah, I see. Another person who thinks that saying 'it's your tactics' is all that you need to do. Fine. I expect you are in the majority, too, so of course you must be right, mustn't you? So we can all stop discussing this. That's great.

I can only suggest that you rely on a dictionary rather than wikipedia and look up meanings of words like 'prove', 'know', 'evidence', 'establish' and (if I may be so bold) 'logic'.

If this post is acerbic in tone I am sorry. However, it was not I who started to allow my irritation to affect the language which I chose to use. I think that it would probably be better if we didn't have any more exchanges, for everybody's sake.

This post replaced my previous one where I did not put things as clearly as I wished. However, the basic content is unaltered.

[Surferosa]

If this post is acerbic in tone I am sorry.

This post replaced my previous one where I did not put things as clearly as I wished. However, the basic content is unaltered.

Fair enough. No problem.

But I feel this is at the crux of our disagreement: could you respond to this please.

You are ignoring the fact we have 15+ years of established and agreed wisdom (ie tactics effect results without a ME cheat); the developers flat denail; the principle contributors and writers on FM; the anecdotal evdidence of the thousands of people who play the game LT; and the success of tactics sets where the any ME cheat would materialise.

How can you say that the assumption of deficiency in Hammers tactics wouldn't be the assumption right from the off? Whenever someone posts that they are having problems with a tactic- do you immediate jump to the conclusion that its obviously another ME cheat thats been discovered? I mean, really?

[Rupal]

I am not disputing that tactics affect results. I am not disputing that the developers have said that there is not a cheat. I have said very frequently by now that I do not believe that there is a 'cheat' at all (but I think that there could possibly be a general taking of form into consideration across the board, affecting AI and human managers equally, which isn't the same thing. I make no claims of knowledge or even evidence for this, it is entirely speculative). I am not disputing that tactics sets are successful, as I use them myself (I have just won a game 8-0 away using one).

What I do say is that none of this, nor the number of people who believe that tactics are at the bottom of this, actually establishes that Hammer is losing these games because of his tactics. That is because of the meaning of the word 'establishes'. To establish this you would have to show that it wasn't anything else and people just haven't done that.

As Sherlock Holmes said, 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.' (I am quoting from memory here, so if I didn't use the exact words, I apologise). If we suppose just for the moment that we have eliminated one 'impossible', ie 'levelling' (though I bet that even that is still disputed by Garry) we still haven't eliminated a number of others (team talks, media etc).

Unfortunately, all the talk about the 'burden of proof' doesn't alter the meanings of words. People have said they know, when they don't.

Edit: Maybe if I say this it will help. If you come on here and say something like, 'Garry we've shown that it isn't a 'cheat' and that wwfan is better than you are at dealing with these games and so we strongly believe that if you give wwfan's tactics a try it will help' I will have no quarrel with you (assuming that we can agree that we have disproved Garry's 'cheat' theory, of course). But if you say 'Garry we know that it is wwfan's tactics' then I will dispute that with you until you prove it.

[Surferosa]

You see Rupal; this issue is extremely important. I feel I need to sumise to explain, and hopefully move this onto somewhere useful.

Lets make the assumption that Garry is correct. The hypothesis of any test we devise to prove that the ME does not cheat is virtually impossible to create (ie.. the test fails becuase- it didnt cheat under those test circumstances, but would do with different variables). This is the point wwfan is making.

Burden of proof is an underlying principle in both law and science for good reason. The difficult cases are always prima facie- which is usually why these travel all the way upto the High Court. Its an interesting point that you could argue that if FM was a new game, new code, nothing to fall back on- then you'd be correct: the burden would be on both sides.

Here it doesn't. Which is helpful: it means that the working hypothesis of any test should be something as follows:

Test hypothesis

FM09 engine takes into account a hidden 'levelling' alogorithm that is designed to reduce the effectiveness of a tactic in deciding match result outcomes. It does this irrespective of the tactical choices made by the user.

You see once we can agree where the burden of proof lies- we can agree the hypothesis and move forward. Then, a reputable tester (such as knap) could maybe entrusted to devise and perform some testing. Maybe- with a fair wind and bit of luck (unlikely) we could also get input from both hammer and wwfan. But until conceptually it is understood and agreed where the proof lies- this thread (and 3+ year debate) will continue ad nauseum.

