Not a Rant, But....

[Neji]

Let's keep it on topic please. I don't see the need for commenting on others posting style.

Back on topic - Hammer brings up a fair point IMO. I don't really check the stats enough to comment on the AI having too many CCC's (or rather, scoring too many). I seem to recall this being a problem on several earlier versions of the game - scoring from one shot etc. I also seem to recall that it did come down to tactics.

If that's the case here, then fair enough BUT if so - I feel the real discussion should be whether or not that's right. IMO a CCC should be coming down to the individual player, I can't see why it should be a tactical issue.

[Gandy]

Haha, good one.

[dking]

Let's keep it on topic please. I don't see the need for commenting on others posting style.

Back on topic - Hammer brings up a fair point IMO. I don't really check the stats enough to comment on the AI having too many CCC's (or rather, scoring too many). I seem to recall this being a problem on several earlier versions of the game - scoring from one shot etc. I also seem to recall that it did come down to tactics.

If that's the case here, then fair enough BUT if so - I feel the real discussion should be whether or not that's right. IMO a CCC should be coming down to the individual player, I can't see why it should be a tactical issue.

CCC's don't even register properly, so unless you're watching an entire game and counting all the CCC's, It's pretty much speculation.

[RBKalle]

Could someone please email this to Alex Ferguson@MANCHESTER F'N UNITED.com

It should cap off a pretty hilariously bad week for him. Maybe he should just tell his players to 'go out there, do your magic and win.' From where I was sitting tho' it was his tactics just the same as it was probably the OP's.

Did ManU create lots of scoring chances and/or dominate the game before getting hammered?

And most important, come back when ManU will have lost/drawn a couple of games in a row despite dominating...

Losing ONE ODD GAME to a weaker opponent is perfectly fine, it happens. But when that happens much more often, there's something wrong.

See, Juventus lost 1-4 to Bayern and 3-1 to Bari last week, but the two defeats were totally different: the former was a depressing display where Juventus were a sitting duck most of the game, the latter could easily have ended 2-2.

P.S. I don't care if the OP is a notorious whiner, or if ManU lost 10-0 to Gateshead. Admittiing there might be something not-so-right with the game ain't thoughtcrime yet and has nothing to do with who says what, if he can provide PROOF to his claims.

Unless you want to say he altered the stats...

[dking]

It's not okay, someone else has to say it.

If I may, I'll do the honours.. it's your tactics.

You're right. It was my tactics.

You're a fan boy now

[Gandy]

You're right. It was my tactics.

You're a fan boy now

Oh crud, do I at least get a fanboy shirt?

Haha there's a marketing idea for SI.

[crouchaldinho]

Did ManU create lots of scoring chances and/or dominate the game before getting hammered?

I briefly saw the stats earlier on and it was something like 15 shots to Man Utd and about 7 to Fulham. Think the possession was pretty even too.

Losing ONE ODD GAME to a weaker opponent is perfectly fine, it happens. But when that happens much more often, there's something wrong.

Yes, but I would argue that there is something wrong with the individual's approach to the game.

It's a sign of madness to do the same thing over and over again. That's precisely what Hammer does as far as I can see.

We can assume that real managers watch games carefully, analyse them and then try their best not to make the same mistakes over and over again. So a comparison with real life is pretty meaningless.

...if he can provide PROOF to his claims.

All Hammer tends to prove is that:

1) he isn't very good at the game;

2) when things go wrong he isn't willing to change his approach;

3) he doesn't really like FM very much at all;

4) he does like a good old rant and whine now and then.

Regards,

C.

[wwfan]

People are misinterpreting Hammer's argument. He is winning with Man Utd. His record is this:

P 10 F 34 A 12

What he is arguing is that he shouldn't have conceded so many as the opposition is scoring from a much higher percentage of shots than he is (i.e. 12 out of 14 CCCs v 34 out of 66). He thus concludes the game is broken and is backing it up by comparing it to stats from Match of the Day that 'prove' the team that is statistically dominant always wins. However, a quick flick through a set of recent matches reveals the following:

Arsenal 20 (1) v Burnley 9 (1) Dominant team drew

Sunderland 17 (0) v Aston Villa 11 (2) Dominant team lost

Birmingham 17 (2) v Blackburn 11 (1) Dominant team won

Bolton 28 (3) v West Ham 13 (1) Dominant team won

Chelsea 27 (2) v Portsmouth 8 (1) Dominant team won

Chelsea 28 (3) v Everton 15 (3) Dominant team drew

Burnley 14 (1) v Fulham 12 (1) No dominant team

Fulham 11 (3) v Man Utd 16 (0) No dominant team but big win

Man City 14 (4) v Sunderland 10 (3) No dominant team but high scoring game with few shots

Stoke City 3 (2) v Wigan Athletic 19 (2) Dominant team drew

Blackburn Rovers 13 (0) v Spurs 7 (2) Dominant team lost

Spurs 26 (0) v Wolves 5 (1) Dominant team lost

These suggest that Hammer's argument that the better team statistically generally wins is massively flawed. In the 12 above matches, in the 9 in which one team was statistically dominant, they won 3 times, drew 3 times and lost 3 times. I didn't have to look hard for the above matches. Such things are commonplace and will repeat throughout the season. Therefore, Hammer's argument that the best team statistically nearly always wins is wrong. There might be a bias of sorts, but nowhere near to the level he is suggesting.

Where he might, and arguably does, have a point is in CCC creation. However, his point is not exactly what he thinks it is.

