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

[Hammer1000]

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?

Something along those lines sure.

[Rupal]

Surferosa, I am merely insisting that you or wwfan or even the Archangel Gabriel cannot say that you 'know' something which you do not or that you have shown that something must be the case when you have not. In each case that would be self contradictory and that is because of the meanings of words such as 'know'. It is a basic philosophical truth and is not altered by popularity, legal precedent, statistics or anything else.

The mere fact that something is an established opinion does not show that it is correct. That is because of the meaning of the word 'show'. You cannot say that we are 'not debating the meanings of words', that is precisely what we are doing.

[RT--]

Surferosa, I am merely insisting that you or wwfan or even the Archangel Gabriel cannot say that you 'know' something which you do not or that you have shown that something must be the case when you have not. In each case that would be self contradictory and that is because of the meanings of words such as 'know'. It is a basic philosophical truth and is not altered by popularity, legal precedent, statistics or anything else.

The mere fact that something is an established opinion does not show that it is correct. That is because of the meaning of the word 'show'. You cannot say that we are 'not debating the meanings of words', that is precisely what we are doing.

Why are you not applying this level of critical thinking to Hammer's theory? As far as I can see, he's making his claims just as boldly as anyone proposing alternative ideas, but you don't appear to be grilling him on his logic at all.

Neither side of this argument can 'know' they're right for sure, but there's such a huge imbalance in evidence here that I don't think anyone reading this forum is going to be harmed by trying to change their tactical approach if they run in to similar problems to Hammer.

[Hammer1000]

I don't think anyone reading this forum is going to be harmed by trying to change their tactical approach if they run in to similar problems to Hammer.

Completely agree with this sentence!

[Rupal]

Why are you not applying this level of critical thinking to Hammer's theory? As far as I can see, he's making his claims just as boldly as anyone proposing alternative ideas, but you don't appear to be grilling him on his logic at all.

Neither side of this argument can 'know' they're right for sure, but there's such a huge imbalance in evidence here that I don't think anyone reading this forum is going to be harmed by trying to change their tactical approach if they run in to similar problems to Hammer.

But I've already said that I don't think that Hammer's theory is right several times. Hammer knows this as well, because I told him so in a PM. What more can I do?

Wwfan has given a load of stats which he says show that he is better at these things than Hammer and so there can't be a leveller because it doesn't apply to him. They look OK to me (although I haven't gone through them in a very detailed way because 'hard sums' make my poor head hurt ) so it's up to Hammer to say if there's something wrong with them.

To be crystal clear, I don't believe that Hammer 'knows' that it is a leveller either! He would need to conduct an experiment to prove it, just like wwfan and co need to. That fair?

Your last remark I completely agree with. I use TT&F based tactics myself and change them in match as well.

[eye-switcher]

Why is this thread alowed to continue?

It´s soon 10 pages of garbage, as soon somebody says something sensible in this thread he is shot down or ridiculed.

Hammer obviously dont want any help and dont want listen to anybody that doesnt agree with him, and with that the thread ought to be locked down to never see the light of day anymore.

[Surferosa]

Something along those lines sure.

Excellent Now for the hard bit

(Im putting these out there as a suggestion on the basis that we've got to start somewhere).

In trying to prove your theory we are going to need to firstly establish;

- Using your tactic, a single result can be shown to be statistically reasonably consistent. ie that if we replay one match a large number of times you will experience a similiar result set (dominance in chances and other stats you deem as key- as well as a less than favourable outcome). If statistical significance on consistency of result cannot be identified- then we can't even say that the ME itself is anything other than a big random number generator (ie if the results prove to be completely random- then Im off to burn all the copies of FM I have and never darken these forums again )

To do so, we will create 3 test sets.

1. We will create a test based on saved game that you have where you have a result that displays the characteristics of the Hypothesis (obviously this means you need a save before the game so it can be repeated). We will replay that game many times and hopefully achieve our statistical consistency. We will call this the 'Rigged' set

2. Using the same formation (ie the 'Hammer' formation), teamtalk, players and other settings; but the using the default team and individual player default settings we will repeat the match a number of times. We are looking for a comparison (a yardstick if you will) to a user that has done no tactical tinkering beyond using the 'Hammer' formation. We shall call this the 'Control' set.

