rhacer Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Also name me one other game of this stature that needs 2-3 huge patches after each release to be "done"? There's none, and the only reason they get away with it is that there is no other competition in the market. Cheers. Here are a few: Gears of War Gears of War 2 Second patch any day now. Halo 3 Fable 2 Fallout 3 And that's just a partial list. I'm not saying it's right, but it has become quite standard practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewell08 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 knap, I'm not sure about yours, but I know that I played Boreham Wood with Arsenal (on 08, admittedly, but the differences are not that drastic) playing a 0-5-5 formation similar to yours and I lost 19-2 to a club that is not even playable on the game with the then-powerhouse of the league. Playing all my players in defence (sweepers or traditional backs) also gave me a 0-3 loss... To be fair, the first one you posted Bolton had only ten men and your formations matched up beautifully - you basically had a player in position to mark every one of their players, like a reverse. It's fair enough that that works really, even if you don't see it that often IRL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knap Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Kewell Its a screenshot at end of game. Most of game Bolton had 11 in traditional 4141 formation. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Stuff like this needs to be uploaded to the bug ftps so Paul can take a look, thus helping him to improve the ME. As is, they are just being used to criticise the ME, which is no use to man or beast. Not surprisingly, most ME testing focuses on how realistic formations play, which means the ME may still be 'broken' by extremely unrealistic ones. The more evidence people upload supporting their inability of the ME to cope with such extreme formations, the better the ME will become. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smac Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 To be fair, a really good autonomous player (Floys (Java Required) AI would perform fairly well and adaptively if you set their formation incorrectly. Not that I'm suggesting the FM ME simulates a bunch of autonomous agents with Bayesian values to uphold, but even a mediocre yet independent (as in each player is an independent AI) match simulation should resolve around ridiculous formations fairly well (niche exploitation). IE, it says nothing. See: Robocode if ya wanna learn how to program some autonomous AI the fun and easy way. I'm biased though because I kicked my CSCI class's katushkas all over the place in robocode battles. robocode video Carry on.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Stuff like this needs to be uploaded to the bug ftps so Paul can take a look, thus helping him to improve the ME. As is, they are just being used to criticise the ME, which is no use to man or beast. Not surprisingly, most ME testing focuses on how realistic formations play, which means the ME may still be 'broken' by extremely unrealistic ones. The more evidence people upload supporting their inability of the ME to cope with such extreme formations, the better the ME will become. The whole reason why I am going to play an entire season with the formation mentioned earlier is to find out what the facts actually are. We can't learn much from a single match, we have to see whether, over a period, the ME gives credible outcomes or not. Thus far, I have only played a couple of pre-seasons (1-0 and 4-0 my way). I'm not going to draw any conclusions from this. Criticising the ME is a perfectly proper thing to do. Only by pointing out things which seem to be wrong do we have the chance of getting improvements. We are constantly told that making small slider adjustments can have a big effect on the outcome of matches. If it transpires that unorthodox formations, where things are wildly out of kilter, don't get hammered as they should, then, to my mind, this calls that assertion into question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewell08 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 What wwfan is getting at is that criticising the ME is not helpful when you have the means to actively help by doing something as simple as giving them a PKM... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 But remember that people are customers. If they aren't happy with a product they are going to grumble - that's human nature. I'm trying to be helpful by running my test. That doesn't mean to say that I don't still want to moan as well !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackTiger Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 But remember that people are customers. If they aren't happy with a product they are going to grumble - that's human nature. I'm trying to be helpful by running my test. That doesn't mean to say that I don't still want to moan as well !! i think the point is you can moan all you like and run all the tests you like but unless you provide PKM's or Saved Games for SI to analyse, your problems will stay unfixed. Help them help you, its a simple as that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well, my test is, first and foremost, to try to see if there is a problem or not, in this particular case and it will be a little while before I'll know. But I'm not taking issue with the point about providing info for SI. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 18, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 18, 2009 Regarding the 0-5-5 formation. I ran the pkm provided this morning and the problem was the opponents ( Bolton ) didnt think to leave a striker forward at all times to take advantage of the opposition D-line being inside their half. Once I fixed that in 9.3 beta code Bolton won 8-1. If someone provides a match with the 2-2-2-2-2 formation or similar then I can look at that too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Sandman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 one thing i find hard too take is how powerful "you can win today" can be, im learning it's a good team talk if you are slight faves, however if this team talk backfires i've experienced matches where i have 15shots to oppositions 4 and I lose 3-0. alot of times... This rarely if ever happens with "for the fans" team talk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Having now played about half a season, I'm reasonably satisfied that the 'Chelsea' formation as shown above leads to bad results at the lower league level. While not leaking goals in the way in which I would have expected, more matches are lost than should be the case considering the ability of the squad. You get the odd good result but, overall, the tactic is a failure, which shows that the match engine is working OK as far as this formation is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 19, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 19, 2009 Having now played about half a season, I'm reasonably satisfied that the 'Chelsea' formation as shown above leads to bad results at the lower league level. While not leaking goals in the way in which I would have expected, more matches are lost than should be the case considering the ability of the squad.You get the odd good result but, overall, the tactic is a failure, which shows that the match engine is working OK as far as this formation is concerned. Which formation? I think there were 3 or 4 in this thread...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 5 ST, 2 MC, WBL, WBR, DC and GK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 I do understand your concern and I am the second 'type' of fan-boy as you are. I can't think of many things in this world that won't profit from upgrading or a massive 'overhual' from time to time. Questioning things is a 'natural' instinct we humans have that actually contributes to any evolutionary or ugrading of current situations (somehow when we don't stop and think then things somehow gets out of hand in this world).First of all, in the last 10-15 minutes, it's the forward runs that need to be removed from your full-backs more than anything else. On top of this did you know that the AI only has 5 match options when they play against you? 2 attacking, one in the middle and 2 defensive (Mentality). It is actually very easy to counter because it won't and shouldn't take the average Gamer that long to figure out the Mentality you should use to counter the AI's mentality. And it is not an exact science either you can get away with being close. This is the main reason that people can't get their tactics functioning and passing ideologies effect what type of other settings you might implement that makes the tactic feasable. It is only the World-Class elite that can break those minor 'tactical rules' or can handle extreme settings (the type of settings that cause lesser quality teams to fail). When you have built a center-ish type of tactic with basic instuctions then tweaking shouldn't be endless (usually adjustments are coherent with player's ability) and once the FM Gamer have figured out the mentality part it won't be a problem it's just a question if the AI is attacking or defending (which should easliy be seen in the ME). In the 'old days' the AI had basically one option and now it has basically five... The way you've explained how to have success in the game currently is just as worrying for me, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if it's true what you say and there are only 5 basic AI mentalities to counter then the game has simply become Rock, Paper, Scissors, where the user has to pick the correct option to counter the opponent. For me that's not football management, there are plenty of teams in football that stick to their own style and their aim is to force that style of play onto the game. Secondly, I don't think most of the problems being brought up in this thread are down to the fact that people cannot have success in the game. That's not the case for me anyway. When we refer to the tactical complexity of the game we're talking about how difficult it is to use the current tactical interface to get the players on the pitch to do something close to what we're envisioning and expecting them to do. Winning isn't what's important, getting players to play in a realistic footballing manner and having a degree of control over what they do on the pitch is. With the current tactical system many people are finding this incredibly difficult. To go back to an earlier point, I can do fairly well at the game, but much of the time I have no idea why my tactic is working. It's more down to trial and error than applying real world knowledge of football. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the game as much as, if not more than, FM08 (which I enjoyed very much). But the main thing I'd like to see improved in future games is the tactical interface so that it is far less confusing and requires less trial and error. Fortunately Paul C has already said that this is being discussed internally. As for the original tests, I've not had a chance to touch FM all weekend so I've still been unable to carry out any more tests. Hopefully the good discussions in this thread will continue long enough for me to get some more results up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 19, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 19, 2009 On top of this did you know that the AI only has 5 match options when they play against you? 2 attacking, one in the middle and 2 defensive (Mentality). That isnt the case. They have exactly the same options as you see on your own tactics screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 That isnt the case. They have exactly the same options as you see on your own tactics screen. Sorry, I wan't being totally clear: Two attacking options: Attacking or All-out Attack... One middle: Normal mentalities. Two defensive options: Defensive or Ultra-defensive... Now, This is how it is basically set-up and that makes 5. And if it's not, PaulC, then I suggest you re-write the manual explaining what other options there are... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 That isnt the case. They have exactly the same options as you see on your own tactics screen. I'm glad you've confirmed that Paul, I didn't see how it could be the case from what I've seen in the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 So the main point for me is that yes, we can have success in the game. But most of the time we have no idea why. For me this is the most important discussion to be had regards FM09. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 19, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 19, 2009 They have the same number of options as are on the human sliders. Not sure what it says differently in the manual, its the first I heard of any discrepancy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Sorry, I wan't being totally clear:Two attacking options: Attacking or All-out Attack... One middle: Normal mentalities. Two defensive options: Defensive or Ultra-defensive... Now, This is how it is basically set-up and that makes 5. And if it's not, PaulC, then I suggest you re-write the manual explaining what other options there are... Surely it's not as simple as that and there are actually 20 styles of play, there are 20 nothces on the slider IIRC. Clicking it until it gets to All-out Attack is fair enough, but AFAIC there are 4 types of all-out attack because there are four clicks worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Sorry, I wan't being totally clear:Two attacking options: Attacking or All-out Attack... One middle: Normal mentalities. Two defensive options: Defensive or Ultra-defensive... Now, This is how it is basically set-up and that makes 5. And if it's not, PaulC, then I suggest you re-write the manual explaining what other options there are... Surely all you are saying is that when you move the slider around you will find those 5 descriptions depending on where you put it. One is tempted to ask " So what?". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Chopper99: I am sorry that I do not understand that you have suggested that it is a scissor, rock or paper when choosing tactics... Simply not true. You have been around long enough to know that the best mentality settings that counters AI frameworks is usually or around the AI's oppostite. I never have said that any Gamer has to be precise in these settings. You are actually worried that you have basically few options to choose from and on top of that when you do have success you don't know why? Then why are you doing this test?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Chopper99: I am sorry that I do not understand that you have suggested that it is a scissor, rock or paper when choosing tactics... Simply not true. You have been around long enough to know that the best mentality settings that counters AI frameworks is usually or around the AI's oppostite. I never have said that any Gamer has to be precise in these settings. You are actually worried that you have basically few options to choose from and on top of that when you do have success you don't know why? Then why are you doing this test?... Sorry, but I don't understand any of that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Surely all you are saying is that when you move the slider around you will find those 5 descriptions depending on where you put it. One is tempted to ask " So what?". You know what. I just realised that someone just wrote that there are 20 different options...well since we are so far out there why not 22 then (the team mentality slider has 22 notches). I don't think I will waste my time anymore... When the AI attacks, you defend. When the AI defends, you attack. When the AI plays normal you do to. This is a basic way to play the AI and you missed this somewhere along the way so your response is "so what?". You are a big man.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Sorry, but I don't understand any of that He is basically saying that it is a guessing game when it comes to mentality, and I say it's not... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 But you haven't actually said anything useful, Loversleaper. It's transparently obvious that you have to react to the AI. And I haven't 'missed' that elementary point at all. Nor, as far as I am aware, has Chopper 99 or anybody else. As I am actually a small female, your last sentence seems extraordinarily inappropriate!! But, in any case, you are grossly over simplifying. Surely you must have discovered that you can also beat a defensive team by playing defensively yourself and counter-attacking? There is more than one way to skin a cat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 But you haven't actually said anything useful, Loversleaper. It's transparently obvious that you have to react to the AI. And I haven't 'missed' that elementary point at all. Nor, as far as I am aware, has Chopper 99 or anybody else.As I am actually a small female, your last sentence seems extraordinarily inappropriate!! Just because I have questioned the whole ideology and methods used in the post, it is I that don't make sense? Just for once it would be nice if the poeple who do go ahead and make these type of tests actually decribe more in detail what settings they are using and eventually why they don't work. Otherwise you are just going to confuse the 'normal' FM gamer with 'nonesense' posts. Sorry that I am raining on some poeple's parade. We can't always have the same view... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Chopper99: I am sorry that I do not understand that you have suggested that it is a scissor, rock or paper when choosing tactics... Simply not true. You have been around long enough to know that the best mentality settings that counters AI frameworks is usually or around the AI's oppostite. I never have said that any Gamer has to be precise in these settings. You are actually worried that you have basically few options to choose from and on top of that when you do have success you don't know why? Then why are you doing this test?... To show you what I mean I'll use your own reply below: You know what. I just realised that someone just wrote that there are 20 different options...well since we are so far out there why not 22 then (the team mentality slider has 22 notches). I don't think I will waste my time anymore...When the AI attacks, you defend. When the AI defends, you attack. When the AI plays normal you do to. That is the same as playing Rock, Paper, Scissors: The AI plays Rock, you play Paper. The AI plays Scissors, you play Rock. The AI plays Paper, you play Scissors. If you're confident that this is how you combat the AI in FM09 then as I said, this is just as worrying. EDIT: And you also asked why I was doing this test in the first place if I have success but don't know why. Well, if you look at the first few posts you'll see that this test originally came about because people had been claiming that the game was far too random, and that when they re-played the same game over and over again they would get wildy differing and unrealistic results. I didn't believe this was true so set about doing this test. Since then the thread has grown and started discussing the confusion around the tactical side of the game. A totally seperate issue but one that I'm happy to have discussed in this thread as I feel it's a very important one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 No - you are over simplifying as I said. Attacking a defensive team doesn't always work. Defending against an attacking team doesn't always work. Playing normally against a team playing normally doesn't always work. Your posts suggest that these strategies should work all the time and that the whole thing is terribly straightforward. They don't and it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 It's one way of trying to combat the AI, but not the only way. It works well if you are a slightly weaker team, but suffers if you are much stronger or much weaker, and also harms clubs of roughly equal ability playing at home as it handicaps their home advantage. Sometimes you can simply impose your own game on the AI. Other times you have to react to what the AI is doing in order to scrap out a result. Still other times you have to cling on for dear life and become much more defensive than you would have expected. Reading what is going on in the match helps inform which decision you have to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 To show you what I mean I'll use your own reply below:That is the same as playing Rock, Paper, Scissors: The AI plays Rock, you play Paper. The AI plays Scissors, you play Rock. The AI plays Paper, you play Scissors. If you're confident that this is how you combat the AI in FM09 then as I said, this is just as worrying. EDIT: And you also asked why I was doing this test in the first place if I have success but don't know why. Well, if you look at the first few posts you'll see that this test originally came about because people had been claiming that the game was far too random, and that when they re-played the same game over and over again they would get wildy differing and unrealistic results. I didn't believe this was true so set about doing this test. Since then the thread has grown and started discussing the confusion around the tactical side of the game. A totally seperate issue but one that I'm happy to have discussed in this thread as I feel it's a very important one. Rock, paper, and scissors is a guessing game and FM is not. When you do decide to do these type of test why can't you decribe your settings and then make conclusions if they work or not? You say it is worrying that this game has it's values based on attacking or defending. How whould you describe a real football game then? Tell us how and what valuables should build up this game, then. Programs need valuables because if they don't have this, then it would require that the game has it's own mind and actually thinks for itself. This is not I, Robot... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 No - you are over simplifying as I said.Attacking a defensive team doesn't always work. Defending against an attacking team doesn't always work. Playing normally against a team playing normally doesn't always work. Your posts suggest that these strategies should work all the time and that the whole thing is terribly straightforward. They don't and it isn't. I am sorry but what you are saying is a bunch of 'horse-pucky'. Never have I suggested that you win all the time, man... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Rock, paper, and scissors is a guessing game and FM is not. I disagree, and that's the whole problem. Tactically FM is becoming more of a guessing game each year. No longer can many people decide how they want to play and then get their team to play that way using the current tactical system. Whether the tactic fails or is successful is not important, just the fact that you can get the players to play the way you want them to. When you do decide to do these type of test why can't you decribe your settings and then make conclusions if they work or not? I really don't know what you're getting at here. What exactly have I omitted from the explanation of my original test? The tactic being used was irrelavent as the effect of tactics was not being tested in any way, only the effect of the random element on the same game played over and over again. Please could you describe what it is you think I've missed out. You say it is worrying that this game has it's values based on attacking or defending. How whould you describe a real football game then? Tell us how and what valuables should build up this game, then. Programs need valuables because if they don't have this, then it would require that the game has it's own mind and actually thinks for itself. This is not I, Robot... I at no point said it's worrying that the game is based on attacking and defending. What worries me is, if what you claim is true, there are 3 options to counter the AI and that's how you win. The main variables that should be used are the players attributes, moral, tactics. Not whether you've hit the right tactics to exactly counter what the AI is doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 But you haven't actually said anything useful, Loversleaper. It's transparently obvious that you have to react to the AI. And I haven't 'missed' that elementary point at all. Nor, as far as I am aware, has Chopper 99 or anybody else.As I am actually a small female, your last sentence seems extraordinarily inappropriate!! But, in any case, you are grossly over simplifying. Surely you must have discovered that you can also beat a defensive team by playing defensively yourself and counter-attacking? There is more than one way to skin a cat. This is another part of the game i feel is highly unrealistic, although i can kind of understand the need for it. We have to react to what the AI is doing, even if we have a much superior team. So much so that even at the end of a game, if the AI is losing(often by more than 1 goal) and start to attack, if we continue to attack our better players will start getting mullered all over the pitch in situations they were winning for fun before the AI change. Now i completely accept that teams will try to get back into a game, but in real life this is done by playing more direct and leaving more players forward, leaving gaps in the defence, but in FM it is not shown this way, suddenly teams who have not strung together 2 or 3 passes all game start passing the ball about like World beaters and win all the 50/50 challenges they were previously losing, plus, when my players have a chance of an easy counter they will whack the ball out of play instead of trying to set up a counter. It just seems all out of whack to me? Rupal - Great to see women playing the game and loving their footy!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Look at what wwfan has said Loversleaper. You have suggested that the 'right' way to play the AI is as you've described Attack>Defend, Defend>Attack, Normal>Normal. Wwfan says that that isn't always so, which is exactly what I was saying. You've suggested that if Chopper99 or others find that what is happening isn't clear or are worried that what they try doesn't seem to be clearly reflected in what goes on in the match it's because they haven't discovered what you have - namely that it's all very simple if you follow your method. If there's any 'horse pucky' around it's that! And thanks, Hammer1000! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Look at what wwfan has said Loversleaper.You have suggested that the 'right' way to play the AI is as you've described Attack>Defend, Defend>Attack, Normal>Normal. Wwfan says that that isn't always so, which is exactly what I was saying. You've suggested that if Chopper99 or others find that what is happening isn't clear or are worried that what they try doesn't seem to be clearly reflected in what goes on in the match it's because they haven't discovered what you have - namely that it's all very simple if you follow your method. If there's any 'horse pucky' around it's that! And thanks, Hammer1000! Look people. I am being misunderstood. I am not standing in for this or that or necessarily on anyone's side here. I am questioning the way things are being conducted and the testing/assumptions. How do we know if Choppers setting are correct? THAT is the issue, because if we can't see if his settings are 'feasable' then he would just make a point that anyone with reason won't understand. I am asking you, for me and others that would like to know what you are getting at, to be more informative instead of 'nonesense' screen-shots. How on earth will any one draw a clear conclusion from this and the primative conclusions regarding if the game and it's valuables work? Maybe they don't but then decribe why...for gods sake... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't like the way this thread is going, comments such as "horse pucky" or "you are a big man" have no place in what has been a very interesting thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't like the way this thread is going, comments such as "horse pucky" or "you are a big man" have no place in what has been a very interesting thread. Nomis: How small is the world today? Plus I think you are taking me out of context here. I wan't tying too get all 'your pennies' in a bunch, and if I offended you then I am deeply sorry. Next time someone decides to put words in my mouth I should do nothing and say nothing. Got your point... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Look people. I am being misunderstood. I am not standing in for this or that or necessarily on anyone's side here. I am questioning the way things are being conducted and the testing/assumptions. How do we know if Choppers setting are correct? THAT is the issue, because if we can't see if his settings are 'feasable' then he would just make a point that anyone with reason won't understand. How do we know if anyone who conducts a test has the correct settings. It isn't asking for much to give him the benefit of the doubt and debate the points rather than the test itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Look people. I am being misunderstood. I am not standing in for this or that or necessarily on anyone's side here. I am questioning the way things are being conducted and the testing/assumptions. How do we know if Choppers setting are correct? THAT is the issue, because if we can't see if his settings are 'feasable' then he would just make a point that anyone with reason won't understand. Again, what 'settings' are you referring to? As I already stated, if it is tactical settings then for the purpose of my tests the tactics you use are totally irrelavent. And in terms of the other issues being discussed: For the screenshots shown of strange formations pkm's have been provided and Paul C has identified the problems that was occurring. So again the actual tactical settings themselves where not required. If you play with no defenders you should lose, regardless of your individual player instructions etc. For the issue around tactical ambiguity, the settings used by all of us don't matter in the slightest, it's the fact that many people find that trial end error is the only way to set up a tactic that is the issue, as well as the fact that once their tactic is working they have very little understanding of why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigwig Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Part of my gripe with tactics, is that it’s really hard to know when you have a good, solid tactic because of all of the other contributing factors which have an influence on you team’s performances. Things like form, morale, consistency, team talks, players gelling and player attributes all have an impact, making it hard to pin down exactly why you’re either struggling or succeeding. You may have a flawed tactic, with a number of conflicts and inconsistencies, but perform well simply because you have good players, with high morale, in good form and give the right team talks. The tendency here is usually to stick with your tactic. You’re winning games so the tactic must work, right? Well, wrong because it’s likely to fall apart once the factors which were papering over the cracks start working against you. Similarly you may have a good, solid tactic but under perform because of the factors mentioned going against you. In this case the tendency here is usually to change things. You’re losing games so your tactics must be flawed, right? Well again, not necessarily so. Your tactic may be perfectly fine and once you get past this spell or poor morale, form, etc. then it will pick up, but chances are you’re not going to wait that long because all you can see is defeats coming so figure you have to change your tactic. I’ve always felt that this is the sort of stuff the assistant should be helping out with. I don’t quite understand how the assistant can only pass comment on tactics in-game, since you’d be working on them beforehand. If I’ve got a massive gap between defence and midfield then he should be letting me know before match day rather than waiting for kick off and belatedly saying he thinks my tactic has problems. Obviously he can only comment in-game on tweaks made during the match, but he should also be able to comment on my ‘set’ tactics, saying what’s wrong (or right) with them before I get to match day, so would say something like ‘we’re winning games but I’m still not happy about our tactics because of x, y, z’ or ‘we’re struggling a bit at the moment but our tactics are solid so I wouldn’t be tempted to change them’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 How do we know if anyone who conducts a test has the correct settings. It isn't asking for much to give him the benefit of the doubt and debate the points rather than the test itself. Hey man, you post your settings in the same manner as a 'screen shot'. If you don't do this, then it is just another case like when Pres.Bush said that there were 'Weapons of mass destruction'... We need proof or are we just going to take his word for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Hey man, you post your settings in the same manner as a 'screen shot'. If you don't do this, then it is just another case like when Pres.Bush said that there were 'Weapons of mass destruction'... We need proof or are we just going to take his word for it? I don't understand what his settings have to do with randomness of the game though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Again, what 'settings' are you referring to? As I already stated, if it is tactical settings then for the purpose of my tests the tactics you use are totally irrelavent.And in terms of the other issues being discussed: For the screenshots shown of strange formations pkm's have been provided and Paul C has identified the problems that was occurring. So again the actual tactical settings themselves where not required. If you play with no defenders you should lose, regardless of your individual player instructions etc. For the issue around tactical ambiguity, the settings used by all of us don't matter in the slightest, it's the fact that many people find that trial end error is the only way to set up a tactic that is the issue, as well as the fact that once their tactic is working they have very little understanding of why. Well, for crying out loud, if you make up strange settings (THE SLIDERS) in the tactical section you can easily make tactics that just are random due to the AI reacting to different valuables. If you don't know this then I cannot see the we will ever see eye to eye and this whole converstation has actually been obselete... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Obviously he can only comment in-game on tweaks made during the match, but he should also be able to comment on my ‘set’ tactics, saying what’s wrong (or right) with them before I get to match day, so would say something like ‘we’re winning games but I’m still not happy about our tactics because of x, y, z’ or ‘we’re struggling a bit at the moment but our tactics are solid so I wouldn’t be tempted to change them’. This would be very helpful, i'm irritated that he is more than willing to tell me what's wrong with my tactics, but never tells me what i'm doing right. It makes tactical adjustments very hard because we don't know what to keep and what to get rid of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bieritarier Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Loversleaper, I get your point and granted, if we were in the tactical discussions forum and looking ofr a tactic that works or improvements then you are right. However, this thread initially was not about tactics so why would chopper99 have had to provide info on his tactics? No point in that. Then, you say the other examples are worthless because there's no mention of the tactical setup. Now, I think that there are ciscumstances where mentality, passing and closing down settings ar just irrelevant, and we've seen some examples. a 5-0-5 should not work. I admit it is the easiest way to get the ball through midfield quickly but if it was that easy I'm sure some teams would do that IRL. Now I'm eager to see RL examples if you know some. It's the same for the 1-2-2-5 formation. If you play such a formation for 90 minutes you should be able to get away with it against a team 5 or 6 leagues lower than you, but not in the Prem or in Europe - no matter how you setup your players. I am still not satsfied that you can get anything out of any game in the league with such a formation. I'm not particulary worried about the lack of defenders, but there are no defensive mids whatsoever and you should not be able to close these gaps with the mentality sliders. If you can, then I guess I'll field my best players from now on, in their best individual position and do the rest with mentality settings. I hope you get my point. There are certain formations that just should not work. Answer one question? If there was some guy asking for advice in the tactics forums playing a 1-2-2-5, what would be your first advice? Look at his team's settings or use a different formation? In the end, all you're saying is either something that you handle with care yourself ("how to counter the AI"-discussion) or proves the point that most people posting in this thread are making: You can't get your players to act like you want them in the ME unless you get a number of sliders correct. And I'm not talking about overall performance as this is of course reflected by the various settings. I'm talking about things like staying deep, closing down or maving the ball around quickly. You prove that point b saying that all us people who can't do it lack understanding of the tactical system or the ME. I don't think I'm stupid and I don't think I have no idea of this game whatsoever, and I'm sure most girls or guys posting here feel the same and are right. Still, we're setting the sliders, are doing well, but all that without seeing our team play like we want them to. This game is not just about winning, but losing is even more frustrating when you have no clue why your players will nowhere near do what you want them to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Well, for crying out loud, if you make up strange settings (THE SLIDERS) in the tactical section you can easily make tactics that just are random due to the AI reacting to different valuables. If you don't know this then I cannot see the we will ever see eye to eye and this whole converstation has actually been obselete... You've now completely lost me I'm afraid. At no point have I, or anyone else, mentioned using strange slider settings. And even if I did I could still do the same test, as long as the settings remained exactly the same for each game I would still expect there to be some pattern to the results. Anyway, I think bieritarier has summed it all up better than I can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 The settings don't have anything to do with the randomness (if there is, indeed, an excessive amount of it). If you put the sliders in particular places and the AI reacts to this, it doesn't matter where they are, the AI will react to them, one way or the other. There's nothing random about that at all. People who feel that the whole thing is too random are worried that moving the sliders about DOESN'T have the AI reacting to the settings enough, or your own players responding because there are other things going on (like luck, media relations, etc etc.). Bieritarier is quite right - it's the fact that your players just don't seem to behave as they've been set to do which is frustrating. If I set my team to defend deep and counter attack and I've got closing down, etc, in what seems to be a sensible position, it's infuriating that my central defender charges out to try to tackle the opposition midfielder and leaves a huge gap for a simple ball over the top for the opposing striker (finishing 7 and composure 3) to latch onto and slam into the net, which he seems to every time.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.