Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Svenc

  • Rank
    Semi Pro


  • Biography
    "At the end of the day, all we can do as humans is create a tactic which dominates possession, creates clear cut chances and gets shots on target." -- perceived football wisdoms of an eternally to be frustrated Football Manager.

About Me

  • About Me

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Dishonored II

Recent Profile Visitors

7,401 profile views
  1. Svenc

    Greatest FM myths

    Winning titles means I am a superior FM player Users uploading "super tactics" on FMBase all have gained a superior understanding of the tactical module of the game Whereas the members/mods of the SI Tactical Community are part of the bigger "Exclusively AI ever scores from few shots in the odd match" cover up conspiracy Downloading a defenderless super tactics from SirGoalAlots et all at FMBase that sees no defenders outside of the centre backs whatsoever, whilst expecting to not ship soft goals over a season is perfectly sane Additionally, exclusively AI scoring from few shots is by definition an issue to investigate and question promptly. Me getting my side to consistently repeat back to back promotions on any save -- and/or my average forwards to convert at seasonal fantasy rates can't be a possible issue to investigate ever. I'm just a great manager, ya know!
  2. Svenc

    Greatest FM myths

    The game calculates a result beforehand and then drums up arbitrarily, sometimes most ridiculous highlights to show how the goals were scored When the game recognizes a human manager is superior, it injuries all his key players, then makes him go on a losing streak and drop points in the most ridiculous manner, including the teams at the rock bottom of a table You always lose against the bottom of the table Teams at the bottom of a league table aren't any competitive and **** poor by defintion. If you ever run away in a league, it is only to be expected that the coming season should be the same. Teams losing a few matches in a row means they are poor. Teams winning a few matches in a row means they are great. The league table never lies. AI can play like Barcelona at will. If a forward is ever flagged as frustrated/nervous, he will go into CR7 mode and won't be able to hit a cow's arse. An opposition player with long shots 1 won't be able to ever even kick a ball. Buying superior forwards is an instant fix for systematic, repeat finishing problems If SI say they tweak injuries to be -20% off real football, it means my team will have -20% injuries at any one point of a season With a squad full of well above average takers, a penalty is a goal at least ~90+% of the time FM's final match reports are a superior way of analyzing what's actually happened in a match.
  3. I'd argue the bigger "Issue" here is that 6-0 match that may require investigating. Is that but a freak occurance? If you would repeat that 1-7 at the WC 100 times, that scoreline comes about perhaps a single time, no less as all the goals were shipped a) during a phase of play during which individual players commited defending errors you rarely see on that level. Marcelo being caught out of position, badly exposing his side on Müller's flank and not getting it in the first twenty minutes alone an obscene amount of time. And b) during which the losing team completely collapsed mentally, up to the point that they completely lost it immediately after a kick-off, which lead to yet another goal immediately (something that FM has never simulated much). As of the game, does anybody at all understand random chance, in particular how it may be coded into a computer game? Think of any shot as a chance of it being a goal, perhaps. I've lost a match to three direct free kicks converted, even though the chance of converting but one of them should be reasonably low depending on their position taken (and unlike public's perception, specialist don't make the world's difference). From eperience there is a likelyhood it would be just such a freak occurance, no less as AI has always lacked in adapting to what is actually going on in a specific match. Rather, if they concede, they may expose themselves even more, as they are typically going to aggressively push for an equalizer. I've likewise mostly had the best shot to goals ratios in the game against (overly) aggressive AI -- the flipside of defensive AI naturally tends to be that they barely push forward, so have most of their shots from set pieces, if any (or counter attacks and similar). Plus, possible ME issues, naturally. It is true though that FM finally needs to teach its audience to think in spaces, rather than the simple stats it offers. a) How do teams increase the chance of scoring against particular opposition? b) How do teams decrease the chance of conceding? c) How do they balance such according to different scenarios. Different teams in football go about this in different ways. The ME either way, is about spaces -- whether they be the exact same spaces as in football, it's all about the space. The AI in their simple ways have done this I don't actually know how long already. Speaking about "chance" -- would be interesting to see how players would react would they face a Zidane Madrid 2017/2018 season... plenty of opportunity, and not much to show for it for almost half a year, at which point CR7 "miraculously" started scoring again it all was too little too late. Individual seasons shoudl be considered short-term anyway from my point of view. Over 30-40 matches, much more goes than over hundreds.
  4. Svenc