CCCs cannot have the same statistical chance of being scored. Inevitably and unavoidably, some CCCs are better than others. Some are next to unmissable, some somewhat more difficult. Using the recognised parameters for what makes a good chance in statistical research into football (within 12 yards of goal, at a good angle, no opponent within one yard of the ball), the likelihood of a player scoring ranges from 20-50%, depending on the clearness of chance and the relative ability of the players. Given that neither Hammer nor his opponent will have scored all their goals from CCCs, neither of the scoring rates seem out of the ordinary.

There are three things that we can possibly conclude.

1: CCCs aren't perfectly measured in FM. This I can agree with from my own personal experience. I think an awful lot of hurried shots on the turn or desperate sprints from deep are recognised as CCCs and don't think they should be. Here Hammer has a point.

2: If you play an open and aggressive tactic you increase the chances of your scoring (3.4. goals a game is a lot) but simultaneously increase your chances of conceding (1.2 a game for Man Utd is a lot).

3: In conjunction with the above, CCCs when attacking a packed defence are generally more difficult varieties than those created on the break when the opposition has committed everyone forward. If this is the case, which I think is likely and logical, then everything Hammer is seeing makes perfect sense. I actually ran a comparison test between the tactic he was using and my own a few versions ago which proved I was creating fewer but 'better' CCCs than the ones he was producing, leaving me with a much higher goals per shots ratio. This evidence was dismissed out of hand.

We also have to take into account that Hammer is claiming that the human player never wins against the grain, whereas the AI does. This needs to be challenged. Hammer never wins these types of matches, because he doesn't know how to. Many of us can and do.

Furthermore, for every edition of FM, Hammer has trawled through the tactics forum until he has found a tactic/tactical set that has statistical dominance, which he then employs with few or no changes for every match. Given this is his modus operandi, he will continuously make these arguments for every edition, as he is incapable of working out how to play differently. Every time he tries a tactic that is not statistically dominant, he rejects it very quickly, so he can never work out to win with his back against the wall. Hence, he will always find statistically good tactics that don't always win and continue to make the same flawed observations about the ME.

Until Hammer actually tries to employ his self-claimed 'huge knowledge of football' into FM, he will continue to fail to enjoy it and report the same tired old things. People will take him less and less seriously. Currently, he is not playing FM in any kind of football-realistic way and just loading up a tactic and letting it run, which is not how professional teams go about things. Until he actually tries to manage his side, rather than relying on other's tactical solutions and flawed statistical ideas and analysis, he will never be taken seriously and will continue to marginalise himself. Given I've tried to help him for four years now with no change in his stance, I don't see this happening.

[dking]

That's almost a rant.

Mind you, after 4 years of it, you would have to be a saint not to get a little peeved.

[crouchaldinho]

WWFan doesn't do things by halves!

I tell you what, if SI had an award for post of the day, WWFan would win it, I feel sure.

C.

[Gandy]

My eyes hurt a little bit after reading that.

[djwilko6]

My eyes hurt a little bit after reading that.

It wasnt much longer than the OP but was still easier to read. Does Hammer have his own "fanboys" now?

[Hammer1000]

People are misinterpreting Hammer's argument. He is winning with Man Utd. His record is this:

P 10 F 34 A 12

What he is arguing is that he shouldn't have conceded so many as the opposition is scoring from a much higher percentage of shots than he is (i.e. 12 out of 14 CCCs v 34 out of 66). He thus concludes the game is broken and is backing it up by comparing it to stats from Match of the Day that 'prove' the team that is statistically dominant always wins. However, a quick flick through a set of recent matches reveals the following:

Arsenal 20 (1) v Burnley 9 (1) Dominant team drew

Sunderland 17 (0) v Aston Villa 11 (2) Dominant team lost

Birmingham 17 (2) v Blackburn 11 (1) Dominant team won

Bolton 28 (3) v West Ham 13 (1) Dominant team won

Chelsea 27 (2) v Portsmouth 8 (1) Dominant team won

Chelsea 28 (3) v Everton 15 (3) Dominant team drew

Burnley 14 (1) v Fulham 12 (1) No dominant team

Fulham 11 (3) v Man Utd 16 (0) No dominant team but big win

Man City 14 (4) v Sunderland 10 (3) No dominant team but high scoring game with few shots

Stoke City 3 (2) v Wigan Athletic 19 (2) Dominant team drew

Blackburn Rovers 13 (0) v Spurs 7 (2) Dominant team lost

Spurs 26 (0) v Wolves 5 (1) Dominant team lost

These suggest that Hammer's argument that the better team statistically generally wins is massively flawed. In the 12 above matches, in the 9 in which one team was statistically dominant, they won 3 times, drew 3 times and lost 3 times. I didn't have to look hard for the above matches. Such things are commonplace and will repeat throughout the season. Therefore, Hammer's argument that the best team statistically nearly always wins is wrong. There might be a bias of sorts, but nowhere near to the level he is suggesting.

Where he might, and arguably does, have a point is in CCC creation. However, his point is not exactly what he thinks it is.

CCCs cannot have the same statistical chance of being scored. Inevitably and unavoidably, some CCCs are better than others. Some are next to unmissable, some somewhat more difficult. Using the recognised parameters for what makes a good chance in statistical research into football (within 12 yards of goal, at a good angle, no opponent within one yard of the ball), the likelihood of a player scoring ranges from 20-50%, depending on the clearness of chance and the relative ability of the players. Given that neither Hammer nor his opponent will have scored all their goals from CCCs, neither of the scoring rates seem out of the ordinary.

There are three things that we can possibly conclude.

1: CCCs aren't perfectly measured in FM. This I can agree with from my own personal experience. I think an awful lot of hurried shots on the turn or desperate sprints from deep are recognised as CCCs and don't think they should be. Here Hammer has a point.

