Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 3) So you would be very likely to get games in which you are dominating (point 1) but end up failing to win (point 2) which is exactly what Hammer1000 is finding. Indeed. But on the other hand--there are all sorts of examples (including wwfan) who manage to overcome this likelihood and continue to dominate. How do they do this? By-and-large... tactics! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 O.K. lets calm this down. Lets remember that i am NOT claiming to be stating a fact here, this is a theory, one which i very much believe is the cause for the type of results that myself and others witness much too often when compared to reality. Personally, when combined with other factors such as form and morale, i have not yet come across evidence that refutes this theory in any way shape or form? This does not mean to say that you have to agree with me, everyone has the right to their own opinion, so from now on lets try to express our opinion in a calm and collected manner(myself included of course). If anyone wants to being up any evidence contrary to this theory, or talk about any issues regarding this theory, then do so and i will try to reply as best i can, remembering that i dont have ALL the answers. Lets keep it sensible and maybe even a little entertaining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 crprl, you'll notice that I edited my post because I hadn't been as clear as I should have been. Apologies - I think I may have covered your point now. I think that wwfan says that his tactics produce better CCCs but not so many, which would actually show up as less dominating in the stats. I don't think wwfan is saying that he is so brilliant that he never loses. And, according to Hammer1000, he himself, gets very good overall results. I don't know how they perform relative to each other over a season but it would be interesting to find out. I think it's possible that they may both be experiencing the same thing but that it manifests itself in different ways because of the tactics which they choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Indeed. But on the other hand--there are all sorts of examples (including wwfan) who manage to overcome this likelihood and continue to dominate. How do they do this? By-and-large... tactics! As you point out, this should be common knowledge. They simply won't except that the AI changes it's tactical settings to over-power their settings. They simply are not capable of understanding how to over-power tactical AI settings. There are other settings that over-power AI settings and there is plenty of evidence of it, some just won't see this for some reason. Every detail has been covered but the whole theme just starts from the beginning. Hammer has said it a 1000 times and people have answered (and prooven: screenshots of overachieving) a 1000 times. Instead of trying to understand the many people that have been gracious enough to reply their post, they go on with some kind of conspiracy theory. Since it happens to some and not to others suggest that our buddy ME just doesn't like some people. It must be a big joke... P.S. This thread is dead... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Loversleaper, if you will keep insisting on saying that things have been proved which have not we are going to get absolutely nowhere. I haven't seen anybody say anywhere that this is a conspiracy or that the ME doesn't like people. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths (which is something that you have tended to accuse others of doing) and attempt to debate constructively. This could actually start by bothering to read the posts which people make carefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 As you point out, this should be common knowledge. They simply won't except that the AI changes it's tactical settings to over-power their settings. They simply are not capable of understanding how to over-power tactical AI settings. There are other settings that over-power AI settings and there is plenty of evidence of it, some just won't see this for some reason. Every detail has been covered but the whole theme just starts from the beginning. Hammer has said it a 1000 times and people have answered (and prooven: screenshots of overachieving) a 1000 times. Instead of trying to understand the many people that have been gracious enough to reply their post, they go on with some kind of conspiracy theory. Since it happens to some and not to others suggest that our buddy ME just doesn't like some people. It must be a big joke...P.S. This thread is dead... I have no idea why you feel you must persist with these pointless posts? How is the thread dead exactly? it has quickly generated 6 pages of posts and continues to appear of interest to others. You cant possibly expect anyone to take your word for it that the thread is dead, just because you are not getting the response you feel you are deserved, or because your losing your temper a little? Lighten up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Loversleaper, if you will keep insisting on saying that things have been proved which have not we are going to get absolutely nowhere. I haven't seen anybody say anywhere that this is a conspiracy or that the ME doesn't like people. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths (which is something that you have tended to accuse others of doing) and attempt to debate constructively. This could actually start by bothering to read the posts which people make carefully. A screenshot of a team over-achieving is not proof that: not all experience this levelling mechanism that either stops you overperforming (by the way some think it stops you performing at all). If the levelling is a 'coded' program then it would happen to EVERYBODY. So since it doesn't then ME must treat people differently, when I treat people differently it is because I like some more than others. If this is not the case what is the theory. *...why do I even bother...* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I think it's possible that they may both be experiencing the same thing but that it manifests itself in different ways because of the tactics which they choose. ... ... ...which is exactly what wwfan has said in any # of posts in this threads. You've responded to them which suggests you've read them. He's said a thousand times (exaggeration FTW!) that the reason this happens is because of Hammers' tactics. To avoid frustration with these type of games, Hammers needs to learn to adjust his tactics. Again, exactly what wwfan has been saying. So what are you arguing about at this point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have no idea why you feel you must persist with these pointless posts? Do you have a mirror? Look in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 If you look at my posts numbers 550 (as edited) and 553, Loversleaper you will see that I have suggested that, indeed, what is happening is happening to everybody (and AI teams as well) but that it is showing itself in different ways because of the different types of tactics which they use. This answers your question. Read people's posts, please, before you post yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 ...... ...which is exactly what wwfan has said in any # of posts in this threads. You've responded to them which suggests you've read them. He's said a thousand times (exaggeration FTW!) that the reason this happens is because of Hammers' tactics. To avoid frustration with these type of games, Hammers needs to learn to adjust his tactics. Again, exactly what wwfan has been saying. So what are you arguing about at this point? No, if you read what I said, I am suggesting that both Hammer1000 and wwfan, in fact, experience the end of a run of good form but that, because of Hammer1000's tactics, it shows itself up in the way in which he describes. If Hammer1000 changed his tactics it wouldn't mean that he magically would never see a run of good form come to an end. It just wouldn't show up in the same way any more. His problem would appear to have vanished but in fact exactly the same thing would be happening as before. Of course wwfan won't see the same sort of thing, because he doesn't play the same way as Hammer1000. That doesn't mean that his tactics are actually any better. The only reasonable way to test that would be for them to play a season with the same club and the same players and the same non tactical input exactly and see who ended up with the better results at the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have no idea why you feel you must persist with these pointless posts?How is the thread dead exactly? it has quickly generated 6 pages of posts and continues to appear of interest to others. You cant possibly expect anyone to take your word for it that the thread is dead, just because you are not getting the response you feel you are deserved, or because your losing your temper a little? Lighten up It is not pointless to point out that you apparently won't except the case of AI teams over-powering your settings. Where did I loose my temper? Remember, Hammer, I have not made one personal attack on you as a person and have let by the fact that you have done so to me. You are going to have to accept the fact you are going up against someone that doesn't get intimidated, doesn't care if you are 6ft muscle. I could care less. You put me straight? You are mistaken, my friend. You by now should know what type of man I am... Nomally I could care less that someone comes onto the forum with frustrations but with you it is becomming different. Lot's of people have tried to explain and it has become common sense that no-one can get around 'coded' programs but they still do, prooving you wrong. You are here to actively seek confrontations and this is apparent when you disregard (perposely) peoples input and you are out to degrade someone due to your lack of self-estime. You have to climb on top of someone to make you feel better, and trust me I know the type, and you do this through fustrations due to lact of capability. Have your fun, but I request just one thing from you: be a man about it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 The reason I say Hammer's theory is not falsifiable is because he usually disagrees with anyone who tries to summarise it in a structured or operationalised way, as with wwfan's post above. If your theory is so vague and you keep moving the goalposts, it's hard for anyone to disprove it. Hammer is also suggesting that even if PaulC came on here and categorically denied there was any balancing mechanism coded in to the game, he still wouldn't be satisfied and would maintain his hunch. Again, it's difficult/pointless to construct a debate when someone's coming out with stuff like that. Perhaps it's unfair to jump on one particular part of his post, but the implication that there's a perfect tactic to 'find' if you keep moving around the sliders suggests a fundamentally flawed way of thinking about the game. Again, there's no perfect tactic or setup, just tactics which give you a better chance *given your players, the opposition's players, their tactics at any one time, the conditions, etc, etc*. If you just use exactly the same tactic for every game and don't change it at all, there's bound to be a ceiling to your success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Of course wwfan won't see the same sort of thing, because he doesn't play the same way as Hammer1000. That doesn't mean that his tactics are actually any better. Yes, it does. If wwfan's