3. Again, using the same formation (ie the 'Hammer' formation), teamtalk, players and other settings; but using tactical tinkering as perscribed by wwfan we shall repeat the match a number of times. Again, we are looking for a comparison. We shall call this the 'TT&F' set

On the basis that the 'hidden' leveling algorythm is going to kick in, our expected findings are as follows:

1. Our results will show consitentency (to statistical confidence) within each test set (ie the results of within each individual set will be statistically similiar)

2. We do not expect to see a statistical difference in the outcomes in any testset. The levelling algorythm will ensure that in comparison of each set there will be no statistical improvement in the actual result experienced between 'Rigged' and 'Control' or 'Rigged' and 'TT&F'.

3. We expect to see the default values perform the weakest of all the tests (on the basis that they have had no tweaking). This testset actually doesnt have much relevance- but should be useful in analysis all the same.

Problems and Assumptions

-we obviously need to reduce test 'noise' to a minimum (ie eliminate as many variables as possible outside of the tactical engine). Therefore, before the test starts- agreement should be made on what variables are going to be used (specifically, post match & half-time teamtalks, players, etc).

-again to reduce noise, we should not allow substitutions and should disregard any results where a player is removed from injury or sending off. For this reason, the players selected should all have a good level of fitness and a low propensity to injury (indeed it may be worthwhile editing the data to that effect to minimise the number of failed tests).

-we need to maintain focus around testing the 'leveller' hypothesis; not the effectiveness of

the tactic. We are looking to prove that no change can be made to a tactic that would lead to statistical improvement in the result outcome rather than how good or bad the formation and settings are (which has no relevance).

-one clear problem is the player learning of a new formation. My reasoning behind the stipulation that every test must use the same 442 or 4231 or whatever the Hammer formation is to reduce again noise from formation learning.

Questions I have;

-from your previous comments, I assume that you play the match out without tinkering mid-game Hammer. Is this correct?

-when recording the results, do we allow the tactical tinkering to occur on the TT&F set? My opinion would be yes becuase I think we'll get the argument that its a mechanism for improving results. The downside of this is it must be performed by wwfan (otherwise the whole test is subject to the accusation that the 'wrong tactical manipulations were made'). If thats the case, we are relying on the goodwill of his participation- so the whole thing maybe a non-starter

Thoughts?

[JimbobWWFC]

Why is this thread alowed to continue?

It´s soon 10 pages of garbage

I disagree. The last 4 or 5 pages were garbage! The first few were pretty interesting lol

[chopper99]

Why is this thread alowed to continue?

It´s soon 10 pages of garbage, as soon somebody says something sensible in this thread he is shot down or ridiculed.

Hammer obviously dont want any help and dont want listen to anybody that doesnt agree with him, and with that the thread ought to be locked down to never see the light of day anymore.

If you don't like it then don't read and reply to it. Simple.

There has actually been some excellent debate and constructive discussion in this thread. It's a lot better than much of the garbage in this forum at times. Feel free to take your leave of this thread and leave us to it.

[Surferosa]

To be crystal clear, I don't believe that Hammer 'knows' that it is a leveller either! He would need to conduct an experiment to prove it, just like wwfan and co need to. That fair?

No they dont, becuase they are not arguing against generally accepted knowledge (well, they dont need to anywhere except on planet Rupal ) Therefore we need to help Garry prove his point- rather than wwfan disprove it

Moving on...

[Loversleaper]

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?

When you started with West Ham in season1 you only have a certain 'ammount' of defensive and offensive capabilities, so the AI will use more of the attacking mechanism against you during matches. By season4 you would/should have better players than when you started and this has upgraded your defensive and offensive capabilities. On top of this you have won some medals and this combination causes the AI to recognise your team as 'world-class', so in a sense your status has changed from season1. Some teams take a season or two to get to this 'world-class' state and some other teams/managers take a lot longer time, this can be due to how long time it takes the Human User to get all the components into the game that trigger this (medals, players, reputation, ect...).

When Human User teams 'break' into the world-class elite, it will take more extreme slider-settings to actually break down the other teams. This is because the opponents you will be facing (from now on) will be maximising their 'defensive' mechansim and you have to press the opponent incredibly hard to 'unlock' the AI's defense. There are also other sliders that aids in the unlocking of these type of AI teams, like high mentality and creative freedom (18+). High tempo is something that defensive AI teams also have a hard time dealing with. The only way I can explain it is that to break down this 'defensive' mechanism requires a different ideology (or set of rules) than when you were up against the AI 'attacking' mechanism.