2: If you play an open and aggressive tactic you increase the chances of your scoring (3.4. goals a game is a lot) but simultaneously increase your chances of conceding (1.2 a game for Man Utd is a lot).

3: In conjunction with the above, CCCs when attacking a packed defence are generally more difficult varieties than those created on the break when the opposition has committed everyone forward. If this is the case, which I think is likely and logical, then everything Hammer is seeing makes perfect sense. I actually ran a comparison test between the tactic he was using and my own a few versions ago which proved I was creating fewer but 'better' CCCs than the ones he was producing, leaving me with a much higher goals per shots ratio. This evidence was dismissed out of hand.

We also have to take into account that Hammer is claiming that the human player never wins against the grain, whereas the AI does. This needs to be challenged. Hammer never wins these types of matches, because he doesn't know how to. Many of us can and do.

Furthermore, for every edition of FM, Hammer has trawled through the tactics forum until he has found a tactic/tactical set that has statistical dominance, which he then employs with few or no changes for every match. Given this is his modus operandi, he will continuously make these arguments for every edition, as he is incapable of working out how to play differently. Every time he tries a tactic that is not statistically dominant, he rejects it very quickly, so he can never work out to win with his back against the wall. Hence, he will always find statistically good tactics that don't always win and continue to make the same flawed observations about the ME.

Until Hammer actually tries to employ his self-claimed 'huge knowledge of football' into FM, he will continue to fail to enjoy it and report the same tired old things. People will take him less and less seriously. Currently, he is not playing FM in any kind of football-realistic way and just loading up a tactic and letting it run, which is not how professional teams go about things. Until he actually tries to manage his side, rather than relying on other's tactical solutions and flawed statistical ideas and analysis, he will never be taken seriously and will continue to marginalise himself. Given I've tried to help him for four years now with no change in his stance, I don't see this happening.

Picking sh*t with the hens i see again Rich, by god you do turn it on mate dont you.

I'm sure i said above that its not about the amount of chances or even the amount of possession, but the type of chances created.

Your lucky if theres half a dozen people that understand this game well enough to play it like you think it should be played, yes many will claim they do, but thats because they either want to look cool and clever whilst posting on these Forums or that they are playing as a Big Club and cannot really go too far wrong.

Go bury your head in the sand and ruin another FM why dont you, its because of people like you that SI have tried to turn this game into something it is not, i dont doubt for a minute that the "idea" of realism this game tries to achieve is the correct one, its just that the game on a whole falls a million miles short of being sophisticated enough to achieve it and until you get that through your pompous jumped up persona then its always going to be a crap game that could have been really good.

[dking]

Picking sh*t with the hens i see again Rich, by god you do turn it on mate dont you.

I'm sure i said above that its not about the amount of chances or even the amount of possession, but the type of chances created.

Your lucky if theres half a dozen people that understand this game well enough to play it like you think it should be played, yes many will claim they do, but thats because they either want to look cool and clever whilst posting on these Forums or that they are playing as a Big Club and cannot really go too far wrong.

Go bury your head in the sand and ruin another FM why dont you, its because of people like you that SI have tried to turn this game into something it is not, i dont doubt for a minute that the "idea" of realism this game tries to achieve is the correct one, its just that the game on a whole falls a million miles short of being sophisticated enough to achieve it and until you get that through your pompous jumped up persona then its always going to be a crap game that could have been really good.

Does that mean your quitting, hammer?

[cf]

I see another of these threads has degraded into petty bickering. No progress is ever going to be made on the issues raised here if this continues to be the case.

The majority of the CCCs I generate in my games are strikers 1v1 against the keeper. Is there any pattern to the types of CCCs you team creates Hammer?

[Ellis_D]

I can't see where he has insulted anyone on this thread. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis_D

It's your tactics. I am playing even better and scoring even more goals since the new patch came out. I love it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Telac

LOL

Same old response i see?

May i ask, why is it "always" that persons tactics?

My team have started the season off great, we've scored 15 goals in 2 league games, and more in cup games, we are yet to conceed, but i bet the second i get a problem some idiot will post its because of my tacitcs.

Telac Re: Not a Rant, But....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverplate

Because it is the tactics! why are some doing better than others then? they are running same game, same patch, same team.... yet one user is 10th in the league and the other one is challenging title, its obviously crappy tactics and using wrong players...

Quote:

Originally posted by Telac

No matter what tactic a player uses IF they do team tealks and press conferences then you can have the greatest tactic FM has ever seen and you'll still never win.

Nobody in the history of FM has ever run the same game, no two people are the same, so tactics, signings etc will always be different.

I apologise to the OP for the two idiots who have posted here proclaiming its your tactics, clearly from your CCC's their is nothing wrong with your tactic, you have been on the receiving end of long shots and a loss of form.

There........

[wwfan]

Garry, I don't appreciate the insults. Your 'facts' have no basis and no evidence. I've tried to help you 1000s of times, as have any others, all of whom you've alienated with your stubborn attitude and flawed logic. Calling me names is hardly what I deserve for all the help I've given you over the years. You are only on these forums because Paul and I have argued that you should be allowed to post and your previous ban should be forgotten. Don't make me regret that by producing petty insults.

The reviews and general feedback for FM have been excellent. A significantly large part of the forums is enjoying the game, with many posting about a renewed love for FM. In contrast, the 'moaning' threads are populated by the same tired old voices who have moaned about every FM for the last few years. We've repeatedly tried to help these people. We've even tried to make them part of the process and invited them to Beta test, but without fail they've refused and preferred to remain on the sidelines so they can destructively criticise. They also produce wild theories about how the game works which are so far from the truth they are laughable.