Edit

I should add that having to prove that the match engine cheats is much easier from a hypothesis perspective than proving it doesn't. Proving something is TRUE is always more practicable than proving a statement is FALSE. That is why the burden of broof always lies with the proposer.

[Hammer1000]

Can i just say that i am NOT claiming "cheat".

I am merely pointing out that the maintained obvious weaknesses in the ME requires a system of calculating games that continue to produce such matches as those that i and others have brought to attention.

[Surferosa]

Can i just say that i am NOT claiming "cheat".

I am merely pointing out that the maintained obvious weaknesses in the ME requires a system of calculating games that continue to produce such matches as those that i and others have brought to attention.

We are using the phrase 'ME cheat' to describe the behavior in the ME of altering the outcome of matches or events within matches according to hidden variables outside the control of the user. However, you are right that in a testing hypthesis it shouldn't be ambiguous. Therefore I would propose the following:

Test Hypothesis 1.02

FM09 engine takes into account a hidden 'levelling' alogorithm that is designed to reduce the effectiveness of a tactic in deciding match result outcomes. It does this irrespective of any tactical variations.

Specifically, the ME;

a) alters either the outcome of matches, or;

b) alter events within matches that ultimately change the outcome of a match

Statistically, this pinciple leads to a reduced effectiveness of a team over time, irrespective of tactical variations made by the user. This is often referred to as a ME 'cheat' or hidden 'leveller', etc

How does that sound Hammer?

[Rupal]

You see Rupal; this issue is extremely important. I feel I need to sumise to explain, and hopefully move this onto somewhere useful.

Lets make the assumption that Garry is correct. The hypothesis of any test we devise to prove that the ME does not cheat is virtually impossible to create (ie.. the test fails becuase- it didnt cheat under those test circumstances, but would do with different variables). This is the point wwfan is making.

Burden of proof is an underlying principle in both law and science for good reason. The difficult cases are always prima facie- which is usually why these travel all the way upto the High Court. Its an interesting point that you could argue that if FM was a new game, new code, nothing to fall back on- then you'd be correct: the burden would be on both sides.

Here it doesn't. Which is helpful: it means that the working hypothesis of any test should be something as follows:

Test hypothesis

FM09 engine takes into account a hidden 'levelling' alogorithm that is designed to reduce the effectiveness of a tactic in deciding match result outcomes. It does this irrespective of the tactical choices made by the user.

You see once we can agree where the burden of proof lies- we can agree the hypothesis and move forward. Then, a reputable tester (such as knap) could maybe entrusted to devise and perform some testing. Maybe- with a fair wind and bit of luck (unlikely) we could also get input from both hammer and wwfan. But until conceptually it is understood and agreed where the proof lies- this thread (and 3+ year debate) will continue ad nauseum.

Edit

I should add that having to prove that the match engine cheats is much easier from a hypothesis perspective than proving it doesn't. Proving something is TRUE is always more practicable than proving a statement is FALSE. That is why the burden of broof always lies with the proposer.

I'm really sorry Surferosa but I can only refer you to my previous post. Legal precedent makes no difference to the meanings of words (unless, perhaps, they are legal terms which have legal definitions of course ).

Neither you nor wwfan has the right to say that you know that the problem is with Garry's tactics because of the meaning of the word 'know'. As I have said before, disproving Garry's contention a thousand times over would not itself establish that your contention was right. That's because of the meaning of the word 'establish'.

It really is that simple.

[Surferosa]

I'm really sorry Surferosa but I can only refer you to my previous post. Legal precedent makes no difference to the meanings of words (unless, perhaps, they are legal terms which have legal definitions of course ).

Neither you nor wwfan has the right to say that you know that the problem is with Garry's tactics because of the meaning of the word 'know'. As I have said before, disproving Garry's contention a thousand times over would not itself establish that your contention was right. That's because of the meaning of the word 'establish'.

We are not debating the meaning of words. I agree with your definitions of 'know' 'establish' and everything else you have said. What I am referring to is to who the burden falls. This principle isnt just legal. Its scientific, statistical (which is how I am aware of its fact), political, and so on.

In essense, Im an trying hard to explain that we need to find a methodology for proving Garry's new theories- not having to disprove them. That is the only way you 'establish' what you 'know'.