Somehow the 'attacking' mechanism is easier for the Human User to deal with, and you don't need to be too extreme (sliders) to get results against this mechanism. When you are sitting deep the counter attacking option makes your finishing more high quality as (maybe) there has been more 'room' to exploit behind opposition defenses. Playing too conservatively against another conservative formations/tactics becomes too random, and this is the dilemma many are experiencing, where-as really having a 'go' at them will/should bring things back into the Human Users' favor.

All in all, though, before you become too extreme with the sliders you need the right type of players or you will be over-riding your own teams' capability causing the team to 'run out of steam' and that is why so many say they conceed late in games. There is usually a reason that causes the Human Users' tactics to fail, and it is usually due to this or somehow making contradicting instructions that the AI apparently can't deal with causing your team to descend into a state of 'randomness' which everyone wants to avoid.

When you are able to maximise your own attacking mechanism as one of the better sides in your league, the AI won't be able to cope with this with their 'limited' defensive capability...

[Rupal]

Surferosa, trying to be helpful, Hammer doesn't change tactics mid match. I asked him this earlier. And Chopper99 tested things and found that randomisation wasn't too bad - results were reasonably consistent when you saved and replayed and so on.

[Rupal]

No they dont, becuase they are not arguing against generally accepted knowledge (well, they dont need to anywhere except on planet Rupal ) Therefore we need to help Garry prove his point- rather than wwfan disprove it

Moving on...

Oh dear - I can only refer you to your dictionary again Surferosa. Look up the meaning of the word 'knowledge'. I also suggest that you cut out the sarcasm because it does nothing to support your case and is just likely to lead to ill tempered exchanges again. OK?

[Surferosa]

Surferosa, trying to be helpful, Hammer doesn't change tactics mid match. I asked him this earlier. And Chopper99 tested things and found that randomisation wasn't too bad - results were reasonably consistent when you saved and replayed and so on.

To be honest Ive done quite a bit of this before (its actually a methodology I have employed in the past to tactic test) and have always found a strong correlation on results. If Hammer doesn't tinker mid game- it should make it all the easier to test.

Im really hoping Knap stumbles back this way: his input on this would be useful.

[chopper99]

Surferosa, trying to be helpful, Hammer doesn't change tactics mid match. I asked him this earlier. And Chopper99 tested things and found that randomisation wasn't too bad - results were reasonably consistent when you saved and replayed and so on.

This is true, I did tests with my Man City game and there was a definite, easily discernable pattern. I made a thread about it somewhere.

From what I remember it was against a team that I was favourites to beat, but not massively. I only managed to play the same game ten times though, but other people added their experiences to the thread that supported my findings. I set the tactic and saved directly before the start of the match, ignored team talks and opposition instructions every time and played the exact same game every time, leaving the random or 'luck' element as the only variable.

From memory, during my tests I won 7 games, drew 2 and lost 1. But the most impressive thing was that the scorelines, apart from in 2 cases, were all very similar.

[Hammer1000]

When you started with West Ham in season1 you only have a certain 'ammount' of defensive and offensive capabilities, so the AI will use more of the attacking mechanism against you during matches. By season4 you would/should have better players than when you started and this has upgraded your defensive and offensive capabilities. On top of this you have won some medals and this combination causes the AI to recognise your team as 'world-class', so in a sense your status has changed from season1. Some teams take a season or two to get to this 'world-class' state and some other teams/managers take a lot longer time, this can be due to how long time it takes the Human User to get all the components into the game that trigger this (medals, players, reputation, ect...).

When Human User teams 'break' into the world-class elite, it will take more extreme slider-settings to actually break down the other teams. This is because the opponents you will be facing (from now on) will be maximising their 'defensive' mechansim and you have to press the opponent incredibly hard to 'unlock' the AI's defense. There are also other sliders that aids in the unlocking of these type of AI teams, like high mentality and creative freedom (18+). High tempo is something that defensive AI teams also have a hard time dealing with. The only way I can explain it is that to break down this 'defensive' mechanism requires a different ideology (or set of rules) than when you were up against the AI 'attacking' mechanism.

Somehow the 'attacking' mechanism is easier for the Human User to deal with, and you don't need to be too extreme (sliders) to get results against this mechanism. When you are sitting deep the counter attacking option makes your finishing more high quality as (maybe) there has been more 'room' to exploit behind opposition defenses. Playing too conservatively against another conservative formation becomes too random, and this is the dilemma many are experiencing, where-as really having a 'go' at them will/should bring things back into the Human Users' favor.

