wazzaflow10

They can be all of those things why not? It might be 5% of their tasks. But they do run their own tests and provide something for others to consume. We can call them whatever you want honestly. It was the first thing that came to mind since ultimately what we talk about is what they produce. I'm fine to just chalk it up as a poor choice of words by me. I really don't have any skin in the game other than its getting a little tiresome from the barrage of posts on here being related to something someone found on that site and when asked to either open a bug ticket or information about what they did its just met with resistance of varying degrees. Its just weird to me we're suppose to take their word as gospel but when people with insider knowledge of how the game works come on and correct or provide context and they still persist with it, it just strikes me as odd.

They are if they're producing something, it doesn't have to be a youtube channel. They don't have to directly encourage anyone but it would be kind of foolish to think people wont take their data elsewhere or use it somewhere else. Which is why they should take the time to fully explain in detail what they are doing so that someone outside their group can actually understand the how and why. If they had full documentation it would be easy for some of us to refute or verify. It's also easier to keep people in the dark so that you don't expose flaws in your testing. Really all we can say about their work is under this specific set of circumstances xyz occurs. And people start extrapolating that to things it probably shouldn't be extrapolated to. And before you know it a bunch of misinformation gets spread about the game. Don't get me wrong. The game definitely has some flaws with certain things and I'd love to see them get fixed but its impossible (for me) to support suggestions when we don't know how the results were achieved. If they've gone through the trouble of setting up an entire system to programmatically test the game why not use it to improve it or show SI here's shortcomings we found? I'm sure they'd love the help and manpower to do things their time doesn't allow.

Its not how testing works. You post your findings with a solid objective testable hypothesis and a conclusion from testing. You get questioned about the method and results and probably asked to provide the data and parameters so that the test can be repeated outside your set up - and it might not just be from me. You might even have to repeat or modify certain test items to verify its not just a fluke or artefact of something unaccounted for. If you can answer those questions sufficiently then we can talk about right and wrong. This is pretty much how any legitimate statistical finding is verified so if you don't want to subject yourself to it that's fine given you have a "real" job. So lets just start with a simple testable hypothesis shall we? What is it you're trying to prove so badly?

They are to a degree if it can be easily copied and spread without providing sufficient information on how the results are achieved or ways to repeat a test outside of their system. The problem here is there appears to be a few people who go to fm-arena then come here to complain about the game and dominate conversations using fm-arena as proof when they don't have a lick of an idea of how anything was produced. There's a lot of content creators who post here and explain things they've done elsewhere. I don't know why it would be so difficult to either chime in to explain so we have a source of truth from them. Or at least be willing to be more transparent about what it is they are doing to produce results. If someone wants to post something from there on here that's fine but they should be able/willing to back it up when asked questions. If they don't know the answer they can't be defensive about it and go "just trust me bro". Its not how statistical testing works.

And you're so willing to share because you know those test will hold up to a light breeze. I'll wait for the sun to burn out for you to produce valid test results. Like i said before

Here's the issue though, you're just completely sitting back not putting any pressure on anyone. Putting defensive mentality with low block with much lower defensive line and less often pressing is basically sitting on top of your keeper and never trying to escape. We're well past anti-football at this point so playing that for 90 minutes for numerous games is of course going to result in poor performance. It doesn't really serve as evidence that "everything is broken". Its what you would expect playing that way and if your expectations were to bravely fight against relegation you'd be doing a pretty decent job being in 18th.

I think we've talked about it before but it would be a very nice feature if they let you see the tactic in some sort of interactive practice session if you wanted. Could probably be part of the training sessions for tactical cohesion. Ok lads we're going to work on parking the bus in the last 10 minutes of the game. The session shows you in common patterns of play and you can craft your tactic based on those results. Completely skip-able if you don't want to see it or view it as working out the engine.

No just waiting for you to share your conclusions with actual data like asked. You're telling me things that you haven't tested.

