Svenc
-
Posts
5,162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Svenc
-
-
11 hours ago, craigcwwe said:
A hell of a lot has changed in that time!
War. War never changes.
https://www.neoseeker.com/forums/38178/t1176979-just-score/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1100600/discussions/0/2252308752469941843/0 -
12 hours ago, Utah_CUtiger said:
Not exactly funny, but has anyone ever seen a league as tight as this?
?
That's an absolutely bonkers season. Whilst this was an editor experiment, not even "cloning" teams (including their manager, reputation, and everything) guarantees such. Football matches, fully computer simulated ones too, tend to have winners and losers, serial ones included (between equal teams there tend to be less thrashings though).
Out of interest, what does that home/away table look like? All home wins, zero away wins?
1 -
That's all, Folks.
1 -
2 hours ago, Federico said:
So the argument "playing with Instant result gives me good results back, while if I play that game by myself I lose" is, generically, non-valid. I mean there are too many factors that could affect the game, in good or bad, made both by AI and the user.
I'd argue it is not. Over the longer term (in this case a dozen+ reloads of the same match), the AI Manager if he's superior would yield better overall results as his match management would be superior. Similar to how better players of this game fare better than worse ones. Some of which outperforming any AI of the game by ridiculous margins. Some proclaiming they get the sack early in every other save. There's only one difference in either case: The user providing the input.
That was my argument anyway since my first post. If an AI Manager gets consistently better results, it is because he makes better decisions. SI program that AI, and they are/have always been receiving feedback on where to better it, which is kind of the true level of difficulty of the game. I've reported shenanigans in the past, and that evidently cost the AI points on that release.
It also made for horrible football, and like a dozen+ corners alone average in every match. Whilst horrible football is subjective, I even tried to copy similar tactics to check for raw results on another release. The same team that would yield an almost 80% win percentage for a half of the season tested dropped that by a good 20% plus for the other half tested if provided with tactics such as the AI's in my link above. Wins turned into added draws. Draws turned into the odd additionally loss. Shot conversions dropped from ~16% to below average. And I'd argue back then that was realistic, and deserved. Perhaps it should have been even more severe.edit: That's purely "tactics" as one factor, mind. Naturally, there could be (and have been) also issues with AI Team and player selections, substitutions, and more.
0 -
1 hour ago, Federico said:
But if it's true to say that Football is non-linear, don't you think that this cannot apply to Football Manager since, being it a graphic representation of mathematical laws, should actually give same outputs if fed by same inputs?
Given that every action in a match/reload must be some weighted "dice roll", so to speak -- be it a pass, a tackle, whatever -- that sounds somewhat illogical. Sometimes that tackle is a success, sometimes it isn't, same as the pass, starting from the very first one… and that's when the butterfly starts to spread its wings. That's how code eventually works, usually. Even actions with a high probability of succeeding can result in bad "rolls" in a row.
Players don't usually like that, however, or respond badly to such, as entertainingly outlined here by a RPG developer (games that internally also work with a load of stats and Maths). His 95% chance of a hit would translate to bookies odds of 1.05 or 50/1000. As said though, over a dozen or so reloads one should see a trend in the results. That's rarely ever done though.
2 -
6 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:
It would be significantly more worrying if you always got the same result every time you replayed a game, because that would indicate the simulation is not dependent enough on what is actually happening.
Equally worrying was it if there wouldn't be a general trend -- not over isolated "reloads", but replaying the same match at least a dozen times. Then you should see a trend. One "frustrating" scenario for those one-off reloads is the AI sitting Deep and sometimes deservedly, sometimes luckily, getting a win/draw. IIRC for a much older iteration there was a thread demonstrating that better players dropped those points less so (also having more goals from open play as opposed to a set piece, which was counted over the course of the matches), whilst lesser players in this case it was downloading tactics (and thus never learning how to play) less so.
0 -
13 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:
That said, I don't know how instant result works. An easy way to check would be to IR the match and see if you can go and watch it back. If you can't view how the match played out, it used the quick sim ME.
If you get better results at instant results, it's likely that the assistant then taking over match management making better decisions.
I think the title of this thread is misleading.
The engine doesn't calculate a result and works from that. The ME calculates a virtual match of football -- pass by pass, positioning by positioning, bug, er goal by goal -- and whatever is the result at the end of that is the result.