All in all, though, before you become too extreme with the sliders you need the right type of players or you will be over-riding your own teams' capability causing the team to 'run out of steam' and that is why so many say they conceed late in games. There is usually a reason that causes the Human Users' tactics to fail, and it is usually due to this or somehow making a contradicting instructions that the AI apparently can't deal with causing your team to descend into a state of 'randomness' which everyone wants to aviod.

When you are able to maximise your own attacking mechanism as one of the better sides in your league, the AI won't be able to cope with this with their 'limited' defensive capability...

I dont seem to be suffering from the suggested problem though LL, i have little issue with breaking down defensive set ups.

I've also explained that width has not been an issue, with my right winger, then left winger, winning POTY in successive seasons.

Feel free to let me know if i'm missing the point?

[Surferosa]

This is true, I did tests with my Man City game and there was a definite, easily discernable pattern. I made a thread about it somewhere.

From what I remember it was against a team that I was favourites to beat, but not massively. I only managed to play the same game ten times though, but other people added their experiences to the thread that supported my findings. I set the tactic and saved directly before the start of the match, ignored team talks and opposition instructions every time and played the exact same game every time, leaving the random or 'luck' element as the only variable.

From memory, during my tests I won 7 games, drew 2 and lost 1. But the most impressive thing was that the scorelines, apart from in 2 cases, were all very similar.

That backs up my experience. When looking at the actual games apart from the extremes that you get in any normal statistical distribution, the large majority played out almost identically (quite impressively so to be honest). Therefore we can hopefully assess whether the TT&F instructions has a statistical variation from the Rigged. What do you think?

Edit: Hammer, as much of this will depend on your contribution- would you mind trying to track down a save game that falls into the above so we can see if people can be persuaded into doing some testing? If we can get it loaded up somewhere and agree some variables maybe we can get somewhere with this.

[Uncle_Sam]

I see Garry is still regurgitating this same old, tired business.

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, really. The AI changes its tactics. Depending on the reputation and other factors, it will change it's starting tactics. If you are Everton, Hull are going to play a certain way against you, where as Manchester United will take an entirely different approach.

It will also change it's tactics DURING the match depending on factors like, score, time remaining, etc. Because of all this, you too must alter your tactics to cope. You can't just set up a single tactic and dominate and win every time. At some point, an adjustment made by the AI will take advantage of a weakness in your tactic.

It's also not as simple as "I have more shots, therefore I should win". A single 1v1 against the keeper is better than 10 shots from 25 yards out. In the example posted by Mista T, Chesterfield didn't have as many shots, but had MORE clear cut chances. And judging from Dag & Red's 14 off target shots, my guess is they were bombing away from distance.

Are you unlucky sometimes? Certainly. But that happens often in football as well. The match engine doesn't treat the AI manager any different than the human one. Watch a few AI v AI managers and see if you don't find a lot of the same things happening.

[chopper99]

That backs up my experience. When looking at the actual games apart from the extremes that you get in any normal statistical distribution, the large majority played out almost identically (quite impressively so to be honest). Therefore we can hopefully assess whether the TT&F instructions has a statistical variation from the Rigged. What do you think?

We can, but only if wwfan were to play these games himself. That's the best way to discover whether this is a tactical issue to be honest. If the game is saved right before the match and team talks and OI's are either ignored or done in exactly the same way, then the only variable left is the random element, which we've pretty much proved is not strong enough to have a noticeable effect on this particular experiment.

If both parties then played that game a number of times using their own methods we would be able to discern whether the tactics used made the difference.

I can't see this happening though, due to the logistics of conducting such a test.

[Rupal]

We can, but only if wwfan were to play these games himself. That's the best way to discover whether this is a tactical issue to be honest. If the game is saved right before the match and team talks and OI's are either ignored or done in exactly the same way, then the only variable left is the random element, which we've pretty much proved is not strong enough to have a noticeable effect on this particular experiment.

If both parties then played that game a number of times using their own methods we would be able to discern whether the tactics used made the difference.

I can't see this happening though, due to the logistics of conducting such a test.

I suggested something very like this before over a series of matches but Surferosa seemed to think that there was something wrong with the idea because of the 'burden of proof'.

[Surferosa]

We can, but only if wwfan were to play these games himself. That's the best way to discover whether this is a tactical issue to be honest. If the game is saved right before the match and team talks and OI's are either ignored or done in exactly the same way, then the only variable left is the random element, which we've pretty much proved is not strong enough to have a noticeable effect on this particular experiment.