If its not the right place to ask then its not really the right place to post this stuff either. Especially if people don't understand how it works beyond "website says its true". I'm not saying you have to have a mathematical degree to post a statistical test but it can't be a free for all spreading information. The poster has to take some responsibility for answering questions about it for it to be taken seriously and not torn apart by people who have experience running experiments. I'm not saying their findings are wrong or don't work in the game but given the amount of posts on the forums of "games broken" or "GGPress is OP"and "no other tactics work" because of sites like these aren't helping anyone. If there was a genuine interest in making FM a better game the tests should have clear, transparent parameters with a hypothesis and a conclusion. Then we can have a discussion about the validity of the test and offer suggestions on new procedures to determine if its an eternally valid result. As a case for external validity applying here. And I don't expect you to answer, just food for thought questions about how else to test the system. We know that an extremely high intensity press works under perfect conditions with perfect morale and perfect fitness. Great we have a result that suggests there might be a tactic that performs better than others but its also in unrealistic conditions. No team is going to go through a whole season with those conditions. Does a team that has an extremely high intense press maintain that form for a whole season when some fixed parameters are relaxed or placed in different conditions? If a team is decimated by injuries due to high intensity pressing for a whole season, we can't conclude that it's the best tactic. It might be the best one match tactic if you can pull it off but it might not work either. There's many, many questions a lot of us would have if the tests were more open. I don't think its malicious or devious on their part. However its hard to take them as a serious claim if questions can't be answered here. I think we're all in agreement the game has some weaker points we'd all like to be fixed. I'm not against trying to show SI what those weaker points are or have discussions about it but we can't take these tests as facts (where's Rafa Benitez when you need him) without much more transparancy imo.

I struggle with points #6 and #8 here for validity. for #6 If every team has the same set of players there's bound to be one tactic that takes advantage of the distribution of attributes over another. It might so happen that the player profiles tend to fit systems that press much more. Within a trial you'd want to keep them equal but there should be some between trial variation that implements some change in attributes that perhaps highlight other areas of the game. I can appreciate they keep the distribution around what is found in the game rather than making everyone 1's and 20's but there should be some variation within what is possible to remove any sort of bias that may exist based on attribute distribution. For #8 How are these tactics determined? Random selection? Other high performers? Out of the box presets? Is each tactic represented equally on every test?

Are you really that good when you take a tactic from a forum that breaks the match engine on purpose and plug it into your team? That's cool if it's your game and how you want to play. But if you're as good as you claim you should be able to take something other than an exploiting gegenpress and win. Sorry I don't buy the "i'm just trying to be altruistic and thinking about the poor new players who can't make out of the box tactics work" angle. If you know the ins and outs of this game you wouldn't be claiming its impossible to play any other style. The one style that happens to be what most teams are trying to implement? Its no wonder it works better because they have players that will work better in that system than others. They've already been built for it. Asking them to play a completely different style is going to end in failure more often than not. There are absolutely areas FM can improve in terms of being more direct in counter attacking situations or finding space in teams that are pressing too high to punish tactics that are too aggressive. It does happen but there's a limit to where the game recognizes something is over aggressive vs something is so extreme it can't handle the inputs.

When you present hard cold facts and logic I'm sure the we all will listen. So far you've just been moaning about how bad you are at this game. Its okay. Its a hard game. There's a whole tactics forum that can help you. I appreciate the well wishes for my life. It's going swimmingly.

It has more to do with pressing is the dominant tactic in real life too. Sitting back and absorbing pressure for 90 minutes isn't effective anymore, if it ever really was. The game may take on a little too much english flavor but its not really surprising given who makes it. The idea shouldn't be that anyone can take any style off the shelf and make it work no matter what. That would make tactics and the ultimate point of the game irrelevant. Playing a style that is the complete opposite of the current trend should be harder to achieve and require a specific set of conditions to make it possible to achieve. The right players in the right system will make the difference. That's the ethos of the game. Sure you can exploit the engine by doing a set of instructions that overwhelms it. That exists in every game ever made. If knowing those exploits exist or how to use them ruins the fun for people then they should stop going to those sites. In the 20 years of playing FM I've never once conceived a tactic as crazy as some of the ones I've seen on there. Its like a competition of who can exploit the engine the most. They're not playing FM anymore.

LOL dude you've had it explained to you in the most comprehensive way. Yet you still think some random website, that's objective is to break the game, is more informative than someone (not just anyone but someone's whos been a mod around here forever) and who's actually tested the game with feedback from developers. I feel sorry for you. But I guess if real football can pass by someone like Mourinho then I guess FM can pass by someone who's unwilling to listen to the game experts. Good luck in your travels. Hope you find your meta park the bus tactic soon.

So that was an affirmative you couldn't find it? so we're back to explanation #4. Excellent.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/framework https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/framework https://www.dictionary.com/browse/framework I missed the part in there where framework said plug and play. Can you find it for me?

you missed explanation number 4. It's really the best answer see below.

