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

[Loversleaper]

I'm at a point where i am struggling to even understand what you have posted and whether or not there is a question within you want answering?

Let me put it this way, if your playing in England, have a look at Man Utd and the take a look at the games they lose or drop points in(dont include games against the other 3 of big four)

What i find is that 99% of the time they have completely dominated and had lots of chances but have failed to score, whilst the opposition has managed the old 1 shot 1 goal to nick a point or a win.

This is because unlike Real Life, Man Utd cannot really be beaten fairly and squarely in FM(unless against Chelsea, Arsenal, etc) in fact you'd be hard pressed to see any of the weaker sides even manage to run them close(stat wise) yet in Real Life teams manage it quite often(West Ham recently)

Therefore, the game must be coded as i've theorised, otherwise Man Utd would just go on winning every game(which sometimes they do anyway) the same can then be said about those who like myself have adopted a certain kind of tactic that will dominate games and create multiple CCC's.

I really cannot make it any easier than that for people to understand?

Still this doesn't explain how Human Users got around the 'coded programming' part. How did you get around it?...

[Hammer1000]

There is a big problem with this assumption: I (and you too) can show screenshots of teams over performing. I can show you the last 4 seasons with my Watford save where I won the EPL in the end. How did I do this? I do not have a magic wand. You cannot cheat a coded program, such as this nulifying mechanism that you are talking about, how on earth would any FM Gamer get around this, please explain...

No disrespect, but i'm concerned with some of the intelligence, or lack of it, being shown by certain posters.

I have already answered your question about 100 times, are you deliberately mocking me or taking the michael?

I overachieve myself so what? the answer lies in what kind of tactic you use, you may be a better Manager than me and may actually use a tactic that stays within the boundaries so that what i'm talking about need never/seldom be seen in your game.

How many times and in how many ways do you want me to explain the same thing to you before it finally clicks?

[Hammer1000]

Given that the entire game is played out at the start and after every tactics change I'd imagine it would be a lot easier to implement leveling than you think (and perhaps harder than perhaps other people think). Still, my developer's instinct is that it would be easier to implement leveling than re-write the defending to render leveling unnecessary.

Thank you for that post, sums things up nicely i think!

[Loversleaper]

No disrespect, but i'm concerned with some of the intelligence, or lack of it, being shown by certain posters.

I have already answered your question about 100 times, are you deliberately mocking me or taking the michael?

I overachieve myself so what? the answer lies in what kind of tactic you use, you may be a better Manager than me and may actually use a tactic that stays within the boundaries so that what i'm talking about need never/seldom be seen in your game.

How many times and in how many ways do you want me to explain the same thing to you before it finally clicks?

Sorry you feel threatened, and you have to go into the 'intelligence' ploy. I am just trying to get to the bottem of your posting for the last three years. I am asking simple questions and when you feel you cannot answer me anymore you start attacking my intelligence. Fair enogh.

I asked you to explain how the FM Gamers get around the 'coded programming' part and if you understood it as me taking the 'mikey' out of you, then I don't know what to say...

[Hammer1000]

Sorry you feel threatened, and you have to go into the 'intelligence' ploy. I am just trying to get to the bottem of your posting for the last three years. I am asking simple questions and when you feel you cannot answer me anymore by attacking my intelligence. Fair enogh.

I asked you to explain how the FM Gamers get around the 'coded programming' part and if you understood it as me taking the 'mikey' out of you, then I don't know what to say...

Not threatened fella, BORED

You keep asking the same thing and i keep answering you, but it does'nt sink in, i'm not trying to offend you in any way, i just cannot keep replying and hope you finally catch on?

What do you mean about FM gamers getting around the "coded programming"?

[Rupal]

Loversleaper, as far as I understand it, Hammer1000 is saying that because of the way he plays the game he creates a lot of chances. Quite possibly more than me, more than you, more than wwfan and so on.

If there is a 'limiter' or call it whatever you want that kicks in when a team (whether it's an AI or a human managed team) creates what is calculated as 'too many' chances, then, while Hammer1000's team would be affected, yours, or mine, or wwfan's wouldn't because we don't create all those chances in the first place. So you could do just fine and not notice anything wrong at all. You wouldn't be 'beating' any 'coded programming' because, as far as you were concerned, there wouldn't be any.

[Loversleaper]

No disrespect, but i'm concerned with some of the intelligence, or lack of it, being shown by certain posters.

I have already answered your question about 100 times, are you deliberately mocking me or taking the michael?

I overachieve myself so what? the answer lies in what kind of tactic you use, you may be a better Manager than me and may actually use a tactic that stays within the boundaries so that what i'm talking about need never/seldom be seen in your game.

How many times and in how many ways do you want me to explain the same thing to you before it finally clicks?

The discussion: you say there must be a coded machanism in the game that causes Human Tactics to fail when they are precise settings. This means that you disagree that it is the AI teams that set more defensive tactical settings that a Human User can over-ride with the available sliders. In other words you do not think there are tactical settings that over-ride AI tactical settings and we are doomed to loose due to this 'coded programming'. I am pointing out that people who have screen-shots where they are over-performing must be lying because anyone should know that it is impossible to cheat computer-programming and win if you were 'coded' to loose. How did all of these people get around this 'coded programming' and over-achieve (yourself included?)...

By the way, reading between the lines on your above statement, actually means that it is tactical. This is turning out to be a great thread...

[Loversleaper]

Loversleaper, as far as I understand it, Hammer1000 is saying that because of the way he plays the game he creates a lot of chances. Quite possibly more than me, more than you, more than wwfan and so on.

If there is a 'limiter' or call it whatever you want that kicks in when a team (whether it's an AI or a human managed team) creates what is calculated as 'too many' chances, then, while Hammer1000's team would be affected, yours, or mine, or wwfan's wouldn't because we don't create all those chances in the first place. So you could do just fine and not notice anything wrong at all. You wouldn't be 'beating' any 'coded programming' because, as far as you were concerned, there wouldn't be any.

Look at wwfans screen shots (last page) and come back here and say that again...