If both parties then played that game a number of times using their own methods we would be able to discern whether the tactics used made the difference.

I can't see this happening though, due to the logistics of conducting such a test.

Well, the control and rigged sets could be played by a third party on the basis that they do not involve tinkering (KNAP!!!)- but yes, someone reputable from TT&F needs to step-up to the plate and do the necessary. We demand it!

At the very least, it could make for an interesting discussion on the next Get Sacked podcast anyhow

[Surferosa]

I suggested something very like this before over a series of matches but Surferosa seemed to think that there was something wrong with the idea because of the 'burden of proof'.

Your testing philospophy was flawed due to your failure to understand what needs to be proven and by whom. It seems to have put your nose out of joint a little- and for that I apologise; but ultimately for 4 pages of the thread you have successively argued against myself, wwfan and others that wwfan has to disprove a cheat theory. He doesn't. Other people have to firstly demonstrate that there is a case to answer. Hammer or anyone else have never done that- which is the Hypothesis I have tried to write against so that can be a more informed debate.

Look- go and find any theory that has been proved without evidence and I'll tell you Im wrong. Garry is proposing a theory without evidence- wwfan has tried to demonstrate a different interpretation with evidence. It doesn't change the fact its Garry's theory to prove.

Im not sure how going round this circle any more advances the discussion- you either get it, or you dont.

[chopper99]

I suggested something very like this before over a series of matches but Surferosa seemed to think that there was something wrong with the idea because of the 'burden of proof'.

You did, and at the time I agreed that this was the only way to prove anything properly.

Surferosa has taken it to the next level and suggested a testable hypothosis, if we can pursude the necessary people to carry out the actual testing then I believe it will make for a very interesting discussion.

Look- go and find any theory that has been proved without evidence and I'll tell you Im wrong. Garry is proposing a theory without evidence- wwfan has tried to demonstrate a different interpretation with evidence. It doesn't change the fact its Garry's theory to prove.

I think things have got a little sidetracked or lost in translation somewhere. I don't think Rupal ever supported Hammers theory that there was some form of leveller in the game, she simply stated that there was no proof either way. Hopefully we've now reached a point where the only thing left to do is some testing.

[Loversleaper]

I dont seem to be suffering from the suggested problem though LL, i have little issue with breaking down defensive set ups.

I've also explained that width has not been an issue, with my right winger, then left winger, winning POTY in successive seasons.

Feel free to let me know if i'm missing the point?

I have understood it so: someone has looked at your tactical settings and they have tried to explained why your tactics apparently have difficulties against some of the mentioned mechanisms that you face from time to time. The explanation maybe has been a little vague, but in reality they are telling you that the tactical settings you use somehow cannot over-ride the AI's capability in given situations. It is not only width, but a combination of settings that cause your settings to 'obey' the rules of the ME. Forgive my limited explanation capability as it will be incredible hard to convince you, but I don't know how else to say it, maybe you have a simmilar difficulty with the tactical ideology?

[Rupal]

Surferosa, I haven't argued that wwfan needs to disprove a cheat theory. I argued that he did need to prove a specific non-cheat theory. Those are not the same thing. You insist that he doesn't need to do the second thing. Your position is that we know that it is tactics because a lot of people think that it is and that because a lot of people think that it is there is no need to provide any evidence. That is simply wrong and you are ignoring the meanings of simple words if you keep saying it.

wwfan's evidence shows that he is more successful than Hammer. It doesn't show that it is because of his tactics. (Meaning of the word 'show').

To quote yourself, 'you either get it or you don't'.

As it happens, we are considering experiments which will prove (as far as it's possible to do so) which of the two theories is correct (if either is). In practical terms, this is what we need to do, and I hope that we can all agree that such a test would be useful.

[Surferosa]

I think things have got a little sidetracked or lost in translation somewhere. I don't think Rupal ever supported Hammers theory that there was some form of leveller in the game, she simply stated that there was no proof either way. Hopefully we've now reached a point where the only thing left to do is some testing.

I do understand that, I really do. And I sincerely apolgise if any offense has been taken Rupal.

Ultimately, its quite a conceptual thing: but still a fundamental one. To prove something with evidence demands a statement to test against- the burden of who needs to make the statement always belongs to the person proposing a new theory. Doesn't matter if you are charging someone with murder, announcing the cure for cancer or stating a match engine 'cheats' within the game. The person proposing the thing needs to prove it. That is all.