There is absolutely no evidence that anything but a totally insignificant portion of the user base isn't enjoying FM. Unfortunately, this minority's vocal presence ruins the forums for the rest of us and stops those looking for genuine help from being able to find it. Because of this, the moderators have to constantly chase down and respond to trolling and negative posts, nasty criticisms and personal abuse rather than spend their time constructively helping people. This allows crazy theories about tactic cracking, overpowered team talks, pre-determined results, superkeepers et al to run wild.

Nothing the hardcore of moaners have ever produced has been constructive not objective, but subjective rants drawing about how the game is broken, whereas in fact it just doesn't work in the manner they think it should. They are bad losers and/or lazy managers who are unwilling to even try and think about why certain things maybe happening, instead preferring to expend their intellectual energies on ridiculous conspiracy theories about the ME and AI. They are unwilling to put in the time and energy required to actually play a management simulation.

What they fail to realise is that the vast majority isn't taking them seriously any more, but playing and enjoying FM. If any of these people actually bother to post defending the game, providing alternative arguments of suggested help, they get dismissed as fanboys and blind to the inadequacies of FM. So, guess what. They stop posting. There are a large number of people I know that refuse to post here anymore because they know what will happen. The thread will descend into petty insults and pointless bickering, with any useful information lost to the irrelevant nastiness.

Whereas the vast majority accept that the ME will always be imperfect and have some weaknesses and pragmatically get on with things, the chosen few seem to think everything should be absolutely perfect and woe-betide Si for producing anything with a single bug in it. The problem is that he vast majority of stuff that offends aren't bugs. Every soft goal, every match lost when they feel they should have won, every comeback, every red card or penalty is cited as an example of how SI have screwed up the ME. However, in 90% of the cases, they should be cited as an example of how the user doesn't understand FM, management, football or all three. Yes, there are weaknesses in the manual, yes there are ambiguities in the game, but most of us just get on with it and work things out. It's a lot more fun than negatively bitching about things and continuously crying unfair.

The arguments presented in this thread have no basis.

1: The team that statistically dominates should win 90% of the time. Absolutely false and easily proven otherwise.

2: The team that has most CCCs should always win. CCCs have a 1 in 5 to 1 in 2 chance of going in. If your team produces 4 1 in 5s and the other team 2 1 in 2s, then it isn't unreasonable to expect a 1-1 scoreline. However, I will agree that CCCs aren't perfectly measured right now. As I mentioned before, I have previously run a direct comparison between my 'good' chances and those created by one of Hammer's tactics, in which I proved beyond doubt that his were low level CCCs whereas many of mine were unmissable. However, this is yet again conveniently dismissed in the phrase 'the type of chances created.' Not all CCCs are sitters. Should the phrase be changed? Yes. Should CCCs be used as direct evidence of a broken ME? Not in a million years.

3: The AI holds all the trump cards and has an unfair advantage over the user. I was directly involved in working out AI logic, which is tied directly to the creator. It doesn't do anything except logically react to set pre and in-match situations. If it changes things better than the user, it is down to the user's deficiencies, not the AI brilliance.

4: Losing to weak opponents shouldn't happen if you are a good team. Not if you are a good manager, but if you aren't, then arguably it should. Look at the difference in results Bolton had under Allardyce and Lee for example. Blackburn under Ince and Allardyce. Portsmouth under Redknapp and Adams. Spurs under Ramos and Redknapp. Bad or wrongly appointed managers wreck solid sides. We rarely if ever see what that would do to top sides as these types of managers never get appointed to manage them. However, it is very arguable that results would suffer and they would struggle to get top four.

5: People don't understand how the game 'should' be played, or use a Big Club in order to 'look cool'. Completely patronising and with no evidence outside of a biased belief that if you can't achieve something, nor can anybody else. Dismissible out of hand.

6: FM2010 has been ruined by the new tactical ideas and is a crap game that could have been really good if some of those now involved weren't. Arrogant, rude and far from the truth. If you remove your blinkers, you'd recognise that the negative feedback is coming from a hardcore minority and that overall feeling is hugely positive. You don't speak for the forums and need to stop believing you do. If you do, then I'd like to see the thousands of people supporting you post in this thread saying so.

I'm sorry to go off on one, but some of this needs to be said. Our forums have become uncivil and negative, dominated by a few loud voices who proclaim they are speaking for the whole user base, which gives a completely biased slant to those reading the threads. I recently saw the same negative comment posted by the same user in about 20 different threads. This makes things look terrible, whereas in fact it is one person having a hard time. It also enables false rumours and theories to spread, which hurt the average user. Finally, it makes moderating a far more difficult task than it should be.

I'm fed up with the same 10-20 people posting the same tired old complaints and going in to other threads to troll and snipe. These forums should support the whole user base, not just the small minority who feel it is their God given right to moan about every little loss they have experienced. They take up too much time and energy. If they don't like the game, then they should stop playing it rather moaning about it non stop. Life's too short for that.

[Ellis_D]

The "it's your tactic [moron!]" reply should grant immediate and permanent ban...

Besides, such objection has much more merit if the complaining FM'er is managing an average side.

But quite frankly blaming it on the user's inability to produce a good tactic when he/she is managing MANCHESTER F'N UNITED is a bit dishonest and unfair.

How hard can it be winning against Hull or Stoke, even with a lazy, unrefined or default tactic? The odd game off is fine, but when it becomes a streak of horrid results or of "Good Stats-Poor Result" matches, then there's a problem, and not just with the user's 4-4-2.