[Hammer1000]

The discussion: you say there must be a coded machanism in the game that causes Human Tactics to fail when they are precise settings. This means that you disagree that it is the AI teams that set more defensive tactical settings that a Human User can over-ride with the available sliders. In other words you do not think there are tactical settings that over-ride AI tactical settings and we are doomed to loose due to this 'coded programming'. I am pointing out that people who have screen-shots where they are over-performing must be lying because anyone should know that it is impossible to cheat computer-programming and win if you were 'coded' to loose. How did all of these people get around this 'coded programming' and over-achieve (yourself included?)...

By the way, reading between the lines on your above statement, actually means that it is tactical. This is turning out to be a great thread...

Your final sentence sums up what i've been saying fella.

If you were following the thread as closely as you claim and actually READING my posts, you would know that since hitting on this theory, i have said it would indeed be a TACTICAL issue, just not of the kind suggested by wwfan.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssse Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

[RT--]

Loversleaper, as far as I understand it, Hammer1000 is saying that because of the way he plays the game he creates a lot of chances. Quite possibly more than me, more than you, more than wwfan and so on.

If there is a 'limiter' or call it whatever you want that kicks in when a team (whether it's an AI or a human managed team) creates what is calculated as 'too many' chances, then, while Hammer1000's team would be affected, yours, or mine, or wwfan's wouldn't because we don't create all those chances in the first place. So you could do just fine and not notice anything wrong at all. You wouldn't be 'beating' any 'coded programming' because, as far as you were concerned, there wouldn't be any.

We're talking here as if Hammer's tactics are creating super-human amounts of chances that the rest of us could never conceive of. In the Sunderland game he lost 1-0, he created 2 CCCs. Does the supposed balancing effect really kick in at such a low threshhold?

In the other screenshots, he created very similar numbers of CCCs to his opponents, and scored about 1 in 4. When we compare these with wwfan's screenshots, and my own experience, I can only imagine this balancing effect is *very* selective.

[Rupal]

Look at wwfans screen shots (last page) and come back here and say that again...

We're talking about results over a period here, not single matches, Loversleaper.

Hammer1000 isn't saying that he never wins matches by lots of goals. He's just saying that he doesn't get as many as he thinks he ought to too often.

I didn't say that I never won by lots of goals either. Obviously wwfan scores lots of goals sometimes. I expect that you do too.

It's a matter of how things work out over a reasonable time.

[Rupal]

We're talking here as if Hammer's tactics are creating super-human amounts of chances that the rest of us could never conceive of. In the Sunderland game he lost 1-0, he created 2 CCCs. Does the supposed balancing effect really kick in at such a low threshhold?

In the other screenshots, he created very similar numbers of CCCs to his opponents, and scored about 1 in 4. When we compare these with wwfan's screenshots, and my own experience, I can only imagine this balancing effect is *very* selective.

No, what Hammer1000 has been talking about is results over a period. Odd matches don't prove anything at all.

I agree with you insofar as I don't think that the Sunderland match was the greatest example he could have chosen. But he's posted plenty of better ones on other threads and, indeed, some better ones in this one too.

[Hammer1000]

We're talking about results over a period here, not single matches, Loversleaper.

Hammer1000 isn't saying that he never wins matches by lots of goals. He's just saying that he doesn't get as many as he thinks he ought to too often.

I didn't say that I never won by lots of goals either. Obviously wwfan scores lots of goals sometimes. I expect that you do too.

It's a matter of how things work out over a reasonable time.

For something so simple to understand, they seem to be making hard work of it?

Wonder if its anything to do with half term?(lol)

Thanks for trying to help.

[TeeWee]

Let me see if I understand you correctly because I am getting confused here (it's easily done....:confused:).

Are we talking about an individual match with the same teams involved and with identical inputs of the non tactical sort? And camp A and camp B each pursue their own tactics? So camp A produce (say) 6 'good' CCCs and 6 'bad CCCs' whereas camp B produce (say) 3 'good' CCCs and 14 'bad' CCCs?

The only trouble with this is that camp B will claim that, in fact, they actually produced 7 'good' CCCs not 3 and that this was just another example of the 'balancing effect' kicking in because they had produced 'too many' CCCs.

I'm sure that such testing would just end up in wrangling like so many of these threads seem to do .

It seems to me that it's just that core assumption that people would be squabbling about all the time.

Obviously, you need to compare results with similar total number of CCC. This is one of the issues at stake. Need for larger numbers than a single match are clear.

Example of what I mean:

Camp A creates a run where when their tactics create 10 CCCs, on average 7 will are of the "right" type. They will have a conversion rate of N.

Camp B creates a run where when their tactics create 10 CCCs, on average 1 will be of the right type. This will have a conversion rate of K.

Now, compare these results. Camp A will predict that N >> K. They create much more good CCCs than Camp B, thus they should score more often. Camp B will predict that N == K, for the amount of CCCs is the same and, on average, the quality of the "right" type of CCC does not differ significantly from the quality their own CCCs.

So you see, the more "good" CCCs are out of the bucket, the more likely the result will be N == K, thus the more likely the test is going to falsify camp A's position.

[Loversleaper]

Your final sentence sums up what i've been saying fella.

If you were following the thread as closely as you claim and actually READING my posts, you would know that since hitting on this theory, i have said it would indeed be a TACTICAL issue, just not of the kind suggested by wwfan.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssse Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

So, to summarise: you think there is 'coded programming' that makes tactics fail, and this is done by the whole CCC theory you presented. Yet people overachieve anyway cheating a 'coded program'. It is not tactical settings that cheat this 'coded programming' but something else. This is how I think the Community sees your argument.

Please summarise once and for all exactly what you think is going on, and please stop contradicting yourself as I am getting more and more confused. Please clear up this confusion, and feel free to take your time (take a deep breath) so you can add it all in one post so that people don't have to read hundreds of small posted theories and miss one understanding that contradicts the next post...

[RT--]

For something so simple to understand, they seem to be making hard work of it?

Wonder if its anything to do with half term?(lol)

Thanks for trying to help.