And I think your right- it really could open up interesting levels of discussion:

1. Does Garry have a valid point regarding a leveller?

2. What tinkering does a TT&F methodology actually do (at a practical rather than theoretical basis). This is the bit I would be excited by- as when I came in the useful part of this thread is some of the responses to what could/should be done.

3. How successful is it (in statistical terms, rather than objective). Again- what is the actual difference between the three sets?

I dont believe it needs to be wwfan- ultimately anyone that sucessfully tinkers with the tactical set could leave Garrys theory still unproven (which is all that would occur): but ideally it would be nice it if was- especially given the long-standing and often public nature of their debate.

[Loversleaper]

I do understand that, I really do. And I sincerely apolgise if any offense has been taken Rupal.

Ultimately, its quite a conceptual thing: but still a fundamental one. To prove something with evidence demands a statement to test against- the burden of who needs to make the statement always belongs to the person proposing a new theory. Doesn't matter if you are charging someone with murder, announcing the cure for cancer or proving a match engine cheat within this game. The person proposing the thing needs to prove it. That is all.

And I think your right- it really could open up interesting levels of discussion:

1. Does Garry have a valid point regarding a leveller?

2. What tinkering does a TT&F methodology actually do (at a practical rather than theoretical basis). This is the bit I would be excited by- as when I came in the useful part of this thread is some of the responses to what could/should be done.

3. How successful is it (in statistical terms, rather than objective). Again- what is the actual difference between the three sets?

I dont believe it needs to be wwfan- ultimately anyone that sucessfully tinkers with the tactical set could leave the theory unproven: but ideally it would be nice it if was- especially given the long-standing and often public nature of their debate.

Tinkering with tactics as wwfan does is not a quessing game. He understands how to change the settings so they over-power AI's tactical settings (or in other words: capability) in the same manner that the AI is doing to the Human User (and he is not alone). The slider combinations create values, and this is how the game has interpreted the attacking and defensive philosophies that built up the football game (both in FM and RL), and they (the SI) have done so by making the values into mechanisms that FM Gamers face week in and week out...

[Hammer1000]

maybe you have a simmilar difficulty with the tactical ideology?

That may well be true, i have gotten out of practice at playing this game in its entirety due to the problematic areas of the ME we have largely not discussed here, this have forced me into playing the game without even bothering with most of the features as they appear mostly decorative in nature.

Even playing with so little input i still find it easy to succeed and can only wonder at just what keeps people like yourself and wwfan interested, as you both seem to have the answer for every little problem the ME throws you?

[Surferosa]

Tinkering with tactics as wwfan does is not a quessing game. He understands how to change the settings so they over-power AI's tactical settings (or in other words: capability) in the same manner that the AI is doing to the Human User (and he is not alone). The slider combinations create values, and this is how the game has interpreted the attacking and defensive philosophies that built up the football game (both in FM and RL), and they (the SI) have done so by making the values into mechanisms that FM Gamers face week in and week out...

Exactly. Wouldn't it be good to not only understand what these changes are in an actual real test; but also quite how much of an effect these changes statistically have.

You would think that- with all other variables being equal- plus and an unlimited amount of time to tweak, analyse and tweak again- the potential for a skilled and knowledgable FM Gamer would run rings around the AI (statistically speaking)- even in a controlled environment where players and teamtalks are given. Unless there is a game leveller, obviously

[Rupal]

And I sincerely apolgise if any offense has been taken Rupal.

No apology is necessary .

I am afraid that we will always approach these things from a different perspective, though. You will tend to use legal or other precedent (the 'generally accepted') and I will insist on an analysis of the language involved in propositions. That is because of my background in philosophy. If you want, PM me about what your particular intellectual background is; I'd be genuinely interested.

*Hug*

[Loversleaper]

That may well be true, i have gotten out of practice at playing this game in its entirety due to the problematic areas of the ME we have largely not discussed here, this have forced me into playing the game without even bothering with most of the features as they appear mostly decorative in nature.

Even playing with so little input i still find it easy to succeed and can only wonder at just what keeps people like yourself and wwfan interested, as you both seem to have the answer for every little problem the ME throws you?

Speaking for myself, I keep interrested as football has always been my game of choice. I hope I have been fair in my judgements, and that I know it will take FM Gamers some time to get used to the new gaming ideology that SI have decided to adopt. I know one thing for sure and that is: when the FM Gamers get their tactics more or less right, then the ME turns into a much better game and Gamers won't experience too many of the "flaws". I know it is a game in progress and the whole 'forward runs' is causing difficulties in the ME, but please remember I am in no position to suggest that it should be one way or the other. The only thing I can suggest is that I do enjoy the challenge that the new FM brings and that is why I keep playing the game...

