Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


250 "I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you?"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I presented a point of view. It's interesting that the reaction was strange, although what I was saying is that this game also involves a dose of unpredictability. Anyone could admit this without any problem. But they wanted to prove to me that in fact this game is totally predictable and that some real experts know absolutely everything. You have played FM, I assume, and you know that no one knows "absolutely everything" about this game. In fact, even an expert can make mistakes sometimes. Of course, an expert makes much less mistakes and he's able to quickly identify the mistake and also can correct that mistake much more effectively. Regarding the subject of the topic: it is thought in terms of "results". If someone can present a list with as many positive results as possible, he is already an expert. Seriously ? Of course, the results also matter, but they are not the only aspect. Does the fact that someone has been relegated mean that he is a beginner? How about taking other aspects into account ? For example, the increased difficulty of the respective save. No very good player would say that simple relegation or dismissal is, by definition, a way of measuring another player's ability. Additional details are always needed, because in certain cases (and in certain contexts) it can be more difficult to manage a certain team than to win a trophy. Or ... do you not agree with this ?
  2. Are sure you have any idea ? Just one question : when you play FM you can control absolutely everything, or are there always parts of the game you don't know much about, so you can only evaluate them very roughly? another question. you know, of course, what those hidden attributes are. let's assume that you use a certain method to visualize their numerical value. knowing those numerical values (as well as the level of visible attributes), can you predict the way a certain player will play in the next match? or can you just estimate, as a probable trend, the fact that that player will play well enough?
  3. how do you quantify the strength of your opponents, considering the countless variables involved ? you can evaluate it with some approximation, taking into account the possible influences of morale, fatigue, players' interest in the match as well as the way in which you can assume that the AI "sees" you. how do you get a more precise quantification than that ?
  4. You can win more matches if you use intensively, say, reloading and an editor. Of course, it is everyone's right to use whatever they like, because the purpose of the game is to generate fun for the player. But the question is... is the person who uses a lot reloading and editors "more expert" than the one who doesn't use them? According to the "results" theory, a player is the more expert the more he uses the two tools.
  5. Aha, so you can't make mistakes simply because the model doesn't "see/explain" your errors/mistakes. It would be interesting if you could explain to us how you can play FM with only one player. There is a limit in terms of what kind of hypotheses can be done. On the other hand, logically speaking, why do you replace a player if, from the point of view of the correctness of the decision to use him, you were right 99% ? Or were you wrong, and in this case the risk of not replacing the players who are used based on a wrong evaluation is greater than that of replacing them ?
  6. And if it's not visible, doesn't exist? Are you saying that you can't be wrong because you don't see that "error term" ? You can make mistakes all the more if you don't know what to avoid. No, I base my calculations precisely on the fact that you use a number of units ("players") defined by more than 40 parameters each, units that act in groups of 11, each unit being strongly influenced by a set of dozens of parameters (" instructions" and "team parameters"). These units act within an event (match) in which they meet another set of units managed by the AI. That AI management is simplistic ? That's correct. Does this mean that the so-called "experience" of the human player can generate exactly the best possible response ? How do you prove this ? Of course, the idea is that an expert "sees" what is not working according to his plan and corrects it, and thanks to his experience, these corrections are more effective than the initial state. It is also fair to say that AI, although it can self-correct some actions depending on the evolution of the event, is not at all effective when it does so. So, indeed, the human player has an advantage. But from here to affirming that an expert can always evaluate the direction and intensity of trends is an extremely long way.
  7. Really? To see, how simple it is ! Let me tell you something. Let's assume you are an expert. Let's assume that 99% of your decisions are correct, although, beware, in the game you don't have enough data/info for 99% ! Let's assume that a match has 16 variables (11 players with the appropriate instructions plus 5 other variables). What is the probability of controlling the 16 variables without any mistake ? 0.99^16*100 = 85.1%. That's just for one match. If you play 10 matches, you will see 0.851^10*100 = 19.7%. But what happens if your decisions are "correct" in proportion to only 95% ? 0.95^16*100 = 44.1% for one match and 0.03% for 10 matches. The difference between a good player and an "expert" is the difference between 95% and 99%. And a "99%" can still be wrong in 8 out of 10 matches.
  8. I'm sorry I wasted my time writing here. F*** y** all ! Career over
  9. Actually, it's more complicated. In the case of Portugal, the increase in a player's reputation from 135 to 155 means an implicit increase in salary claims by 20 times. The same increase in reputation in any other important European nation means an increase in salary claims by 4 to 6 times. So, yes, in the case of Portugal, it is probably more difficult to manage such a situation.
  10. FM is not based on fixed rules but on trends generated by combining various more or less variable parameters. And the number of parameters taken into account is very large. What this means ? That the introduction of the so-called "difficulty levels" can only be done by segmenting the level of variability. Low level = easy, current level = medium, high level = difficult. But too low / too high a level of variability would affect the realism of the game. Practically, the "easy" and "difficult" levels would have nothing to do with realism. And for the moment, SIGames is trying to perfect the game in such a way that it is as realistic as possible, to the extent that its engines (match engine, game engine, graphic engine) allows it. You know what's interesting ? Many FM players choose, by default, to use the "easy" level. That is, they artificially reduce the variability of the game in order to obtain positive results.
  11. Chess has clear rules. FM doesn't have. Imagine that your pawn tells you that he does not want to accept a move because you didn't increase his contract. Or that your queen categorically refuses any diagonal movement because you just sold a pawn usually used on the U18 board.
  12. You can do this when your reputation is higher than the reputation of your players. Not on other occasions. And from the fact that you didn't receive countless offers for your players, it follows that their reputation is still relatively low, despite the fact that they just won the CL. This means that before winning the CL they had an even lower reputation. By winning CL, their reputation has increased significantly, and that's exactly the reason why they demand much higher salaries. Normally, the game does not have such problems because usually the CL winner has players who already have a relatively high reputation
  • Create New...