That's far from the first time you've questioned the intelligence of people who have slightly different opinions to yours, now. Adding a (lol) doesn't stop it being irritating.

Rupal: in every screenshot Hammer has posted on this thread, he's either had 1 or 2 more CCCs than the opposition, and either drawn or lost the game by 1 goal. His CCCs/goals ratio is not exactly extreme in any of them. Are we to believe that this so-called balancing effect kicks in somewhere between the number of CCCs his opponents have and the number of CCCs that he has?

I'm still entirely unconvinced, I have to say.

[Rupal]

Obviously, you need to compare results with similar total number of CCC. This is one of the issues at stake. Need for larger numbers than a single match are clear.

Example of what I mean:

Camp A creates a run where when their tactics create 10 CCCs, on average 7 will are of the "right" type. They will have a conversion rate of N.

Camp B creates a run where when their tactics create 10 CCCs, on average 1 will be of the right type. This will have a conversion rate of K.

Now, compare these results. Camp A will predict that N >> K. They create much more good CCCs than Camp B, thus they should score more often. Camp B will predict that N == K, for the amount of CCCs is the same and, on average, the quality of the "right" type of CCC does not differ significantly from the quality their own CCCs.

So you see, the more "good" CCCs are out of the bucket, the more likely the result will be N == K, thus the more likely the test is going to falsify camp A's position.

Yes that would work but unfortunately you are going to have to find matches where all the variables are exactly the same apart from tactics (because otherwise it may just be that Camp B is producing 'worse' CCCs because of team talks for example) and where an exactly equal number of CCCs is going to be produced by both sides. Given the 'randomisation' which takes place, that's not half going to be difficult.....

[Loversleaper]

That's far from the first time you've questioned the intelligence of people who have slightly different opinions to yours, now. Adding a (lol) doesn't stop it being irritating.

Rupal: in every screenshot Hammer has posted on this thread, he's either had 1 or 2 more CCCs than the opposition, and either drawn or lost the game by 1 goal. His CCCs/goals ratio is not exactly extreme in any of them. Are we to believe that this so-called balancing effect kicks in somewhere between the number of CCCs his opponents have and the number of CCCs that he has?

I'm still entirely unconvinced, I have to say.

Well, putting it simple, and I think wwfan was trying to get this accross: which is better... 2 half chances or 4 one/fifth chances. It's basically the whole CCC thing in a nutshell...

[Hammer1000]

So, to summarise: you think there is 'coded programming' that makes tactics fail, and this is done by the whole CCC theory you presented. Yet people overachieve anyway cheating a 'coded program'. It is not tactical settings that cheat this 'coded programming' but something else. This is how I think the Community sees your argument.

Please summarise once and for all exactly what you think is going on, and please stop contradicting yourself as I am getting more and more confused. Please clear up this confusion, and feel free to take your time (take a deep breath) so you can add it all in one post so that people don't have to read hundreds of small posted theories and miss one understanding that contradicts the next post...

Seems to me like it's only yourself and RT who dont seem to understand it, not the Community.

I've laid it down in very simple terms more than once, your only making yourself look more and more foolish every time you post!

[Rupal]

That's far from the first time you've questioned the intelligence of people who have slightly different opinions to yours, now. Adding a (lol) doesn't stop it being irritating.

Rupal: in every screenshot Hammer has posted on this thread, he's either had 1 or 2 more CCCs than the opposition, and either drawn or lost the game by 1 goal. His CCCs/goals ratio is not exactly extreme in any of them. Are we to believe that this so-called balancing effect kicks in somewhere between the number of CCCs his opponents have and the number of CCCs that he has?

I'm still entirely unconvinced, I have to say.

No as I said, he was talking about things over a period (as far as I understand it), so individual matches really aren't the issue. In any case, I doubt that, if there was a balancing effect in individual games like that it would be a case of a crude cut off after x CCCs but would be much more likely to be some sort of sliding scale, so that, as the CCCs racked up, the chance of converting any given one would gradually diminish.

He has used better examples in previous threads, though, and a quick search will find some I'm sure (though I honestly think you do really know this already ).

Now I have to cook my husband's dinner or I will get spanked I expect !!

[RT--]

Seems to me like it's only yourself and RT who dont seem to understand it, not the Community.

I've laid it down in very simple terms more than once, your only making yourself look more and more foolish every time you post!

For the record, I do understand the point you're trying to make (although it has to be said, you haven't exactly made it crystal clear, and appear to have changed your mind during the thread). You think there's some mechanism in place which lowers the conversion rate of chances for teams who create lots of opportunities/shots/CCCs or dominate a game, which has been brought in to stop teams who create lots of chances from scoring too many goals.

I just happen to think there are far simpler explanations to your problem (and that of boywonder, etc.). Earlier, you were asking for help (see thread title) and a few of us took a bit of time to explain how certain parts of your tactical setup might be contributing to the situation.

As you've admitted, you have no idea how this balancing mechanism would actually be implemented in the game and aren't quite sure as to why other players can create just as many chances as you but not run in to this problem of drawing/losing games quite so often.

[This field intentionally l]

So, to summarise: you think there is 'coded programming' that makes tactics fail, and this is done by the whole CCC theory you presented. Yet people overachieve anyway cheating a 'coded program'. It is not tactical settings that cheat this 'coded programming' but something else. This is how I think the Community sees your argument.

Please summarise once and for all exactly what you think is going on, and please stop contradicting yourself as I am getting more and more confused. Please clear up this confusion, and feel free to take your time (take a deep breath) so you can add it all in one post so that people don't have to read hundreds of small posted theories and miss one understanding that contradicts the next post...

The whole point of debate is to boil away falsehoods and arrive at the truth, or at lease a reasonable approximation. You characterize Hammers participation in this debate as contradictory. In fact all he is doing is modifying his position in response to the debate. You, on the other hand, are being (deliberately?) obtuse. Its not helpful and doesn't advance the debate.

[TeeWee]

Yes that would work but unfortunately you are going to have to find matches where all the variables are exactly the same apart from tactics (because otherwise it may just be that Camp B is producing 'worse' CCCs because of team talks for example) and where an exactly equal number of CCCs is going to be produced by both sides. Given the 'randomisation' which takes place, that's not half going to be difficult.....