[Leclercq]

If you don't like it then don't read and reply to it. Simple.

There has actually been some excellent debate and constructive discussion in this thread. It's a lot better than much of the garbage in this forum at times. Feel free to take your leave of this thread and leave us to it.

He has a point though. The last few pages have been nothing but people saying something, the other party coming in and saying something against it, then it is reduced to belittling each other before and inevitable "apology". Many, many things are going around in circles, and people are getting frustrated, it's clear to see. I'd like this to go to the next level, but the last 10 pages have been full of things that was said on the first 10 pages. The guy was expressing his frustration at how little progression has been made in the past few pages, because it was a good read at the beginning. It isn't a case of "if you don't like it, don't read it". The main point of the thread was to find a solution to his problem, and the poster has said that it can't be tactical, even though it is the most likely problem, and believes it is something else, which I can't quite get my head around. The outright dismissal of it being one thing, would then ultimately lead to what we have had recently. Circles and frustration.

I dont seem to be suffering from the suggested problem though LL, i have little issue with breaking down defensive set ups.

I've also explained that width has not been an issue, with my right winger, then left winger, winning POTY in successive seasons.

Feel free to let me know if i'm missing the point?

It could still be a width problem, regardless of their awards. As you said, the problem only kicked in at the final stage of the season, so the chances are, your wingers got their awards for great performances earlier in the season.

You aren't claiming it's a cheat but I don't know what you are claiming. I agreed with you earlier, cause I thought I knew what you were talking about, but now I'm lost again as the argument seems to change all the time. So, we have one side where they say it's tactical and you who are saying it is what? Please tell me what you are saying is the problem.

[chopper99]

Many, many things are going around in circles, and people are getting frustrated, it's clear to see. I'd like this to go to the next level, but the last 10 pages have been full of things that was said on the first 10 pages.

But the thread's only 10 pages long :confused: At least it is in my browser.

Unfortunately it sometimes takes a fair bit of back and forth to get to the point where we are now. As I said, the thread may have lost it's direction at one point, but despite that we are now pretty much all agreed that the only way to decide anything once and for all is to perform some form of proper test.

Even despite the parts where it was a little repetative, this thread is a lot better than many of the pointless threads started on here these days, so to suggest it should be closed is a joke imo.

[Surferosa]

He has a point though. The last few pages have been nothing but people saying something, the other party coming in and saying something against it, then it is reduced to belittling each other before and inevitable "apology". Many, many things are going around in circles, and people are getting frustrated, it's clear to see.

To be fair, sometimes discussions can often be exceptionally tedious to those not involved. It doesnt mean that they are not ultimately useful. For sure, Rupal and I had a disagreement that maybe rumbled on longer than it should: but sometimes its necessary to go down that path in order to reach a point where you can move forward together.

Clearly we now seem to be at a point where there is some interest in actually conducting a formal, controlled test here (and more importantly, how it should be perfomed?). I guess what we really need at this point is:

1. Hammer to upload a save game file that meets certain conditions

2. wwfan or another TT&F'r to contribute some in match tweak testing

3. A third party to get involved with some independent testing

4. Agree and discuss any further issues or amendments to the testing hypothesis.

5. Agree who / how the results are going to be collated / presented- so that people can draw their own conclusions

[Hammer1000]

Speaking for myself, I keep interrested as football has always been my game of choice. I hope I have been fair in my judgements, and that I know it will take FM Gamers some time to get used to the new gaming ideology that SI have decided to adopt. I know one thing for sure and that is: when the FM Gamers get their tactics more or less right, then the ME turns into a much better game and Gamers won't experience too many of the "flaws". I know it is a game in progress and the whole 'forward runs' is causing difficulties in the ME, but please remember I am in no position to suggest that it should be one way or the other. The only thing I can suggest is that I do enjoy the challenge that the new FM brings and that is why I keep playing the game...

Football is my game of choice too, but personally i have felt that FM is slowly but surely getting further away from mimmicking the real thing in recent releases.

I'm not talking about the way i play the game being more realistic, that is purely a personal choice due to poor elements of the game, mostly the ME, leaving me barely able to recognise the game in football terms.

I certainly never want to be in a position where i can win every game and despite what many would expect, i am not and have never been a fan of "Super Tactics".