Statistically it is. You can't conclude anything let alone test a hypothesis on 3 trials even under the best circumstances. The biggest issue is we don't know how he scored his goals. I'd like to see a table of low, whipped, floated showing number of opportunities (i.e. how many times was a cross played into him in that manner including one's he missed), the number of shots he took from those opportunities, expected goals from chances with and without including times he didn't shoot (effectively zero), and finally number of goals scored. That's the minimum baseline exploratory data analysis task to even begin forming a hypothesis. Counting if they scored or not based on a tactical preference isn't really a valid test that conclude he is scoring more from low crosses. It doesn't mean every cross is going to be low or floated or whipped. Have you considered confounding factors like low crosses might produce more corners and he's a monster on corner kicks? Or he's an obvious target for wide free kicks? Or that not every goal is scored from a cross? There's so many factors that you're not accounting for in this experiment. Yeah that's called randomness and why you need to run more than 3 trials per test. If the game kept a 1:1 ratio of xG to goals it would be easy. You didn't post it so who knows? But I would consider using a "meta" tactic as a confounding issue as well. If this was something I was testing I'd try different variations of tactical styles to rule out that a single tactic is breaking the game in a way that invalidates my test. Unlikely it would be that low. There's so much randomness that can happen I wouldn't even know when results would start to stabilize. And that's assuming you're taking my advice from the first quote about what actually needs to be tested. Also, unironically, given how low some of his supposed 9 "meta" attributes are, kind of pokes a hole in that claim too don't you think? By that test's logic he should be terrible especially considering pace is the biggest contributor of points gained by their own tests. Pace (3), Acceleration (2), Jumping Reach (18), Strength (17), Balance (17), Agility (2), Anticipation (14), Concentration (11), and Dribbling (6)

Don't take this the wrong way but running a test based on 3 trials is virtually meaningless. Especially considering you got just about equal xG's. The box you're checking isn't do always rule. Its a preference. If you have high creative freedom your players might float crosses more since he's better in the air. The better test would be to see what kind of crosses were played into him and calculate xG that way. You'll also have to account for crosses he missed which makes this very difficult because you don't know if the cross was intended for him or not.

That's just the match engine though and there's no other way to do it really without making it a computational monster. That said the AI managers can be much more aggressive in countering your tactics. If you're playing too top heavy they should react to that after a period of time based on their talent and their player's talent. You never let them solve the engine in the same way chess bots solve chess but you allow them to take a player input and rebalance the odds a bit. How much the "learn" about the engine and your tactic is based on how good they are. It would be incredibly difficult to do in practice but that would make the game much harder at the top leagues if you don;t knw what you're doing.

I think there's also an element of unavoidability here. Not necessarily in the case of bring on youngsters in an easy match but bringing on more experienced players in a blow out its definitely a valid response. I also wonder if its a slightly different response to just nervousness. as in a player might have poor personality and be nervous and you get this response.

Yes i think in Japan that is the norm is the point I was trying to poorly make. Since SI report to SEGA ultimately I wouldn't be shocked if they follow the same fiscal year.

Developing a game and playing it are different tasks - it would be so obvious to say "just play the game" but from experience building something based on how you intend it to be used vs how its actually used can be very different and it 100% skews your ability to really bug test. Users are always the best bug testers because we collectively never follow the intended procedure the devs set up. For all we know we did something obscure that triggers scouting to stop working and they had to step backwards through what caused it and that's why its taken the whole winter period to fix. I'm sure if it was something that was hotfixable it would have happened. Non reporters are only hurting themselves. And mods and the dev team do respond maybe not right away or in the way someone wants but I've had at least a response from Zachary or Michael on just about every thing I've logged here when I've done it in a calm and concise manner. I've been told everything from fixed to under review to user error. I don't always agree with the fix or the response but I'm not in possession of the source code. Rants blasting SI about their work won't get us anywhere. Best evidence of what not to do is the clown who keeps posting about his goalie not saving every shot. There could very well be a bug or he could be a complete tool who gets upset he doesn't win every game and comes here to have a moan. I have faith that the core people working on the game are doing their best to make the game the best they can within the parameters that have been set for them.

Think I've found at 2k for the initial fee is where they flat out reject you and won't let you suggest a new bid without major improvements (at least for the top players.