Now we're getting into methodology grey area. But anyway, if the numbers are big enough, the exact variables should average out a bit. I'm not advocating to only compare matches where everything else is equal (though that may be best, it's impractical), but to simply sample a lot of matches and simply note the end results, noting down 7 attributes: scoreline, # good CCC team1, # bad CCC team 1, # good CCC team 2, # bad CCC team 2.

I'm not thinking 10 results here. I'm thinking a season's worth of results per camp, perhaps even more. A statistician might come up with a reasonable number. You can even play the same league twice, once with "campA" tactics, once with "campB" tactics, reacting to ingame situations in a similar way as normal to even out other non-tactical aspects.

One could also extend this test for AI vs AI matches, since both camps claim that the root cause of weird statistics applies to AI too.

[RT--]

The whole point of debate is to boil away falsehoods and arrive at the truth, or at lease a reasonable approximation.

The thing is, if you formulate some sort of theory about the game and want people to discuss or debate it, then the minimum you need to do is make sure it's falsifiable. By which I mean, you have to give at least enough detail or description in order than someone else can come along and, in theory, do a test/experiment to prove it wrong.

If your theory is so vague as to be impossible to falsify, there's not exactly much room for debate or enlightening discussion.

[This field intentionally l]

Here's something for people to think about: how come FM09 had more shots hitting the woodwork than previous releases? This was addressed in a patch. How was that achieved? Did SI reduce the width of the woodwork or did they adjust the some code to direct shots outside the woodwork rather than hitting the woodwork?

[RT--]

Here's something for people to think about: how come FM09 had more shots hitting the woodwork than previous releases? This was addressed in a patch. How was that achieved? Did SI reduce the width of the woodwork or did they adjust the some code to direct shots outside the woodwork rather than hitting the woodwork?

Whatever they did, I'd imagine it reduced the likelihood of hitting the woodwork across the board. I doubt it made certain teams less likely to hit the post than others.

[Hammer1000]

For the record, I do understand the point you're trying to make (although it has to be said, you haven't exactly made it crystal clear, and appear to have changed your mind during the thread). You think there's some mechanism in place which lowers the conversion rate of chances for teams who create lots of opportunities/shots/CCCs or dominate a game, which has been brought in to stop teams who create lots of chances from scoring too many goals.

I did'nt so much change my mind as have a Eureka moment that finally explained everything that was going on. Its still based on my early notion, but i never claimed to be 100% right, or even that i had all the answers, so yes parts of my earlier prognosis may have been misguided, but yet again, i have explained all of this previously.

I just happen to think there are far simpler explanations to your problem (and that of boywonder, etc.). Earlier, you were asking for help (see thread title) and a few of us took a bit of time to explain how certain parts of your tactical setup might be contributing to the situation.

Thats fine, you have a perfect right not to agree, personally i dont think there are any simpler explanations, but again, thats ok as we are all entitled to our opinion.

I did mention in my OP that i did not think the problem was tactical, which is why i posted here and not the T&T Forum and there may still be things i'm not doing/doing wrong that could improve my Management skills somewhat and i am still open to suggestions?

As you've admitted, you have no idea how this balancing mechanism would actually be implemented in the game and aren't quite sure as to why other players can create just as many chances as you but not run in to this problem of drawing/losing games quite so often.

How could i know? can you rewrite the coding for FM? why not, you know its there?

Your last sentence has been answered more than once, the tactic i use continuously maintains performance, outplaying and making more CCC's than my opponent 99% of the time, whilst other's(as shown in wwfan's screenshots) do not reproduce the same kind of maintained performances.

I hope thats enough for you?

[RT--]

How could i know? can you rewrite the coding for FM? why not, you know its there?

I'm not asking you to give us the actual programming code, just an explanation, in laymans terms, of how on earth this balancing mechanism is supposed to work in a game by game situation. If you have no idea how it could be implemented, then I reckon you're on rocky ground saying it's a simpler solution than any other.

As I said above, if you want to debate/discuss/prove it, you need to provide a bit more detail so we could at least hypothetically show it's wrong.

If it's just a personal hunch of yours, and you're content with it being that way, then I'll happily stop asking you questions and let the thread trail off

[TeeWee]

The thing is, if you formulate some sort of theory about the game and want people to discuss or debate it, then the minimum you need to do is make sure it's falsifiable. By which I mean, you have to give at least enough detail or description in order than someone else can come along and, in theory, do a test/experiment to prove it wrong.

If your theory is so vague as to be impossible to falsify, there's not exactly much room for debate or enlightening discussion.

The position actually is falsifiable; that's what I've been debating with Rupal. Create a tactic which creates lots of CCCs, but of a different, presumably "better" type than Hammer is. Do a long run, record your results grouping them by the number of CCCs. Over large numbers, if Hammer's hypothesis is correct, you should see a similar result to Hammer. If wwfan's hypothesis is right, you'd get much more favourable scorelines.

As long as you are confident that you'll be able to create a tactic with lots of CCCs of a different type than Hammer, the theory is falsifiable.

[Hammer1000]

I'm not asking you to give us the actual programming code, just an explanation, in laymans terms, of how on earth this balancing mechanism is supposed to work in a game by game situation. If you have no idea how it could be implemented, then I reckon you're on rocky ground saying it's a simpler solution than any other.

As I said above, if you want to debate/discuss/prove it, you need to provide a bit more detail so we could at least hypothetically show it's wrong.

If it's just a personal hunch of yours, and you're content with it being that way, then I'll happily stop asking you questions and let the thread trail off

Its implemented to stop those who use tactics that tend to dominate almost all of their games, why? because if not, those using such tactics would just win all of their games, especially tied in with confidence and morale boosts that improve performances thanks to winning games.

How? by implementing some kind of coding that may massively improve the performance of an opposing GK, or turns your World Class striker into a donkey, there could be a 1000 different ways?

How about having your DC's miss interceptions, or getting MC's to stand still with the ball until its taken off their foot?