I find the matches practically impossible to watch, thanks to some quite abysmal coding of player defending, as well as a massive pace issue and the ability of poor players who do not have the required skills, yet go walking through both midfield and defences with an ease that few players IRL have ever had the necessary skills to achieve.

Add to that the ridiculous "crabbing" and the players standing still with the ball until they are tackled and what you have is a nightmarish Matchday scenario.

Thats without the 100's of little and not so little issues that are plastered all over the Forum, some of which have not been improved for years on end.

All of this adds up to a massive let down and is slowly turning a fun and enjoyable game into what is quickly becoming somewhat of a farce.

[Surferosa]

All of this adds up to a massive let down and is slowly turning a fun and enjoyable game into what is quickly becoming somewhat of a farce.

Does this mean that you are officially moving away from the position of accusing the ME of including some degree of levelling logic, to a position of simply not liking the game anymore?

[Gilles Domoraud]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=105138

Just thought I'd add this as some people are having some problems with CCC's and not enough goals on FMLive.

I really hope they add the shot analysis panel to FM at some point.

EDIT: Also here is a pkm of a match in which there are 12 striker vs goalie situations (imo viewed from 2d).

http://rapidshare.com/files/202833416/West_Brom_v_Middlesbrough_1on1GALORE.pkm.html

Surely one of them should have been a goal according to the 1 in 4 statistic?

[Jack Rudd]

OK, 12 striker v goalie situations at a probability of 1/4 each. The expected number of goals is 3. The probability of 0 goals is (3/4)^12 = 531441/16777216, or about 1 in 32. Mildly unlikely, but not beyond the bounds by any means.

[Hammer1000]

Does this mean that you are officially moving away from the position of accusing the ME of including some degree of levelling logic, to a position of simply not liking the game anymore?

Not at all, but for the sake of a little peace in the Community and the hope that these issues are accepted as in major need for improvement and some of them removal, then i am willing to forego my claim of levelling for what has been suggested as "Tactical Issues".

The fact still remains that this type of game needs to be shown much differently in the ME to dispel confusion as to if it is in fact tactical, or if its just poor performance?

Its ok for LL and Rich to come on here claiming they know exactly what to do and what the differences are in any given situation, but they are in a very small minority of this Community, let alone the thousands upon thousands of players who dont even know this Forum exists.

[mlp071]

Does this mean that you are officially moving away from the position of accusing the ME of including some degree of levelling logic, to a position of simply not liking the game anymore?

Oh , don't worry, he'll be back as soon his team loses first game with new patch,that only he believed he should have won no matter what. At least that is Hammer's very predictable behavioral pattern for last 3-4 years. Then we going to have another huge thread where everyone else is wrong, except the "Special One".

This is not sarcasm , btw , just plain reality.

[PaulC]

You never know, he might like 9.3......

[mlp071]

You never know, he might like 9.3......

Only time will tell..only time..

Btw, nice work on patch PaulC..and welcome back

[Rupal]

You never know, he might like 9.3......

Do you see that herd of flying pigs outside?

[Hammer1000]

You never know, he might like 9.3......

More shots per game(both myself and AI) Almost NO CCC's whatsoever(again both myself and AI)

Although i did see one of our DFK's go on target for the 1st time this season so yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay(lol)

Looks like i'll just sit back again and wait for someone to come across the latest max impact settings and try again.

[Rashidi]

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?

@ Rupal

A test like that just doesn't make any sense, for one thing, better players have a different approach to the game. wwfan's approach and mine are mostly similar with only slight differences. If we were to approach any game, we'd first look at the formation we're facing, identify where the potential dangers could come from and then make changes. There will NEVER come a time when we'd use the same tactic in every game without some slight changes

If I were faced with Chelsea playing a 433, I may elect to remove forward runs completely for my fullbacks, and in another game against Stoke I would elect to get them to make forward runs while I tell my wingers to do mixed runs. Essentially the approach to use "one tactic" to prove some theory is flawed since the hypothesis isn't the same. Better players at this game believe that it is the approach to the game that is critical to the success of any manager, and if one who wants to experience continued success he needs to know when and how to adapt to the environment and make the necessary changes to achieve the desired result. In this case, it would be possible to have different managers having different levels of success, some may take West Ham and win the league at their first attempt and others may have different levels of success. And this approach has been done and dusted and proven right

[jackripper]

ITS YOUR TACTICS...only joking all you need is better strikers lol... a poor post but hey it could help.....lol