tactics are consistently beating teams who park-the-bus, while Hammers' are failing, then wwfan's are quite clearly better for the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 It is not pointless to point out that you apparently won't except the case of AI teams over-powering your settings. Where did I loose my temper? Remember, Hammer, I have not made one personal attack on you as a person and have let by the fact that you have done so to me. You are going to have to accept the fact you are going up against someone that doesn't get intimidated, doesn't care if you are 6ft muscle. I could care less. You put me straight? You are mistaken, my friend. You by now should know what type of man I am...Nomally I could care less that someone comes onto the forum with frustrations but with you it is becomming different. Lot's of people have tried to explain and it has become common sense that no-one can get around 'coded' programs but they still do, prooving you wrong. You are here to actively seek confrontations and this is apparent when you disregard (perposely) peoples input and you are out to degrade someone due to your lack of self-estime. You have to climb on top of someone to make you feel better, and trust me I know the type, and you do this through fustrations due to lact of capability. Have your fun, but I request just one thing from you: be a man about it... I think you mean you couldn't care less. If you say "I could care less," it means you care more than you're intending to imply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 It is not pointless to point out that you apparently won't except the case of AI teams over-powering your settings. Where did I loose my temper? Remember, Hammer, I have not made one personal attack on you as a person and have let by the fact that you have done so to me. You are going to have to accept the fact you are going up against someone that doesn't get intimidated, doesn't care if you are 6ft muscle. I could care less. You put me straight? You are mistaken, my friend. You by now should know what type of man I am...Nomally I could care less that someone comes onto the forum with frustrations but with you it is becomming different. Lot's of people have tried to explain and it has become common sense that no-one can get around 'coded' programs but they still do, prooving you wrong. You are here to actively seek confrontations and this is apparent when you disregard (perposely) peoples input and you are out to degrade someone due to your lack of self-estime. You have to climb on top of someone to make you feel better, and trust me I know the type, and you do this through fustrations due to lact of capability. Have your fun, but I request just one thing from you: be a man about it... Your frustration is obvious, as is your anger, go and cool off for ten minutes and come back and read your posts again. I on the other hand have tried to remain jovial and have made no personal attacks whatsoever, what you are posting is very hypocritical i must say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Is your object to get this thread closed Loversleaper? I only ask because you appear to be insisting on making this a personal issue between yourself and Hammer1000. You have, yourself, made several posts aimed at myself which border on the ill mannered (using terms such as 'woman' for example) so it ill becomes you to start complaining about the tone which others adopt to you. wwfan asked people to remain calm, constructive and couteous to each other. Please do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Your frustration is obvious, as is your anger, go and cool off for ten minutes and come back and read your posts again.I on the other hand have tried to remain jovial and have made no personal attacks whatsoever, what you are posting is very hypocritical i must say. IIRC, you were the one to question his (or someone else's?) intelligence. Get some self-awareness, you're severely lacking in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I think you mean you couldn't care less. If you say "I could care less," it means you care more than you're intending to imply. Sorry, English is not my first language and I too notice some funny mistakes in my writing at times, thanks for correcting me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Sorry, English is not my first language and I too notice some funny mistakes in my writing at times, thanks for correcting me... I would have never guessed English wasn't your first language--not just because you seem to have very little overall issues with it in your posts, but also because I'm quite convinced that the vast majority of native English speakers say "I could care less" anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 With regards to my last post, I'd missed Hammer's reply to wwfan in which he said he hadn't meant that there was a 'perfect' slider combination, so apologies for that - I take that part back! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Is your object to get this thread closed Loversleaper?I only ask because you appear to be insisting on making this a personal issue between yourself and Hammer1000. You have, yourself, made several posts aimed at myself which border on the ill mannered (using terms such as 'woman' for example) so it ill becomes you to start complaining about the tone which others adopt to you. wwfan asked people to remain calm, constructive and couteous to each other. Please do that. I said 'man' sometime in the past and you yourself corrected me. So instead of 'man' I call you 'woman' and you find this offensive I truely am sorry. And no, I do not want this post to be closed, it is teaching people a valuable lesson... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 Is your object to get this thread closed Loversleaper? I was about to suggest the same thing Rupal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I would have never guessed English wasn't your first language--not just because you seem to have very little overall issues with it in your posts, but also because I'm quite convinced that the vast majority of native English speakers say "I could care less" anyway. Not if you are British or Australian. I believe it is an American idiosyncrasy. Once more to everyone, keep it civil, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Yes, it does. If wwfan's tactics are consistently beating teams who park-the-bus, while Hammers' are failing, then wwfan's are quite clearly better for the situation. First of all, Hammer1000 has said that he doesn't in fact have such a problem. Secondly, if he plays 'dominating' football, he is more likely to meet up with 'park the bus' tactics than wwfan, I would have thought. Thirdly, (to repeat an example which I have used before), if my second point is correct then look at this situation. Let us suppose that the natural odds in a 'park the bus' situation are one third you win (though by a disappointingly low score), one third you draw and one third you lose (this is just for simplicity's sake). wwfan, because of his less dominating tactics comes across 3 of these games in a season. Hammer1000, because of his more dominating tactics comes across 15 of these games in a season. They both tinker with in game tactics and are both completely useless, having no effect whatsoever on the above natural odds. wwfan will have found only ONE game which he lost where he could have won. He will naturally say that he has no problem in this area because of his great tactics and that he had one unlucky result (I don't think he claims that he never loses these sorts of games). Hammer1000 will find FIVE games which he lost where he could have won and will come on making threads like these moaning away about it. It will look as though Hammer1000's tactics were much worse than wwfan's when in fact they weren't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Your frustration is obvious, as is your anger, go and cool off for ten minutes and come back and read your posts again.I on the other hand have tried to remain jovial and have made no personal attacks whatsoever, what you are posting is very hypocritical i must say. You want to believe this but re-reading my posts I cannot see one place where I lost my temper or shown anger, I have been composed but strong in my critisism it the ideology behind your postings for the last 3 years. I understand that you beeing backed into a corner and want to lash out but, my friend, you have contributed to this with your self-contradicting statements and circular argument ploy. If you actually saw my face during this entire thread you would see right away that I actually find it more ammusing than anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 First of all, Hammer1000 has said that he doesn't in fact have such a problem.Secondly, if he plays 'dominating' football, he is more likely to meet up with 'park the bus' tactics than wwfan, I would have thought. Thirdly, (to repeat an example which I have used before), if my second point is correct then look at this situation. Let us suppose that the natural odds in a 'park the bus' situation are one third you win (though by a disappointingly low score), one third you draw and one third you lose (this is just for simplicity's sake). wwfan, because of his less dominating tactics comes across 3 of these games in a season. Hammer1000, because of his more dominating tactics comes across 15 of these games in a season. They both tinker with in game tactics and are both completely useless, having no effect whatsoever on the above natural odds. wwfan will have found only ONE game which he lost where he could have won. He will naturally say that he has no problem in this area because of his great tactics and that he had one unlucky result (I don't think he claims that he never loses these sorts of games). Hammer1000 will find FIVE games which he lost where he could have won and will come on making threads like these moaning away about it. It will look as though Hammer1000's tactics were much worse than wwfan's when in fact they weren't. Maybe i should just leave it to you to reply, you do it so much more eloquently than myself. Thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 It will look as though Hammer1000's tactics were much worse than wwfan's when in fact they weren't. If Hammer is consistently losing games he feels he should be winning with his own tactics, meanwhile wwfan's tactics can solve these problems, how are wwfan's not better? I'm working under the assumption that winning is better than losing. Maybe I'm wrong! *shrugs* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I've never suggested Hammer's tactics were worse than mine. I've played games with them. They do a good job, although have always been reliant on 'cheat' corner routines, which I, in my anal retentiveness, refuse to use. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them as a great base tactic for anyone. Where the problem lies is his total tactical inflexibility when it comes to matches he can't win via his normal methodology. One thing I'd like to see is how well Hammer's tactics do with a default corner routine. I always play a couple of seasons on default to ensure my outfield play is working as I wish. I then start to use what I perceive as a realistic routine, being one that won't guarantee me too many corner goals per season, but is still better than the default routine. Personally, I believe his tactics will begin to seriously fail without the 'cheat' corners. They get him out of trouble too often for him to make proper evaluations of how good his outfield play actually is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I said 'man' sometime in the past and you yourself corrected me. So instead of 'man' I call you 'woman' and you find this offensive I truely am sorry. And no, I do not want this post to be closed, it is teaching people a valuable lesson... Apology accepted! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 If Hammer is consistently losing games he feels he should be winning with his own tactics, meanwhile wwfan's tactics can solve these problems, how are wwfan's not better?I'm working under the assumption that winning is better than losing. Maybe I'm wrong! *shrugs* Please read the post carefully. If you notice, I assumed there that they were both completely useless in turning these sorts of games round (which, I hasten to add is NOT what I believe). But it would look as though wwfan was much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 You want to believe this but re-reading my posts I cannot see one place where I lost my temper or shown anger, I have been composed but strong in my critisism it the ideology behind your postings for the last 3 years. I understand that you beeing backed into a corner and want to lash out but, my friend, you have contributed to this with your self-contradicting statements and cicular argument ploy. If you actually saw my face during this entire thread you would see right away that I actually find it more ammusing than anything else. Good, then everythings fine, i'm happy for you. Now if you wish to continue the discussion, i'll try to answer any questions that i can? may i just ask that you not choose questions that have already been answered? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Please read the post carefully. If you notice, I assumed there that they were both completely useless in turning these sorts of games round (which, I hasten to add is NOT what I believe). But it would look as though wwfan was much better. But we're not talking about a hypothetical situation--we're talking about the real situation that Hammers feels he is in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 I've never suggested Hammer's tactics were worse than mine. I've played games with them. They do a good job, although have always been reliant on 'cheat' corner routines, which I, in my anal retentiveness, refuse to use. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them as a great base tactic for anyone. Where the problem lies is his total tactical inflexibility when it comes to matches he can't win via his normal methodology. One thing I'd like to see is how well Hammer's tactics do with a default corner routine. I always play a couple of seasons on default to ensure my outfield play is working as I wish. I then start to use what I perceive as a realistic routine, being one that won't guarantee me too many corner goals per season, but is still better than the default routine. Personally, I believe his tactics will begin to seriously fail without the 'cheat' corners. They get him out of trouble too often for him to make proper evaluations of how good his outfield play actually is. I scored 8 goals in the EPL from corners last season, which ok was still joint top, but as i use my smallest DC(jumping 14) in the "challenge GK" instruction, i feel i'm not taking to much advantage? I was wondering if you intended to answer my post concerning certain types of games that you assumed i was struggling in? Its just that the crux of your argument seems dependant on this being true, when actually it is'nt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Historically, you have struggled in two types of match. 1: When playing away against top sides (which will be true for most, if not all, of us) 2: When you are faced with a team focused on defence betterthanburley did an analysis of this at FMB, if you remember. Is there another type of match you are now struggling with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeWee Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Thread is descending into a dark pit fast... Hammer, I know you're getting a bit tired, but can you look at the following to see if I understand your position correctly? Sometimes a bit of summarizing is good to see where we stand right now. "Overachieving" is a term that's used for a team that's using "very high impact" tactics. This manifests itself in high possession (consistently >60% possession), many SoG/SoT/CCC (how many is many?). Overachieving is not related to pre-season expectations and so on, but is merely a term to describe a certain type of tactics. Leveller: a mechanism that lowers SoG/SoT/CCC conversion rates. The more a team is overachieving, the stronger the leveller is. Match performance has a luck element to it and is not completely deterministic. If I read you correctly, your position boils down to: - If a side consistently overachieves (that is, consistently succesfully employs very high impact tactics), a leveller will kick in. This leveller prevents weird scorelines and gives the opposition a chance to win when otherwise, the chance would be too slim. Questions: - Does a side need to overachieve consistently? Or does the leveller also kick in if I "accidentally" overachieve in one game? If so, does it kick in in that game that I'm overachieving in or does it wait till the next game? - What criteria do you have for overachieving if not already stated above? - wwfan has repeatedly said the bulk of your chances / CCCs are from through balls. Is this a correct observation? I think we all agree that large numbers are needed to draw conclusions from data. What I'm trying to do is try to define the parameters on which any test or experiment can be conducted. Any experiment would be based on trying to disprove a theory, since that's the way scientific theory works. So any experiment would be based on your assumptions and seeing if your assumptions predict a result that's different from the experiment. If so, your theory is at best incomplete and at worst wrong. We can also conduct a similar experiment from the perspective of the "it's your tactics!"