    Greatest FM myths

    And a couple other classics: Some matches you cannot win even after 30 reloads. Selling the forward barely averaging 2 attempts in the box from open play per match for not scoring in ten matches is world class football management. If a vocal majority thinks of something as an issue, it is by definition, an issue. Vice versa for the minority. @forameuss 'tis true, but also unfortunate in a sense. There is a difference between winning and roughly understanding why you win on any game. However, FM tends to take this to another level, which is in parts caused by what it tries to recreate/simulate... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/science/soccer-a-beautiful-game-of-chance.html
  5. Svenc

    Greatest FM myths

    Losing a few matches means your tactics isn't working. Winning a few matches means your tactics is working. If you have more shots than the opposition, your tactics is working. If you have fewer shots than the opposition, your tactics isn't working. If your tactic isn't working, the game arbitrarily shows this to you by having your world clarse forwards miss the simplest of chances, and your world class defenders committing the most stupid mistakes. If our tactic is working, the game arbitrarily shows this to you by having your average forwards score everything, and your average defenders clearing it over and over. Any match play you get to see is just an approximization/representation of what the game's engine calculates in general. The goal of any tactic is to have more shots than the opposition. If your team had fewer shots and won a match, it was lucky. If your team had more shots and lost a match, it was unlucky. Football teams don't actually NEED any protection to their backline. One on ones are the most simple chances you can have. Praising teams at half time is a trap! Always slamming teams after a loss at full time is good management. If you keep your squad's morale high, you will be invincible. If you have keep your squad morale low, prepare for the worst. The gamem should be called Tactics Manager. The game should be called Team Talk Manager. The game should be called Morale Manager.
  6. Svenc

    Greatest FM myths

    The CCC stat is meant to be an objective measure of chance quality. CCCs represent a ~80%+ chance of scoring. All CCCs are equal opportunity. FM's attribute system rates football players from barely pub level (1) to invincible (20) scale. A forward with composure decisions 20 means he will barely ever miss. A forward with finishing composure decisions 1 means he will barely ever score. Strikers are artificially nerfed to pub team levels so that scorelines will remain realistic. Keepers are beefed to invincible levels so that scorelines will remain realistic. The game punishes teams if they have too any shots so that scorelines remain realistic. If you want to score more goals, you should aim to have not too many shots. The AI is this deadly that they score every time they go forward. Human players generally need far more shots to score. Garry Gazhammer has finally cracked the game.
  7. Svenc