Basically, any of those things people are complaining about that goes on when you watch the game.

Enough?

[thegame24]

The game is broken, end of story.

[Taver]

i have a suggestion, why not start a game a with a good team from the EPL, it's uploaded then anyone who wants to can have a go at playing the next match with thier own tactics. Then whoever had the best result uploads their save. Then everyone downloads and has a crack at the next match and so on..... In theory with lots of people trying to win each match, someone will have a winning tactic for it, and this would prove that every game could be won with the right tactics or not as the case maybe.

[Loversleaper]

The whole point of debate is to boil away falsehoods and arrive at the truth, or at lease a reasonable approximation. You characterize Hammers participation in this debate as contradictory. In fact all he is doing is modifying his position in response to the debate. You, on the other hand, are being (deliberately?) obtuse. Its not helpful and doesn't advance the debate.

Not obtuse, but hard-headed, unfortunatly I am built this way. The reason I am going in hard on Hammers post is that #1 he questioned my intelligence so lets playball...#2 I can show you several statements where he contradicts himself and changes the points in the argument. I can show you posts where he says "that there is something there that is not tactical" and then further up this page he said that it was tactical. Another statement was that he 'over-achieves' yet the ME has something 'coded' that prevents this. I have asked him to clarify this but look at the answers the Community has recieved, it tells the whole story...

Now, after a good three years of posting I would like to get to the bottem of his ideology. I am a Community member and, amongst many others, I have put much energy into helping the Community as much as I can. So, do you suggest that all of us that do participate in the forums not to all of a sudden participate, especially after listening and trying to understand Hammer's ideology for years on end?

Why can't we get to the bottem of this? Clearly when he is challenged with some obvious things (regarding his own statements) he closes up and tries to degrade someone. Look at all of the opening posts in the thread, it is like a couple of people have got together to make a thread solely to ridicule someone... making bets and who's gonna say this or that. I can't help but wonder what this is all about. As a Community memember I have decided to put my foot down, as this type of behavior should not be accepted. Come with the abuse then, I can take it, I'll show people who is a true man...

Now if the Community knows what it is Hammer1000 is truly getting at, and since I apparently am the only one that has misunderstood, will someone please tell me as it is quite simple (according to some), since Hammer1000 won't point this out. Let's start with you This Field Left Intentionally Blank, what is it specifically all about?...

[wwfan]

Actually, the way Hammer presents his theory, it isn't falsifiable. Firstly, we need to look at the pre-theory assumptions

1: The first assumption is that there is a 'most perfect slider combination setting'

2: The second assumption is that Hammer has consistently discovered the 'most perfect slider combination setting' over the last 3 editions of FM

3: The third assumption is that said 'most perfect slider combination setting' can be analysed and proved purely through the statistics generated by the ME

4: The fourth assumption is that Hammer creates missed easy chances at a rate above and beyond the average user

In order for the rest of the theory to fit, we have to take that as read. From this point on, we can construct the theory.

Theory One: The premise of the theory is that a lesser quality side will be penalised by a deliberately coded ME levelling mechanism once the manger has discovered a 'most perfect slider combination setting'. This code ensures that after a certain point, or at certain points, of the season, the side will unavoidably lose matches it should have won, by the deliberate nuking of their CCC conversion rate. If the manager chooses to cheat and replay the match until he wins, the coded mechanism will kick in at a later point of the season or in a different match. If the manager cheats throughout the season in order to win the league, this mechanism will kick in at the beginning of next season. The only way to circumnavigate it is to cheat on every game.

If a user doesn't experience the levelling mechanism, it is for one of the following reasons:

• His tactics are not perfect enough so it doesn't need to kick in
  
• His team is good enough to win the league anyway, which the AI recognises, so it doesn't need the levelling mechanism
  

If a user does manage to win a match he shouldn't have, it is also because:

• His tactics are not perfect enough so the levelling mechanism won't kick in and punish him
  

Thus, any result that doesn't fit in with the theory can be explained away by or ignored through the underlying assumptions. Both better and worse results can be explained away by the tactic in question being worse than Hammer's, or the user's squad being better. In that way the theory maintains itself.

The issue I have with it is its sheer unfalsifiability. Every result that doesn't fit in wih the theory can be explained away. That's what makes it seem so attractive to some (it provides all the answers), but causes so much logical confusion to others. However, this lack of falsifiability means it isn't a good theory.

Theory Two: By applying Occam's Razor, we can then see the favourable status of the competing theory, which is that Hammer's set of tactics are too one-dimensional and generate low percentage scoring chances, which widening and overloading the flanks would solve.

This is falsifiable. On one hand, we know Hammer's tactics fail in certain matches. We also know that other users overcome such things by widening and overloading. We also have examples of a Hammer-type tactic in comparison to a wide/overload tactic, in which the latter hugely outperforms it in open play goals (albeit for 08 not 09). In contrast, when Hammer is asked to try this tactical solution, he argues that he is already playing wide (despite being able to go 25% wider) and he won't push the FBs forward because it leads to defensive issues.

Areas of dispute: Both sides accept that one on ones are too easy to create, but differ on how easy they should be to score. Equally, both sides accept that some CCCs are easier than others, but one side argues that they are impossible to qualify whereas the other believes they are easily qualifiable. The methodology of how to qualify them is rejected by one side as missing out on the key evidence of player attributes. The side arguing for qualification acepts this, but argues that knowledge of the attributes only changes the scoring odds by a largely insignificant margin.

Conclusion: Unless a third theory appears, of which there is little sign, the choice is simply between the two I have outlined here. Choosing theory one leaves us in a position from which we can go no further, as it is unfalsifiable. Choosing and experimenting with theory two gets us somewhere.

A little forum housekeeping to finish with:

Ladies and gentlemen, do not start expressing yourself in emotional terms. Questioning people's intelligence, or throwing semi-insulting terms around, will only get you thrown off the forums. Just because you do not see contradictions in your own theory does not mean that they don't exist, nor that questions for further clarification are signs of a dull mind. Remain dispassionate and continue to debate in the general manner of the thread. Until this last page, the debate has generally been dignified. If the dignity and respect goes, then I will dish out punishments to whomsoever steps over the line. If anyone feels that I have been disrespectful, please PM me and I will ask a GQ mod to look into my behaviour.