-camp, which is aimed at their assumptions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knap Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 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. IMO the key point is data fed to it - the game and match result although random can be controlled by the data fed to it eg forwards will have a bad day, then they will miss every chance no matter how many, if you add in a frustation code then the likely result 0-1. If the frustration code then acts as a feedback on your forwards and carries over into next match then the cycle continues until your forwards get lucky. Certain tactics may therefore be more confrontational to the game coding. Tactics are used to create CCCs, the user is given the CCC information yet is still unable to score with usually world class forwards. How does this make sense as the object of adding CCCs was to avoid the user looking at the even higher shot count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 But we're not talking about a hypothetical situation--we're talking about the real situation that Hammers feels he is in. But that doesn't alter the general point. Hammer is finding a lot of these matches where things don't go right, whereas wwfan isn't. It might be that this is because it's wwfan's better tactics. But it is just as plausible to suggest that it's simply that Hammer1000 finds more games where teams 'park the bus' against him because of his style of play so he loses more and grumbles about it and that wwfan's tactics aren't really any better at all in dealing with these games. Altering his tactics to wwfan's might well result in him losing fewer of these games. But not because wwfan's are any better, simply that using them meant that he didn't meet as many. Both sets of tactics could be equally useless in dealing with the situation when it did arise. It just ain't that simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 As a bit of an aside, I was having a look at some Opta stats for the EPL, this morning. I had a suspicion that the top teams might actually have a slightly lower "conversion rate" for shots on goal/shots on target, because there might be a levelling off when you create more and more chances. The stats (from the 25 games most teams have played so far) don't really show that, though. By and large, the top teams tend to have comparable or better conversion rates than the others. It'd be interesting to see a similar table from an EPL season in FM. Gls SoG SoT G/SoG G/SoT Chel 44 368 160 12% 28% ManU 44 340 162 13% 27% Live 42 341 132 12% 32% ManC 42 293 135 14% 31% Asto 40 244 105 16% 38% Arse 38 305 133 12% 29% Ever 34 242 101 14% 34% Newc 33 204 83 16% 40% Hull 31 233 108 13% 29% West 31 262 114 12% 27% Blac 27 230 98 12% 28% Bolt 27 255 100 11% 27% Port 27 266 114 10% 24% Sund 27 244 101 11% 27% Tott 26 274 119 9% 22% Wiga 26 282 103 9% 25% West 24 270 105 9% 23% Fulh 22 222 92 10% 24% Stok 21 169 65 12% 32% Midd 18 225 89 8% 20% SoG = shots on goal SoT = shots on target G/SoG = conversion rate of goals per shot on goal G/SoT = conversion rate of goals per shot on target Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 Historically, you have struggled in two types of match.1: When playing away against top sides (which will be true for most, if not all, of us) 2: When you are faced with a team focused on defence betterthanburley did an analysis of this at FMB, if you remember. Is there another type of match you are now struggling with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 But that doesn't alter the general point. Hammer is finding a lot of these matches where things don't go right, whereas wwfan isn't. ...because wwfan's tactics prevent these type of situations from occurring. What is so hard to understand about that? It might be that this is because it's wwfan's better tactics. But it is just as plausible to suggest that it's simply that Hammer1000 finds more games where teams 'park the bus' against him because of his style of play so he loses more and grumbles about it and that wwfan's tactics aren't really any better at all in dealing with these games. Unless I'm wrong, the game has AI play park-the-bus based on reputation, form, etc. not necessarily your tactics. And wwfan has shown that his tactics are better at dealing with those games. Altering his tactics to wwfan's might well result in him losing fewer of these games. But not because wwfan's are any better, simply that using them meant that he didn't meet as many. Both sets of tactics could be equally useless in dealing with the situation when it did arise. Holy crap. What is so hard about the concept that winning is BETTER than losing. Again, wwfan has shown that his tactics are not equally as useless in dealing with these situations. Why do you insist on ignoring this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 You're second in the EPL as West Ham, yet you keep attempting to convince us the game has it out for human users??