Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

DeanMon

Members+
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About DeanMon

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Have you read the posts carefully? 1) Look at Hoffenheim screenshots on page 1. The poster has 1 season of data where he created much more chances than the average, but converted reasonably less. 2) You can't say in general terms that his chances are in low quality. A chance is a chance. For a match he plays attack, there must be other matches AI plays ultra attack (said, AI Bayern vs AI Dusseldorf). And because he played Hoffenheim, there must be matches where he played defensively (against AI Dortmund for example). Hoffenheim is quite an average team, the stats should be converging close to the average in the long run, not that far away. Yeah, SI, maybe you forget to cover the your tracks in the stats page.
  2. I said I still sometimes won matches luckily, and also won matches when dominating. I had all similar match examples like above, you don't need to provide. My statement is that: given the same domination in match, AI (versus human) scores more than human (versus AI). So, to nullify it, we just need the data to show that over a large enough sample (said 1 season to keep variable changes at minimum), AI and human convert chances at similar rate when dominating the other.
  3. Please let me replace PERFECT/BEST by MOST OPTIMAL. AI makes the MOST OPTIMAL choices with the MOST OPTIMAL effect. With the same pep talks, sometimes it works and sometimes it does not work for human, but AI changes the pep talks choice to the one which works. Yes, I saw AI's players are nervous complacent, that's why I wrote MOST OPTIMAL now. AI only needs its players nervous and complacent LESS often than human, then it is an edge for AI.
  4. Let me put it like this, SI does not intentionally cheat, but your imperfect ME (the black box whose operations are only revealed in anecdotes to the public) creates the favor to the AI. AI makes all the PERFECT choices with the BEST effect: match preparation, TIs, pep talks, shouts,... While to human, for example, with the same pep talks, sometimes it works to full team, sometimes it does not work to anyone. There might be many more which I can't think of right now... But all the little details accumulate to an advantage for AI. What do you say?
  5. Or human can't see AI's match preparation, but who knows if AI can. If I instruct my team to prepare defend ground and defend disengaged, then in match AI's Salah crosses to Mane to score by a header, which leads to a discrepant result even if all things are equal.
  6. @HUNT3R Yeah, such data speaks more than thousands words. May you post data of all teams? There is one more thing is that you games must not be reloaded for any, because if they were, then the data is cherry-picked which will be skewed in your favoured. Hofenheim's data must be verify for that fact as well.
  7. How about this? Your ME is not perfect in interpretating real football. It contains flaws. It penalizes human unfairly in terms of "incorrect" pep talk, training, tactical instructions, shouts... which lead to discrepant match results?
  8. @HUNT3R Let me restate my points: 1) The definition of chance is the same for both human and AI. 2) The chance conversion rate of human is lower than the AVERAGE chance conversion rate of ALL AI. 3) The quality of human's strikers is no less than the quality of ALL AI's average striker. 4) You cannot say the quality of human's chance is THAT MUCH lower over the large sample, because the quite-average Hoffenheim also plays defend/attack against certain teams just as average AI. So what is the reason here? Of course, 1 season might still be not large enough, but I cannot rest my case until I see human's conversion rate is close to ALL AI's AVERAGE conversion rate over a large sample.
  9. Hello, there might be a misunderstanding here. Let me clarify: 1) Many complain that why human does not often win despite dominating the match. Many "excuse" that human can't score because human's tactics are "too overwhelming" AI's tactics, which may be true. 2) Now my argument is that: when AI's tactics is "too overwhelming" human's tactics (AI Liverpool), it seems to score just fine. The poster said AI's tactics are not as overwhelming as human's tactics, that is why AI can score. I said it is wrong, please check the current AI Liverpool to see how overwhelming it is. Your example Chelsea is the best team of Europe, but its tactics may not be the most overwhelming.
  10. You understand I mean AI Klopp Liverpool in the context, right? Your 2025 Liverpool could be managed by ultra-defensive Simeone.