    Greatest FM myths

    Upping possession and/or shot counts is football managing.
  8. For actually "Realistic" ratings, SI would need to rate how difficult a save actually was... Interestingly, that's not how it tends to work in real football, as keepers tend to be probably the most misjuged of all players. For one, because keepers are a rare breed as there is very few places for them in anyone team. Pundits tend to be field players. Journalists writing about the game tend to be (lower league) field players -- that is, if they at all play. Fans..... tend to overrate stuff that tends to look spectacular, even though the keeper is in the massive edge to save -- e.g. the punt from yards out spectacularly fished out of the top corner. Whilst the more difficult stuff tends to be misjudged. I've read a few keeper biographies throughout the years, and there tends to be a chapter (or at least a few lines) dedicated to it all in a lot of them. Keeper ratings indeed have been a long-term issue. In parts they're behind the perception of players coming up against "super keepers" for some of the reasons outlined by enigmatic -- if the keeper makes saves, and his side doesn't lose, he gets a rating bump. On FM, comparably simple saves can oft pile up a plenty... couple that with side not losing, presto. [There's something to be said about that many players on FM expect say Neuer to save everything, whereas say the more average keeper on his level shouldn'T be able to save ****, which either way has never come to pass in-game (and certainly not in competitive football) but that's another story ] Considering that, it were probably useful to think of different benchmarks rather than ratings... long-term anyway. The amount of saves can't be it though, as on FM likewise, it will be the keepers who face the most shots who also make the most saves. Typically it will be the keepers of teams mostly playing defensive football /getting pegged back in their half throughout the season.
  9. Which is kinda curious considering that AI have the pre-sets available for styles. Either they aren't yet linked proper (can research now set a prefered preset?) -- or some of the roles that absolutely needed to be hardcoded for any pre-set aren't actually hardcoded, and the AI badly fiddles with them all over. In basic terms, it makes little sense if you could chose a tiki-taka preset without at least having a pivot kinda player holding the centre of the park/staying deeperish; whilst simultaneously the pre-set would allow the front-line to spearhead and disconnect from midfield at the same time. Consider FM were a cooking simulator containing a Pizza preset. Yet that preset would allow anybody to substitute the main ingredient of a pizza, the pizza dough, with say, a Bratwurst. You may get something working... but it sure won't be a Pizza. [Props to @MBarbaric who IIRC previously has used cooking analogies when describing FM's Tactics Module before ]. It may also be that the inherently dynamicism causes conflict. F'r instance, AI traditionally go either more attacking/cautious depending on the scoreline in a match. Realistically, SI would need to code that Barcelona may try differently to push for a goal / hold on a lead than say Stoke. In other words, those pre-sets each needed to have a subset of pre-set to assess for dynamic match management. As a side-note, why custom AI tactics? I thought the Ai was cheating. On another note, it's not been like that for but three years. It's a bit over a decade, and despite SI having likely received suggestions from their tactical gurus over and over. Which makes me suspect in parts it's something else also factoring in. SI know and have expressed this that as soon as the AI could do something a section of its player base couldn't, it's being perceived as "unfair" -- e.g. AI cheating all over again. [AI dropping deep and frustrating attacking opposition is something exclusively AI tends to do in most saves from the off] That gap needs to be closed in between the tactical niche and FM's general audience anyway, and be it by an assistant manager who would benefit of improved AI also and would give optionally quality hints.
  10. You are both right and wrong. Generally (this is not adressing FM 19 specifically), this is a tight rope to walk for a couple reasons (do not continue if you are on about General FM19 Feedback) and sorry for the caps:
  11. Yeah Pep has it too. Last seasons conceded a ridiculous 6 shots average per match, and in aall the matches he conceded his opponents were more deadly than Madrid, Barcelona et all combined, lol.. Even United put 3 past him off 4 shots, who therwise barely averaged 2 per game, let alone struggling to put two past Burnley. Must have complained about the bad footballs in all those matches for sure. Wait, didn't you open that thread showing how you got your "cheap" guy scoring as often as Kane? I suggested you wait for the second season, as some "patterns" you notice may in tendency be produced as to how AI are programmed, likely. It's unfortunate, in a sense, as if it were "intelligent", things wouldn't happen that way, as they would adapt to circumstance in match (like your forward having it easier / too easy to find space score). As long as they perceive you as an underdog, they throw players in numbers forward, making it easier for your forward. Eventually, you overperform in the point tables. More and more sides are gonna approach you with cautious. Added point drops follow, in particular if you never change your approach some (generall scoring as such may be always some harder). Eventually, more and more opposition take you less serious, and it repeats. Some players have gotten into this cycle ever since.
