Originally posted by Amaroq:
Originally posted by George Graham:
Im going to take issue with a couple of your comments here:
1) Its nothing to do with extreme tactics, albeit it will happen under certain conditions- Ive encountered this issue playing a variety of formations at differing widths, tempos etc. The common denominator for me is that the one on ones are created with my quicker strikers regardless of my tactics as defenders just cannot cope with fast players either running onto through balls or running with the ball.
Anyway we are back to blaming our tactics created within a framework that SI give us- yeah great blame the player because SI nerfed the finishing instead of fixing the worful defending.
2) Im sorry but what on earth do you mean by saying "What I think the problem is, is users assuming that "good chances" equal "successful tactic"?!!!?
Of course it means your tactic is a successful one (at least in the offensive sense), assuming your not leaking goals that is- how on earth can good chances equal anything but a successful tactic? What would you prefer poor chances- does creating fewer clearcut chances equal a better tactic?
Its thinking like this that I hope SI do not subscribe to, as it is just making excuses for quite obvious flaws in the match engine and if it is accepted as gospel would mean we would forever have to play our way around such flaws.
You normally post a lot of sense but your post here shows no understanding of the issues that are plaguing many because of the 8.01 patch, not because of extreme tactics or us assuming incorrectly that good chances incorrectly equal a successful tactic.
Fair enough: I thought I understood the problem, but I haven't actually seen
the problem. Like Jimbokav, I tend to play fairly defensively and I'm a long way down the league pyramid yet: I haven't yet played with the sort of team that seems to give the problem.
If you adjust the sentence to "Certain tactics", removing the word "extreme", do you agree with the rest of the statement?
If so, I retract the word "extreme", and apologize.
For number-two, I'm afraid I disagree with you. My definition for a good offensive tactic is one that generates goals
. I'll take 3 shots and 2 goals over 30 shots and 1 goal, every day of the week thank you very much.
However, its a really easy metric to look at: I'm getting more shots, so I must be doing better. I'm getting more shots on target, so I must be doing better.
God, for CM01/02, I was running a little Excel spreadsheet and tracking the shots-for, shots-against for my tactics, and treating that as a more reliable
indicator than "goals scored", because I figured the latter were more luck-based, and the former more skill-based.
What I was missing, entirely, was the idea that I might be peppering the enemy with "easy to save" shots, misses, long-range blasts, etc.
Now, I judge by results: goals - and what I can personally observe on Extended or Full highlights. (E.g., are my defenders in position? Why are my passes breaking down?)
I think there are plenty of people who are still looking at Shots as a useful metric - or, even in the face of this shots/goals ratio problem, persist looking at a ton of breakaways as "good chances". Instead of trying to find success, they've reached a local maxima for their tactic, one which creates what they perceive to be "good chances", and they stick there .. or, if they fail to score, edge a little further, creating even more "good chances" and less chance of scoring.
If you want to stick with your own definition of "successful tactic", you're welcome to - but the definition you've chosen leaves the user no recourse but to feel victimized by the bug, or by SI, when they evolve a tactic which triggers the problem.