[Rupal]

Now if we are talking about experimenting we have made enormous progress from the claims which some people have made on this thread that they knew what the answer was when they didn't or had proved things which they hadn't. We will start to base our conclusions on fact not opinion.

Let us not forget that a further 'theory' has been suggested - ie that there is a levelling mechanism attached to the number of CCCs created both by AI and human managers to avoid silly looking scores. Cleon's remarks about the overall CCC creation rate hint at this possibility. While wwfan will argue that this is also unfalsifiable, it may have justification as a transcendental argument - ie that it explains both what has been encountered by Hammer1000 and others and what has been encountered by boywonder and others. ('If it were not so, things would not be as they are'). It is very likely to be wrong.

Of course, there is a possibility of falsifying both this and Hammer1000's theory. Let PaulC or someone who knows come onto the forum and tell us whether such mechanisms as have been suggested exist or not. I'll happily accept what is said and I'm sure that Hammer1000 would do so as well. If we are remaining philosophical in outlook, PaulC as creator is basically 'God' as far as FM is concerned and God does not lie!

May I wholeheartedly support wwfan's strictures about emotionalism in these debates. Emotionalism engenders heat whereas we are in need of light!

[drambuie2]

Forgive me if the points I make have already been said - read a lot of the posts but too many to catch up with!

The issue of CCCs - what on earth is a clear cut chance? How are we as the 'player' supposed to know what they are? If IRL for example the ball drops to unmarked Lampard on the edge of the area and he has time and a good chance at a long shot that is probably a clear cut chance for him. Or is it according to the ME? If it falls at the feet of Senderos then probably not.

If a good cross came over and Alan Shearer went to head it unmarked then that is a CCC - if it's Thierry Henry then arguably not. Etc.

Does the ME just calculate that 'ball is in penalty area at feet of unmarked player therefore is a CCC'? Does it therefore calculate that in an ideal world if player x had 15 or more shooting/long shots/composure/finishing/heading then a particular situation would be a CCC? Does it look at the players attributes (I doubt it)? Does it just calculate that player x has 20 creativity and passing and therefore this key pass will be a CCC whether a player is there who can actually finish it?

Should we take any notice of CCCs at all in determining whether things are going well?

[wwfan]

I think the overall 'CCC levelling mechanism' has been widely disproved via the number of times people have reported winning in double figures. There are simply too any occurrences of unusually high scorelines for this to ring true. What does happen is frustration sets in and confidence drops for players missing too many chances/making too many mistakes, as indicated in the motivation feedback. Thus, if you have missed a few easy chances early on, your chances of converting later ones (if it falls to the same player) decrease (although this can be influenced via the half-time team talk).

PaulC has already stated on many occasions that there is no levelling mechanism and all the ME does is use the data fed to it by the two different teams and work out a result. He's made it crystal clear. However, I'll have a word with him and see if I can get him to make the statement again. In his absence, you'll have to take my word that it doesn't happen. Without going into details (which I'm not able to do due to confidentiality agreements), my involvement with the ME over the last few years is such that I can categorically state that there is no levelling mechanism on CCCs or against a human user.

Although you will not accept my 'knowing' this, I can equally categorically state that the only influencing factors on what Hammer is seeing are his own inputs, specifically his slider settings, his media interaction and his team talks.

[Rupal]

I think the overall 'CCC levelling mechanism' has been widely disproved via the number of times people have reported winning in double figures. There are simply too any occurrences of unusually high scorelines for this to ring true. What does happen is frustration sets in and confidence drops for players missing too many chances/making too many mistakes, as indicated in the motivation feedback. Thus, if you have missed a few easy chances early on, your chances of converting later ones (if it falls to the same player) decrease (although this can be influenced via the half-time team talk).

PaulC has already stated on many occasions that there is no levelling mechanism and all the ME does is use the data fed to it by the two different teams and work out a result. He's made it crystal clear. However, I'll have a word with him and see if I can get him to make the statement again. In his absence, you'll have to take my word that it doesn't happen. Without going into details (which I'm not able to do due to confidentiality agreements), my involvement with the ME over the last few years is such that I can categorically state that there is no levelling mechanism on CCCs or against a human user.

Although you will not accept my 'knowing' this, I can equally categorically state that the only influencing factors on what Hammer is seeing are his own inputs, specifically his slider settings, his media interaction and his team talks.

If you are, indeed, 'God's mouthpiece' in this situation and speaking for PaulC, then of course I believe what you say regarding the absence of a levelling mechanism, although it's curious that you say that there is something very similar working in the opposite direction (though this is caused by frustration) or even in the same direction (though this is caused by good team talks).

I certainly, however, don't accept that you 'know' that what Hammer is seeing is purely the result of his input. You firmly believe it, it may very well be true, but you haven't proved it.

Sceptical little bitch, aren't I?

Edit: I just wonder, on reflection, whether it might be worth considering the amount of difference which is made by the 'frustration factor'. If this isn't as balanced as it ought to be it would tend to produce results like Hammer1000 sees rather too often to make for the best playability. The complaint isn't so much that you can dominate and lose but that you can be so dominating and lose so often. Perhaps SI should consider a tweak here, which would avoid much human (as opposed to little dot on pitch) frustration.

[wwfan]

Forgive me if the points I make have already been said - read a lot of the posts but too many to catch up with!

The issue of CCCs - what on earth is a clear cut chance? How are we as the 'player' supposed to know what they are? If IRL for example the ball drops to unmarked Lampard on the edge of the area and he has time and a good chance at a long shot that is probably a clear cut chance for him. Or is it according to the ME? If it falls at the feet of Senderos then probably not.

If a good cross came over and Alan Shearer went to head it unmarked then that is a CCC - if it's Thierry Henry then arguably not. Etc.