Fulham 3 - 0 Man Utd. Burnley 1 - 0 Man Utd. 5 defeats in the league for ManUre already this season.

If Alex Ferguson can do it, why is it so hard to imagine a person managing on a football game getting the tactics wrong?

Sorry I apologise, I must be a moron. If you manage Man Utd on FM you should ALWAYS beat the small clubs, Man Utd always do in real-life after all.

[Adam S]

wwfan, thanks so much. Someone earlier responded to my post by saying I should 'get my facts right' because apparently teams only lose when they play badly, they never lost in real life when they dominate the game. But just as I was preparing to write a long winded post, i read yours and it says it all, so thank you!!

[killface]

Fulham 3 - 0 Man Utd. Burnley 1 - 0 Man Utd. 5 defeats in the league for ManUre already this season.

If Alex Ferguson can do it, why is it so hard to imagine a person managing on a football game getting the tactics wrong?

Sorry I apologise, I must be a moron. If you manage Man Utd on FM you should ALWAYS beat the small clubs, Man Utd always do in real-life after all.

I feel like I should post a link to the results of today's match . If you look at Liverpool's results from last year, you can see that big clubs clearly do not beat clubs like Stoke all the time haha.

edit: dang someone beat me to it while I was writing

edit again: oops forgot what I was talking about, I didn't watch the match, but from the stats it looks like Man U dominated that match and lost big. Last year in two matches Liverpool shots 41, Stoke shots 8, total scoreline 0-0.

[rocky0]

Nothing to say except that was a great post wwfan. You said things that needed to be said, hopefully everything you wrote will be read and understood.

[Ellis_D]

Also, excellent posts there wwfan

[tingting]

Fulham 11 (3) v Man Utd 16 (0) No dominant team but big win

Sorry but that is not the case...While United might have had a greater number of shots...they had less number of shots on target than Fulham (2 compared to 6) Also none of the reviews of the match said that United had any chance of getting something from the game...According to the review on premierleague.co.uk:

Just as worrying for United side as their second Barclays Premier League defeat in three matches was the knowledge they were overwhelmed in every department.

So statistically, the best team won. I am not saying that every team that dominates statistically will win the game. Nor am i saying that each and every chance should be put away. What i am saying is that most of the time..the strikers do not try to beat the keeper by placing the ball but rather shoot it straight to the keeper (again i am not saying that every player in real life will do that with each chance...however i am finding that even when they are clear through with no defenders to pressurize them, they still tend to shoot straight at the keeper rather than either try and lob, try and place or try to go around the keeper...it doesnt matter if the keeper saves such chances but it is really frustrating when he hits it straight to the keeper)

I had played as Liverpool, Man City, Lyon and Bochum and i did not find much difference between Torres, Dzeko, Tevez, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Lisandro Lopez, Gomis or Klimowicz.

Will install the patch again and play as Man Utd since they are the easiest of the teams in the game and see. If the problem persists then i will head to the tactics forum and hopefully will get some help even with some stupid questions

[anagain]

Wwfan's posts are excellent and need to be stickied to the top of this thread somehow. The guy is a genius and has said everything many people have tried t say in the most perfect and concise way.

I hadn't realised how much help Hammer has been offered, yet still he posts his thoughts over and over. For him to return wwfan's well thought out posts with abuse just shows the nature of the man. He's shown how little he is and any little respect he has is going to plummet. May help get the forums back on track.

[bat]

What I am yet to understand, and apologies if this is covered elsewhere, is how do MY tactics turn the pub team I am playing against into passing geniuses, with the first touch of (insert analogy closer here - the best first touch in history). I get it that I have to tweak everything yadda yadda, but why does the opposition become so good if I make the wrong tweak? I can be comfortably in control and suddenly I'm playing against Barcelona, though they all have names like Jim Smith. :confused:

[Ty]

What I am yet to understand, and apologies if this is covered elsewhere, is how do MY tactics turn the pub team I am playing against into passing geniuses, with the first touch of (insert analogy closer here - the best first touch in history). I get it that I have to tweak everything yadda yadda, but why does the opposition become so good if I make the wrong tweak? I can be comfortably in control and suddenly I'm playing against Barcelona, though they all have names like Jim Smith. :confused:

Do you mean Jim Smithildinho? 4 times voted World Player of the Year I Joke!

[wwfan]

Sorry but that is not the case...While United might have had a greater number of shots...they had less number of shots on target than Fulham (2 compared to 6) Also none of the reviews of the match said that United had any chance of getting something from the game...According to the review on premierleague.co.uk:

So statistically, the best team won. I am not saying that every team that dominates statistically will win the game. Nor am i saying that each and every chance should be put away. What i am saying is that most of the time..the strikers do not try to beat the keeper by placing the ball but rather shoot it straight to the keeper (again i am not saying that every player in real life will do that with each chance...however i am finding that even when they are clear through with no defenders to pressurize them, they still tend to shoot straight at the keeper rather than either try and lob, try and place or try to go around the keeper...it doesnt matter if the keeper saves such chances but it is really frustrating when he hits it straight to the keeper)

I had played as Liverpool, Man City, Lyon and Bochum and i did not find much difference between Torres, Dzeko, Tevez, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Lisandro Lopez, Gomis or Klimowicz.

Will install the patch again and play as Man Utd since they are the easiest of the teams in the game and see. If the problem persists then i will head to the tactics forum and hopefully will get some help even with some stupid questions

In terms of match context, I agree with you. Which is the whole point. Pure stats do not give the full story of any match, so relying on them is flawed and inadequate.