  12. A lot of perceived patches of "form" as such also simly come about by the fact that most forwards average but two attempts per match (CR7 7, Messi 5), whereas the average long-term conversion is pretty constant at 1 in 4 to 6. Additionally, very few chances actually see a forward in the advantage, as the edge is almost always on the defense/keeper, no less as... wait, noticing my first post, that would be a kind a repeat here. As of this Ronaldo dude, last season he went onto probably the worst spell of a top player in the league in more recent memory (certainly the worst of any crowned World Footballer), and you simply can't explain it with stats anyway... but here goes: 100 shots, 4 goals in between September and January, one of which a penalty, the other a rebound of such. Which cost Madrid dearly, as most finishes fell to this guy. Probably a reason why you well never see anything quite like it in-game, as beneath the hood, the game is likely maths. Let's assume it were to take the more common studies on finishes into account. Thus, the very best chances outside of tap-ins and the like would be like 50/50 affairs, and the average much, much less. How long can you throw a coin but getting heads if you roll it long enough? How long can you throw a dice not hitting the 6? How low long can you roll a ten sided dice not hitting the 10 (which would be your average shot conversion in footie).
  13. I wish it was. Threads/posts full of final match stats and arguments how the player could lose given x more shots are amongst by far the more common you tend to get. And even these boards did polls in the past of how often players would expect a forward on his level to convert a one on one chance (generally) -- the majority expected near penalty rates, which is so wildly off it's silly, no matter what study or stat or anything you follow. Even plain common sense, given that during a penalty the forward doesn't even have to control the ball (nor is he under time pressure to apply the finish), and the keeper isn't allowed to move off his line to make the target smaller. The only thing you can do is to suggest this to SI, as that's not how the game has worked either way (but telivision tends to argue and "teach" every week all over). This is relevant to any release, but in particular as to the long-term future of the game, as suggested. There is a huge gap in FM's player base. There is also a big gap in how AI manages matches, and how players do; and unless this is closed, there will be frustration on either end no matter any temporary and longer term ME issue.
  14. Apart of the sample size isue -- more relevant may be the actual converion of set pieces into goals. In actual football, only a fraction at all lead to shots to begin with. A number that grom gut feeling has been higher in-game for a couple releases already. On prior releases, where set piece conversion was more realistically low, this gave players focused on shot counts the illusion of completely dominating and opposition, when that opposition successfully deflected all open play attacks for set pieces over and over. The still high shot count off those set pieces didn't result into many goals though -- and tbf, it's pretty hard to find space in packed boxes. From the FM 19 numbers I've seen, the actual conversion is significantly higher than in football -- from the corner spot alone. Conssistently higher. Whilst the number of corners per team (AI Managed anyway ) doesn't appear to be that excessive -- teams still seem to average like a corner goal in every 5th to 7th match. In real football, the averages are more like in the 13-20 range (whilst only specialists like Pulis get their sides to score a corner goal every 4-5th match). https://github.com/hesussavas/corners_stats#percent-of-corners-leads-to-goal I think what you are witnessing here is in parts the result that based on soak test data still published publicly -- SI have never made the destinction where their shots and goals tend to come from. Set pieces? Open play attacks? Counters? As a result, without the added set piece goals, there would be a significantly lower amount of goals in FM 19 in general. Still puzzled that the "frustration" matches against defensive AI exist though. They should be significantly lower. If a team drops deep, which I loved to do myself, it concedes added set pieces by default. Surely at such conversion rates of set pieces, defensive opposition is going to crack eventually more often than not? That said, in particular when looking at FM's stats (CCCs cough cough), it's worth mentioning that FM never provides any definition of its stats.
  15. Long-term experience from watching discussions about the game on different places. These forums are in parts different as a) there is people who tend to know how the game actually works some and b) the mods quickly clear out the nonsense, as they can likely testify to. For the players whose threads tend to be locked that way, it's naturally a part of the bigger AI conspiracy... It's apparent the average FM users thoughts on football and sports in general are hideously simplistic and/or full of misconceptions. For which he can only be in parts to blame, as it's how it's generally represented in general media -- and some bad in-game feedback mimics that media. Plus you can enjoy football and sports for all kinds of things, including mainly for the emotional thrill; none of which are superior over the other. I don't consider myself a tactical nut for instance as I don't follow any tactical blogs at all (never needed such anyway), but even FM's tactical niche tends to be that, a niche. That's my experience, in all honesty. If as you arge you are one of the players who tries to judge his scoring chances as far as possible anyway -- in a realistic way -- from my end you belong amongst a "chosen few".