  11. You are making a lot of assumptions here, my friend. You don't see my tactics, you think I play Attacking/Very Attacking very game? "AI's tactics don't come close to what human uses?" Take any team in PL, play against AI Liverpool, post the screenshot of final match stats to see how overwhelmingly AI Liverpool plays, then we talk again. I am not afraid of a smart AI, and as I said I am not afraid of losing to AI, but I have no tolerance of "magic" AI..... Look at the screenshots above of @ExeChris, explain it to me.
  12. @HUNT3R First, a chance is different from a shot, as a shot from the circle is not a chance. Whatever definition SI uses for chance, it has be the the same for both AI and human. A chance is a chance, regardless who is in control, which league it happens,... Some comments are like "human plays too overwhelming against AI so chances are rushed and missed...". So if AI Liverpool plays against AI Aston Villa, they don't play overwhelmingly? The factor I can think of is the quality of strikers. Do you think Hoffenheim strikers are that low comparing to the average? Thank you @ExeChris for providing the data, my point is clear here, human's conversion rate (of chances) is extremely lower than AI's average conversion rate, despite it is a closed pool of teams. If chance is not a well-defined statistics, please get rid of it. Otherwise, it misleads our interpretation about the gameplay.
  13. Can my assistant stop telling me to close down a corner/freekick taker because he can cross a ball? How can I close down a set piece?
  14. Hi, let me express it mathematically like this: ME(inputs) = ME(training, line-up, tactics, morale, interview, shouts, OI,...) = Outputs = (what happens in match) = (body language, match stats, results, ratings,...) My question is that, how could I get many outputs right (body languages, match stats,...) but the results are wrong? How could ME explain this? I cite casinos, because of the similarity of solution in dealing with frustrated customers. If the developers could design a test to prove the game fairness once and for all, there will be never a complaint about the ME again. I swear! SI just needs to write "our ME was tested for fairness by..." right on the package, the sales will go up 50% immediately! @HUNT3R If the design of such a test is too difficult, I think developers should enlighten us by revealing more information about how ME works. ME is like a black box here. If we players do not know about its mechanism, its state, its operation, whether it is accurate/fair, then what can stop us to doubt it is rigged against us? SI developers could spend a few minutes to look at the reviews on Steam. Too much frustration and anger are there. If you guys are happy with your sales, then fine, just ignore me. If you guys love to retain your die-hard fans, it's something you guys can do for us. @yolixeya Then just ignore me. (I reached the post limit) It also comes down to what kind of business SI aims to develop with customers, right? Maybe ME is not rigged, but how about its skewness, or bias, or imperfection? @Mrlee.1986 Maybe it is not rigged, but it could contain many flaws when interpreting the reality. If I am Pep, I can't blame reality, because reality is always fair and accurate. But ME "may" not be fair/accurate, because it represents its developers. For one more time, I do NOT say dominance = victory. What I am trying to say is that given the same dominance, AI and human MUST have similar results in the LONG run. I am questioning given the same dominance, human achieves less success than AI, and I seek proof to eliminate that thought. @Spanner If you are trying to tell me that human's SoT could be worse than AI's SoT, then maybe we need to split stats into high quality SoT and low quality SoT, right?
  15. @HUNT3R I think me and many other frustrated players do not mind losing games. But at least, we need to be assured that we are losing fair and squared. If we dominate and can't win a game, it's fine. However, there must be another game we are dominated but unbeaten. Given the same bus in the box, Greenwood CANNOT only hit 3/8 shots on target in there and still goalless, while Fernandinho scored a long shot, right? Soyuncu played like a superman, but Lindelof made a mistake leading to goal? Again, the sample size is too small, and I might have confirmation bias. But if it is a complain from many players, then you guys should have a look. Do you know how online casinos operate? They need to have their random number generator tested and certified. Are there any gamblers complaining about losing on online casinos, even it's transparent that casinos have a house edge? I don't think so. I think we can learn a thing or two about that practice here.
×
×
  • Create New...