I also agree that one on ones are too easy to create and too difficult to score, especially when the FC is almost in the middle or the goal or breaking from deep. If you ignore their being CCCs and treat them as half chances (not satisfactory but the best mindset to take until they can be fixed), then the ME is easy to read and adjust to. However, if you regard a tactic that creates a lot of these types of chances as being a good/dominant one, you will become very frustrated very quickly.

[bat]

That's him/them!

Do you mean Jim Smithildinho? 4 times voted World Player of the Year I Joke!

[killface]

Just something I've noticed, CCC's are converted a lot more often when the player lobs the keeper, this might be a lot more worthwhile to teach strikers than anything else right now.

[tingting]

Just something I've noticed, CCC's are converted a lot more often when the player lobs the keeper, this might be a lot more worthwhile to teach strikers than anything else right now.

Yes but according to my experience, players agree only when either they are young and/or you have a very good reputation. But it is very difficult to get world class players to toe your line early in the game

[Almondo]

What they fail to realise is that the vast majority isn't taking them seriously any more, but playing and enjoying FM. If any of these people actually bother to post defending the game, providing alternative arguments of suggested help, they get dismissed as fanboys and blind to the inadequacies of FM. So, guess what. They stop posting. There are a large number of people I know that refuse to post here anymore because they know what will happen. The thread will descend into petty insults and pointless bickering, with any useful information lost to the irrelevant nastiness.

I'm fed up with the same 10-20 people posting the same tired old complaints and going in to other threads to troll and snipe. These forums should support the whole user base, not just the small minority who feel it is their God given right to moan about every little loss they have experienced. They take up too much time and energy. If they don't like the game, then they should stop playing it rather moaning about it non stop. Life's too short for that.

Well said wwfan. Especially with the reasons why players are not posting here anymore. If those who are unhappy with the game were to spend more time playing the game and less time looking for faults within it's match engine etc they may actually have a fun time. Personally i spend a lot of time down it the CSE section of the forums where everybody is quite happily getting along with the game and there's none of the idiotic post about problems with the game.

I personally don't set much score by CCC's while playing the game as I figured out on 09 (before I stopped playing it) that they weren't really all that accurate in saying how well your team was playing. It's like saying that a striker scores IRL every time he gets through and is 1 on 1 with the keeper. I have watched many games where this has happened and only about 25% of the time has the striker actually scored. The rest of the time he's either spooned it wide or the keeper has saved it.

I have noticed a tendancy for hammer, telac et al to call people a fanboy/girl just because they're not getting the response they wanted from posters in their threads and to dismiss any sensible advice given out by Crouchalinho, Nepenthez and the mods/SI team. Well my advice to them is to chill out and just enjoy the game the way it's supposed to be which is to make it fun an dif you want to call me a fanboy feel free as it's not gonna hurt my feelings.

Almondo out.

[cf]

You shouldn't assume that people unhappy with the game are actively looking for faults. I know from personal experience that it very possible to try and play the game but come up against elements that appear unexplainable and are enormously frustrating. I'm fully prepared to accept it's likely to be something I wasn't doing right but the game does such a poor job at times of effectively communicating this the player you start to question the game itself.

CCCs are a good example of this, I would have thought it quite logical that with the creation of CCCs goals should follow, not all the time of course, but more often that not. I tend to think this highlights a problem(s) with the game, even if it's simply the game not registering CCCs accurately within the context of the match engine. I realise stats don't mean everything in sport but I would have thought them fairly important in the game, I was under the impression that real life stats play an important role in shaping how the game plays out,maybe that's an incorrect conclusion on my part.

[wwfan]

I have no issue with people being frustrated. However, now you know a CCC has somewhere between 20 & 50% chance of being scored, it should enable you to judge them better. Longer range CCCs or ones where the man is having to hurry his shot will fall in the 20% range. Tap ins from 6 yards in the 50% range. You need to have some subjective judgment when comparing them, rather than just assume they are all equal.

NB: These percentages are taken from real world research on goals scored in football matches. FM cannot mirror them perfectly, but in general it is pretty close. Furthermore, 10.2 does seem to have an issue with a certain type of straight one on ones, which seem to have a 1 in 5 chance of being scored at best. Real world stats would suggest these should be scored between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 times. Remove these from the equations and apply subjective judgment to the others and you shouldn't see to many horrific statistical anomalies.

[batata169]

Just a question though a bit off topic.

Why do SI get their statistics ONLY from the english leagues?

[wwfan]

Do they? Not as far as I know. The research I access is worldwide.

[batata169]

Can you please post some statistics from la liga if possible, just to compare them.

[wwfan]

The stats I have don't break things down into leagues. They ran research across 1000s of matches across the world at all levels of football and analysed how and when goals are scored. They do break thing down between levels and nations, but only to illustrate how little changes statistically in all levels/forms of the game.

[Chutzkfb]

Bollocks!!!!!!!!

[wwfan]

Bollocks!!!!!!!!

What is and why?

[wwfan]

This is one of the research articles I use:

ESTIMATING THE PROBABILITY OF A SHOT RESULTING IN A GOAL: THE EFFECTS OF DISTANCE, ANGLE AND SPACE.