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9inarowhoops Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Why dont use upload your tactics for people to try Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 So, which teams did you lose the six games to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loversleaper Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 But that doesn't alter the general point. Hammer is finding a lot of these matches where things don't go right, whereas wwfan isn't.It might be that this is because it's wwfan's better tactics. But it is just as plausible to suggest that it's simply that Hammer1000 finds more games where teams 'park the bus' against him because of his style of play so he loses more and grumbles about it and that wwfan's tactics aren't really any better at all in dealing with these games. Altering his tactics to wwfan's might well result in him losing fewer of these games. But not because wwfan's are any better, simply that using them meant that he didn't meet as many. Both sets of tactics could be equally useless in dealing with the situation when it did arise. It just ain't that simple. You are seriously suggesting that Hammers' tactics cause the AI teams to park the bus incomparison to other tactics (such as wwfans)? Your results determines when the AI goes more defensively or offensively (form) and this applies to every FM Gamer on the planet. The AI's Arsene Wenger settings are the ultimate tactical settings and it is designed to break down high-timewasting/defensive/narrow formations (but you need the right players), and this failing of the tactic that Hammer1000 experiences does not occur with this tactic as frequently as his does (no where near). In other words you are suggesting that the worse your tactic is the more likely you are to succeed? I simply can't see how they implement what you are saying into a computer game. I simply can't understand that you actually believe what it is you are suggesting here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer1000 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 You're second in the EPL as West Ham, yet you keep attempting to convince us the game has it out for human users??? Its never been about losing, its always been about the way you lose that has spoiled this game's last few release's. I have also since admitted that were my theory to be true? which i think it is, then NO the game does not have it in for Human players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeWee Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 You're second in the EPL as West Ham, yet you keep attempting to convince us the game has it out for human users??? Hammer's issue is also valid for AI managers. Anyway, his claim is that he has a disproportionate amount of games where the scoreline does not properly reflect the statistics. Not just one, not just ten, but over a long range. Too many to be just counted as 'unlucky'. It has little to do with league tables. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 ...because wwfan's tactics prevent these type of situations from occurring. What is so hard to understand about that?Unless I'm wrong, the game has AI play park-the-bus based on reputation, form, etc. not necessarily your tactics. And wwfan has shown that his tactics are better at dealing with those games. Holy crap. What is so hard about the concept that winning is BETTER than losing. Again, wwfan has shown that his tactics are not equally as useless in dealing with these situations. Why do you insist on ignoring this? Sorry, but wwfan actually hasn't showed that his tactics are better. He has said that they are, he believes that they are, he may, indeed, very well be right but that is not the same thing. Why, oh why do people find it so hard to understand that just saying something doesn't necessarily make it so? To prove that the tactics are better would involve detailed experiments which have not taken place. You are assuming what is to be proved here. If wwfan had shown that his tactics were better we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Everyone, including Hammer1000, would have breathed a huge sigh of relief and gone off to do something more constructive, like playing FM using wwfan's tactics! I'm sorry if you can't understand my very obvious example of how it could appear that wwfan's tactics were better when they weren't because I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer than I have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar2010 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 But that doesn't alter the general point. Hammer is finding a lot of these matches where things don't go right, whereas wwfan isn't.It might be that this is because it's wwfan's better tactics. But it is just as plausible to suggest that it's simply that Hammer1000 finds more games where teams 'park the bus' against him because of his style of play so he loses more and grumbles about it and that wwfan's tactics aren't really any better at all in dealing with these games. Altering his tactics to wwfan's might well result in him losing fewer of these games. But not because wwfan's are any better, simply that using them meant that he didn't meet as many. Both sets of tactics could be equally useless in dealing with the situation when it did arise. It just ain't that simple. Ok, I'll wade into the discussion. After getting lost a page or so ago I think I've caught up. You theory might well be right that Hammer comes up against this type of tactic more often but once in that type of game wwfan is clearly more proactive and able to adapt his orders to improve his overall chance of scoring. From what I've seen of Hammer's tactics they are fairly one dimensional and if they don't work he has no option B or C to fall back on. In terms of game bias I've not seen any hint of that in any of the series. What I see is the AI adapting tactics on the fly to limit your opportunities which is what an opposition manager would do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
knap Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Unless wwfan provides a download link, then we cannot make the assumption that they prevent these type of situations occurring or are better at dealing with those games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.