Does the ME just calculate that 'ball is in penalty area at feet of unmarked player therefore is a CCC'? Does it therefore calculate that in an ideal world if player x had 15 or more shooting/long shots/composure/finishing/heading then a particular situation would be a CCC? Does it look at the players attributes (I doubt it)? Does it just calculate that player x has 20 creativity and passing and therefore this key pass will be a CCC whether a player is there who can actually finish it?

Should we take any notice of CCCs at all in determining whether things are going well?

A CCC relates purely to the quality of the chance, not the player having it. Although I don't know the exact percentage calculation, given what I do know about shot odds, I'd make an educated guess that any chance that has 25% or greater likelihood to be scored by a hypothetical player would pass the CCC threshold. Obviously, the mental condition and technical ability of the actual player will slightly raise or lower the percentage likelihood of scoring from the actual chance, but not by a significant margin.

[wwfan]

If you are, indeed, 'God's mouthpiece' in this situation and speaking for PaulC, then of course I believe what you say regarding the absence of a levelling mechanism, although it's curious that you say that there is something very similar working in the opposite direction (though this is caused by frustration) or even in the same direction (though this is caused by good team talks).

I certainly, however, don't accept that you 'know' that what Hammer is seeing is purely the result of his input. You firmly believe it, it may very well be true, but you haven't proved it.

Sceptical little bitch, aren't I?

I've proved it to my own satisfaction by running comparison tests with his own tactic and mine, in which mine outscored him by almost 3 goals to 1 in open play football. I've also watched more of his pkms than I've had hot dinners and consistently seen the same patterns. How I can prove it externally is beyond me. Any ideas?

[Rupal]

Ah, but you see you did say that it could be his media interaction or his team talks... To do a really conclusive test and prove that it was his tactics, you'd have to eliminate those as possible causes and I take it that you haven't?

Proof has to be rigorous (being schoolmarmish here).

I think there might be some merit in what I suggested in the edit to my previous post, though. It can't be good for SI to have people feeling frustrated with their game can it?

We need a very much better manual, a much improved ME, much better feedback and a much less cumbersome tactical system if people are to feel that there is good connectivity between what they input to matches and what they see happening both visually and in the stats. We shouldn't need 540 post threads like this one or 50 page manuals downloaded from the net to give us half an idea of what might actually be happening and why and what we should do about it. Until SI sort these things out they risk people looking round for more user friendly alternatives.

[Hammer1000]

Actually, the way Hammer presents his theory, it isn't falsifiable. Firstly, we need to look at the pre-theory assumptions

1: The first assumption is that there is a 'most perfect slider combination setting'

Is this an assumption? Surely its pretty common knowledge that some slider combinations are better than others? is it really to far a jump to consider that there are settings that can massively improve performances of even the poorest of teams? if not, how on Earth are people over achieving at all?

2: The second assumption is that Hammer has consistently discovered the 'most perfect slider combination setting' over the last 3 editions of FM

Have I? no chance, without the Community here i would have had to have given up on this game years ago, just like hundreds of people i know have.

3: The third assumption is that said 'most perfect slider combination setting' can be analysed and proved purely through the statistics generated by the ME

If you find that you are consistently outplaying even the strongest of opponents?, which is exactly what is happening, then yes of course.

4: The fourth assumption is that Hammer creates missed easy chances at a rate above and beyond the average user

More than some, maybe less than others, but certainly missing these easy chances at a rate way above the AI.

In order for the rest of the theory to fit, we have to take that as read. From this point on, we can construct the theory.

Theory One: The premise of the theory is that a lesser quality side will be penalised by a deliberately coded ME levelling mechanism once the manger has discovered a 'most perfect slider combination setting'. This code ensures that after a certain point, or at certain points, of the season, the side will unavoidably lose matches it should have won, by the deliberate nuking of their CCC conversion rate. If the manager chooses to cheat and replay the match until he wins, the coded mechanism will kick in at a later point of the season or in a different match. If the manager cheats throughout the season in order to win the league, this mechanism will kick in at the beginning of next season. The only way to circumnavigate it is to cheat on every game.

Not just a lesser quality side, if it did'nt happen to the likes of Man Utd or Chelsea when AI controlled they would only ever lose to other "Big Four" sides and what kind of game would that be?

If a user doesn't experience the levelling mechanism, it is for one of the following reasons:

• His tactics are not perfect enough so it doesn't need to kick in

  
  I hope i did'nt use the word "perfect"? maximum impact settings, or something similar would be more like it, easy enough to work out if you have them, if your constantly outplaying better sides and/or at least making a game of it away to the biggest sides, then you are probably close to having these settings.

• His team is good enough to win the league anyway, which the AI recognises, so it doesn't need the levelling mechanism

It is still used, if not, you would simply win every single game, which as the game goes on season after season becomes more possible, as AI teams improve their squads less and less.

If a user does manage to win a match he shouldn't have, it is also because:

• His tactics are not perfect enough so the levelling mechanism won't kick in and punish him
  

Nothing is as clear cut as you are trying to make it sound and i have never claimed it was. Other Managerial decisions can make a difference, as can luck and probably other factors also.

Thus, any result that doesn't fit in with the theory can be explained away by or ignored through the underlying assumptions. Both better and worse results can be explained away by the tactic in question being worse than Hammer's, or the user's squad being better. In that way the theory maintains itself.

Amongst other things as mentioned above.

The issue I have with it is its sheer unfalsifiability. Every result that doesn't fit in wih the theory can be explained away. That's what makes it seem so attractive to some (it provides all the answers), but causes so much logical confusion to others. However, this lack of falsifiability means it isn't a good theory.

Again, more than explained above.

Theory Two: By applying Occam's Razor, we can then see the favourable status of the competing theory, which is that Hammer's set of tactics are too one-dimensional and generate low percentage scoring chances, which widening and overloading the flanks would solve.

This is falsifiable. On one hand, we know Hammer's tactics fail in certain matches. We also know that other users overcome such things by widening and overloading. We also have examples of a Hammer-type tactic in comparison to a wide/overload tactic, in which the latter hugely outperforms it in open play goals (albeit for 08 not 09). In contrast, when Hammer is asked to try this tactical solution, he argues that he is already playing wide (despite being able to go 25% wider) and he won't push the FBs forward because it leads to defensive issues.