Richard Pollard, Jake Ensum and Samuel Taylor

International Journal of Soccer and Science, Vol. 2 No 1 2004

Unfortunately, I can't make the article available as it is copyrighted. However, the abstract reads thus:

Pollard, R.; Ensum, J. and Taylor, S. (2004). Estimating the probability of a shot resulting in a goal: The effects of distance, angle and space. International Journal of Soccer and Science, 2(1), 50-55. It takes on average about 10 shots to score one goal. However, the probability of scoring varies greatly from shot to shot. Two previous studies, using data recorded from the World Cups of 1986 and 2002, have investigated the effect of the location of the shot on the chances of scoring, together with the influence of other factors. The data from these two analyses are combined into a single sample. Because of their different characteristics and smaller sample sizes, penalties, headed shots and shots direct from a free-kick are excluded, leaving a total of 1096 kicked shots which produced 110 goals. A logistic regression analysis shows that three factors each have a highly significant influence (p < .001) on the chances of a shot producing a goal. These factors are: 1. The distance from goal (each extra yard from goal decreases the odds of scoring by 15%); 2. The angle from the goalpost (each extra degree away from the goal decreases the odds of scoring by 2%); 3. Space from the nearest opponent at the time of the shot (if more than one metre of space, the odds of scoring are more than doubled). The logistic regression equation enables the probability of scoring to be estimated from any given situation. This can be illustrated by probability contours drawn on diagrams of the field of play. The low probability of scoring from long range emphasizes the importance of getting the ball into locations of higher scoring probability. For the striker, finding space and shooting first time are important attributes.

[Chutzkfb]

It depends on the quality of the player. better players will have a better average of CCC's

[wwfan]

It depends on the quality of the player. better players will have a better average of CCC's

The top forwards in the world will score 1 on 3 one in ones. Likewise, a player playing out of his level might do the same. However, on average, 1in 4 one on ones are converted, no matter the level.

Same for conversion of CCCs. Average conversion rates are the same whatever level of football you are playing, i.e. two evenly matched L2 teams will produce similar stats and conversion ratios as two evenly matched Premiership or La Liga teams. Once you insert players of greater or lesser quality into the mix, things will change.

This is not opinion, but taken from objective statistical research of football matches at all levels from World Cups to US Women's College Soccer.

[cf]

Interesting article, does the match engine take these little details into account?

[Chutzkfb]

you cant base one players average of taking 1 on 1 chances with the average of thousands! great players will score the vast majority of them. Which isnt the case in FM

[wwfan]

Great players will score 1 in 3. Not the vast majority. This is a pretty undisputed statistic.

That said, there is undoubtedly an issue with certain types of one in one in FM 10.2.

@ cf: It tries to

[Chutzkfb]

I bet messi zidane torres raul ronaldo ect. would score at least 7 out of ten 1 on 1's. It all depends who you see as a great player i suppose

[wwfan]

I bet messi zidane torres raul ronaldo ect. would score at least 7 out of ten 1 on 1's. It all depends who you see as a great player i suppose

You'd lose some money then. No matter the player, the keeper always has the advantage in these situations. There are very few chances on which you should bet on the player scoring, outside of penalties.

[Ellis_D]

Bollocks!!!!!!!!

After that post I am surprised the mod even bothered speaking to you again.

[tonif]

<...> The game still plays like its nothing more than a direct fight between the Human and the ME with the ME holding all the trump cards and until this issue has been resolved it will always appear as if the AI will without fail have the upper hand.

That's one of the one most preposterous statements I've read on these forums!

[Hammer1000]

Garry, I don't appreciate the insults. Your 'facts' have no basis and no evidence. I've tried to help you 1000s of times, as have any others, all of whom you've alienated with your stubborn attitude and flawed logic. Calling me names is hardly what I deserve for all the help I've given you over the years. You are only on these forums because Paul and I have argued that you should be allowed to post and your previous ban should be forgotten. Don't make me regret that by producing petty insults.

The reviews and general feedback for FM have been excellent. A significantly large part of the forums is enjoying the game, with many posting about a renewed love for FM. In contrast, the 'moaning' threads are populated by the same tired old voices who have moaned about every FM for the last few years. We've repeatedly tried to help these people. We've even tried to make them part of the process and invited them to Beta test, but without fail they've refused and preferred to remain on the sidelines so they can destructively criticise. They also produce wild theories about how the game works which are so far from the truth they are laughable.

There is absolutely no evidence that anything but a totally insignificant portion of the user base isn't enjoying FM. Unfortunately, this minority's vocal presence ruins the forums for the rest of us and stops those looking for genuine help from being able to find it. Because of this, the moderators have to constantly chase down and respond to trolling and negative posts, nasty criticisms and personal abuse rather than spend their time constructively helping people. This allows crazy theories about tactic cracking, overpowered team talks, pre-determined results, superkeepers et al to run wild.

Nothing the hardcore of moaners have ever produced has been constructive not objective, but subjective rants drawing about how the game is broken, whereas in fact it just doesn't work in the manner they think it should. They are bad losers and/or lazy managers who are unwilling to even try and think about why certain things maybe happening, instead preferring to expend their intellectual energies on ridiculous conspiracy theories about the ME and AI. They are unwilling to put in the time and energy required to actually play a management simulation.

What they fail to realise is that the vast majority isn't taking them seriously any more, but playing and enjoying FM. If any of these people actually bother to post defending the game, providing alternative arguments of suggested help, they get dismissed as fanboys and blind to the inadequacies of FM. So, guess what. They stop posting. There are a large number of people I know that refuse to post here anymore because they know what will happen. The thread will descend into petty insults and pointless bickering, with any useful information lost to the irrelevant nastiness.

Whereas the vast majority accept that the ME will always be imperfect and have some weaknesses and pragmatically get on with things, the chosen few seem to think everything should be absolutely perfect and woe-betide Si for producing anything with a single bug in it. The problem is that he vast majority of stuff that offends aren't bugs. Every soft goal, every match lost when they feel they should have won, every comeback, every red card or penalty is cited as an example of how SI have screwed up the ME. However, in 90% of the cases, they should be cited as an example of how the user doesn't understand FM, management, football or all three. Yes, there are weaknesses in the manual, yes there are ambiguities in the game, but most of us just get on with it and work things out. It's a lot more fun than negatively bitching about things and continuously crying unfair.

The arguments presented in this thread have no basis.

1: The team that statistically dominates should win 90% of the time. Absolutely false and easily proven otherwise.

2: The team that has most CCCs should always win. CCCs have a 1 in 5 to 1 in 2 chance of going in. If your team produces 4 1 in 5s and the other team 2 1 in 2s, then it isn't unreasonable to expect a 1-1 scoreline. However, I will agree that CCCs aren't perfectly measured right now. As I mentioned before, I have previously run a direct comparison between my 'good' chances and those created by one of Hammer's tactics, in which I proved beyond doubt that his were low level CCCs whereas many of mine were unmissable. However, this is yet again conveniently dismissed in the phrase 'the type of chances created.' Not all CCCs are sitters. Should the phrase be changed? Yes. Should CCCs be used as direct evidence of a broken ME? Not in a million years.

3: The AI holds all the trump cards and has an unfair advantage over the user. I was directly involved in working out AI logic, which is tied directly to the creator. It doesn't do anything except logically react to set pre and in-match situations. If it changes things better than the user, it is down to the user's deficiencies, not the AI brilliance.

4: Losing to weak opponents shouldn't happen if you are a good team. Not if you are a good manager, but if you aren't, then arguably it should. Look at the difference in results Bolton had under Allardyce and Lee for example. Blackburn under Ince and Allardyce. Portsmouth under Redknapp and Adams. Spurs under Ramos and Redknapp. Bad or wrongly appointed managers wreck solid sides. We rarely if ever see what that would do to top sides as these types of managers never get appointed to manage them. However, it is very arguable that results would suffer and they would struggle to get top four.

5: People don't understand how the game 'should' be played, or use a Big Club in order to 'look cool'. Completely patronising and with no evidence outside of a biased belief that if you can't achieve something, nor can anybody else. Dismissible out of hand.

6: FM2010 has been ruined by the new tactical ideas and is a crap game that could have been really good if some of those now involved weren't. Arrogant, rude and far from the truth. If you remove your blinkers, you'd recognise that the negative feedback is coming from a hardcore minority and that overall feeling is hugely positive. You don't speak for the forums and need to stop believing you do. If you do, then I'd like to see the thousands of people supporting you post in this thread saying so.

I'm sorry to go off on one, but some of this needs to be said. Our forums have become uncivil and negative, dominated by a few loud voices who proclaim they are speaking for the whole user base, which gives a completely biased slant to those reading the threads. I recently saw the same negative comment posted by the same user in about 20 different threads. This makes things look terrible, whereas in fact it is one person having a hard time. It also enables false rumours and theories to spread, which hurt the average user. Finally, it makes moderating a far more difficult task than it should be.

I'm fed up with the same 10-20 people posting the same tired old complaints and going in to other threads to troll and snipe. These forums should support the whole user base, not just the small minority who feel it is their God given right to moan about every little loss they have experienced. They take up too much time and energy. If they don't like the game, then they should stop playing it rather moaning about it non stop. Life's too short for that.

Eloquently put and if this argument was based on who wrote the best posts then i would accept defeat immediately.

The thing is mate, i can still pick out glaring errors in your posts, as you can with my own no doubt and this is why i continue to raise the issues at hand and not stunned into silence by your magnificent prose.

You mention "One person having a hard time" hardly the case, just take a look around the Forums, i can provide direct links if necessary?

Also, who says i'm having a hard time? in my Utd save i'm second at Christmas 5 points clear of the team in third place and in my West Ham save i'm 5th coming up to Christmas.

You keep pulling me up about "Doctoring" the truth, but you are just as big a culprit, often cherry picking parts of what i say to suit your argument and make you look right, add that with your better use of the English language and your aware that you cannot go far wrong.

I wanted to play FM10 properly i told you that from day one, but given the utter lack of info and feedback yet again my hand is forced to play the game in the manner i have become accustomed(a way in which and the fact remains that this game was always played in until recent times)

The trouble with the game is that you have to make choices and decisions based on what you are seeing via the match, but the ME is a million miles behind the times and from what you can see played out on the pitch it is next to impossible to make any tactical decisions and tweaks based on logic.

As a quick example, in a recent game at Home to Burnley we lost 3-4 conceding all four goals from 25 yards plus, not one of these goals saw the opposing striker unmarked they were all just "special" goals that "We might be seeing for some time"

There is this fake ideology that the ME is some sophisticated piece of brilliance, i am saying that it is not, there should be a clear correlation between what we view via the ME and the tactic based side of the game, one should mirror the other so that our tactical decisions can be based on what we see being played out on the pitch and this is where the game(the ME anyway) is massively flawed.

The tactical side of the game may well be the best it ever been by a mile, but until the ME catches up it is still going to look like one big mess.

And another thing, you say that the AI is designed to react certain ways to certain situations, in idiot terms(me) i see that as saying "the ME sets its tactics/strategy/any tweaks or subs, etc, etc, based on the programming/coding it has been given" if i'm wrong i fully accept that and would appreciate any explanation, but if it IS the case this also tells me that the AI is already in the know about what to do for each situation it is presented with(albeit some very basic abilities) now thats all well and good if we the Human Manager is privvy to the same info however basic but we are not, we have to learn it and then it all comes back to the fact that we have to learn it through a misrepresented ME which to me is where all the problems and most if not all of my arguments lie in the first place.