Again, your "assuming" that Hammers tactics fail in certain matches, which is simply not the case. I dont constantly draw or lose to teams who park the bus as you suggest, in fact my Home record in my current season is 9 wins in 9, which again proves YOUR theory wrong!

If you are trying to prove to people that i am wrong? you are not doing a very good job of it, in fact, all your supposed "evidence" is so weak, it actually makes my theory stronger, so thanks for that mate!(lol)

[Rupal]

I noticed also, wwfan that you mentioned that PaulC states that the ME uses the data fed by it to the two teams and works out a result. The question at issue is HOW it works this result out though, isn't it? What factors does it take into account? Ability of players, tactics, team talks, morale, etc. Does it take form into account? If so, how? If a team is on a good run does this make it more likely that it will win (because form is good) or less likely (because all good things must come to an end)? If it was the latter, this itself might give rise to poor old Hammer1000's problems. If there wasn't some sort of factor like this then wouldn't teams just keep on getting higher and higher confidence, morale, etc and keep on and on winning, which doesn't, in fact, happen?

It's the very complexity of the input which leads to the confusion which some of us feel.

[Hammer1000]

I think the overall 'CCC levelling mechanism' has been widely disproved via the number of times people have reported winning in double figures. There are simply too any occurrences of unusually high scorelines for this to ring true. What does happen is frustration sets in and confidence drops for players missing too many chances/making too many mistakes, as indicated in the motivation feedback. Thus, if you have missed a few easy chances early on, your chances of converting later ones (if it falls to the same player) decrease (although this can be influenced via the half-time team talk).

I win in double figures mate, it does'nt prove a thing. You are talking about an individual game where you win 12-0 for instance, whilst i'm talking about a run of results.

PaulC has already stated on many occasions that there is no levelling mechanism and all the ME does is use the data fed to it by the two different teams and work out a result. He's made it crystal clear. However, I'll have a word with him and see if I can get him to make the statement again. In his absence, you'll have to take my word that it doesn't happen. Without going into details (which I'm not able to do due to confidentiality agreements), my involvement with the ME over the last few years is such that I can categorically state that there is no levelling mechanism on CCCs or against a human user.

PaulC is a top bloke and i have every respect for him and would guess that he is as honest as the day is long, but is he really going to admit to something that could have an absolutely catastrophic effect on future sales of the game? this is his livelyhood after all and the man has a family to consider, i consider myself to be honest to, but if i was in his shoes, would i admit it? no way Jose.

Although you will not accept my 'knowing' this, I can equally categorically state that the only influencing factors on what Hammer is seeing are his own inputs, specifically his slider settings, his media interaction and his team talks.

So now it could be my media interaction and team talks? now this i could understand.

[Crpls]

PaulC is a top bloke and i have every respect for him and would guess that he is as honest as the day is long, but is he really going to admit to something that could have an absolutely catastrophic effect on future sales of the game? this is his livelyhood after all and the man has a family to consider, i consider myself to be honest to, but if i was in his shoes, would i admit it? no way Jose.

Wow.

Just wow.

Can't understand your label at FM-Britain at all...

[Rupal]

I personally would believe PaulC, Hammer. I'm cynical (surprise, surprise) but not that cynical.

BUT saying that there is no levelling mechanism isn't quite the same thing as saying that the game doesn't take form into account (if you get my drift).

I'm sure that it must, somehow, be factored into the calculations.

[Crpls]

BUT saying that there is no levelling mechanism isn't quite the same thing as saying that the game doesn't take form into account (if you get my drift).

Then it would work the same for everyone playing the game and the AI itself. So what's your point?

[Hammer1000]

Does it take form into account? If so, how? If a team is on a good run does this make it more likely that it will win (because form is good) or less likely (because all good things must come to an end)? If it was the latter, this itself might give rise to poor old Hammer1000's problems. If there wasn't some sort of factor like this then wouldn't teams just keep on getting higher and higher confidence, morale, etc and keep on and on winning, which doesn't, in fact, happen?

It's the very complexity of the input which leads to the confusion which some of us feel.

Now i am a believer that Form and Morale should be an issue and to an extent this part of the game actually works.

Thing is, it seems to have much more of an effect in a Human Managers results than the AI's.

This is why i tend to get a few matches in a row that it would appear i should be winning comfortably, but getting nothing out of the games, the way the game calculates form, morale and luck, with that of the balancing effect, is very badly done to say the least.

I may have just lost a game thanks to the balancing effect, but this will also have an impact on form and morale, which also has a knock on effect in my next game, which may or may not also contain the balancing effect? This is where my theory remains strong, but others will knock it because they will not also ultimately consider the lack of performance through the drop in morale and/or form.

[Crpls]

There is no balancing effect that works against human users. Until you get that through your thick skull, I don't know why anyone bother encouraging your BS by responding.

[Rupal]

Then it would work the same for everyone playing the game and the AI itself. So what's your point?

This is what I mean crpls. And as you say, it applies to all teams, AI and human. It's not some dastardly plot to do the human player down.

1) If you are in good form, you will be playing well (pretty obvious!).

2) If your run of good form has been going on for a long time it's going to be increasingly likely that it will come to an end (this is an assumption but a very reasonable one. If there isn't something in the game which factors this in then you would get a sort of virtuous spiral where you won, became more confident, squad morale would be higher, etc etc all the time, as well as the fact that your squad would be blending better every match and teams would end up with being unbeatable by any side except one which had even better form, which, in fact, doesn't happen either to AI teams or human teams).

3) So you would be very likely to get games in which you are playing well (point 1) but end up failing to win (point 2) which is exactly what Hammer1000 is finding.

If your tactics (and here I am saying that it may be tactical but not meaning that Hammer1000's tactics are worse but just different) tend to make you play attacking 'dominating' football then this effect will show up in the way which Hammer finds - you dominate but lose. The effect will still be there for teams which don't adopt his sort of tactics (ie the run will come to an end even though they have played well), but it won't show up in quite the same way so people won't see it as a problem.