Therefore, that's I've always viewed it, the element of chance comes in in the way whether the chances are converted or aren't. (If SI would have it correct, even the best ones would be roughly 50/50 chances most of the time, and players on their level not make a gigantic difference.) See also Rashidi advocating his SIBOT (?) Chance Analysis, which no doubt gives you another edge over the game's AI managers -- including your assistant.
That is in the long run. In individual matches, all kinds of crap should go. These chances then come about by individual quality (say tons of dribbles by a player who averages like half a dozen per match), tactics, errors, or a mix. Up to you to analyze what's what.
1 -
This is defensively more stable than it should be absolutely!
However.
Attacking wise you should have far more frustrations than you have though too if this were to be a realistic sim (at 2.x Goals per match you are hardly massively struggling to score overall). That's simply shoving all players forward where they park in front or inside the box, holding a picnic, upon which they are immediately pushed, no matter who receives the next pass. It's playing into the hands of teams sitting Deep and should encourage additionally poor/er shots // additional set pieces.
The UI needs more cues to display this too. This kinda thing is very very popular in the tactical download scene, btw. Has been for quite some time.0 -
15 hours ago, Liverpool FC Manager said:
Are you Managing Malmo? How on earth did you get the 23-0 scoreline?
Not sure how he did it, but you can take a team and nuke their defense by picking a nonsensical formation. For instance, with only a FB acting as the "last line of defense", plus making everybody man mark the opposition cbs, for instance. That's what I did here (link inside) -- but strikers NEVER score one on ones.
0 -
Just because a team had a lot of shots to show on some spreadsheet come the final whistle it needn't be "FM'd".
Mind you, Just an ado, I hate that term. May not be the case here, but 9/10 it's used in the completely wrong way, in particular as there are so many AI approaches that aren't fussed about winning the shot on a spreadsheet battle an inch. That the human Player doesn't take them in that misguided belief that Football was a sports of who had more shots on a spreadsheet come the final whistle blown doesn't make it better.3 -
As to the points made -- this "topic" hasn't actually been going on since FM 19. It has been going on for as long as this game has existed.
There may be issues. There pretty much certainly are.However.
The next time somebody suggests that:
- A Team was "dominating" a match because it had x more shots chances on some spreadsheet to show come the final whistle
- Football were a sports about having x more chances than the opposition on a spreadsheet
I'm going to shoot myself.
5 -
3 hours ago, zyfon5 said:
For problem 2 does the AI really struggle to create chances to score goals? Ask any person who experienced AI needing only 4 shots to score one goal and u quickly see the answer is no. shot numbers dun equate to chances. However what I have found is AI strikers seems to really struggle to get good chances which leads to low shots on target per 90 across all leagues. But that is a tactical problem and not a ME problem as I have not found AI strikers outperforming their expected goal numbers.
Additionally, it is useless to look at this in isolated matches. That's not going to tell you anything. This has happened before -- AI tactics once were so rigidly defensive, they never to rarely created a shot from open play, as they never pushed enough players forward (everybody and their mom on "defend" duty). Thus, they tended to exclusively score from the set piece (or a fluke/error/bug), and being so focused on defending, always from few shots -- that is, if they did. It's going to happen. The perception of this was that the AI had an edge here. It did not. Most players vastly outperformed it without realizing. Mostly the AI didn't even score to begin with. One can only work out actual conversion ratios over a fully season. It doesn't make any sense to look at this over individual matches. Unless you manage to concede zero shots, you will concede goals. Simple law of sports. Simple logics. Sometimes it may happen at worse moments, sometimes not so much.
As to the set pieces, FM has had too many shots off them since a couple seasons already. In football, it is not unheard of for a team having ~30 shots against a team inevitably "parking the bus", but 80-90%+ of those still from open positional play. Take a look for example on Whoscored's breakdown of Liverpool-Burney in 2017 for instance (was still a draw, btw, but then Pool had almost zero shots within the Golden Zone from between the posts, and within 12 yards of that). If anybody can show ANY FM match where that is the case once, ... and that in any release of the past five+ years. If that is the case, it should be expected that there were more goals off set piece play, actually. A set piece comes about because an open play move gets "defended" in some way. This could only be properly balanced if there was a distinction made in the statistical soak tests by SI, plus naturally, tweaking the defending and attacking of open play moves / set pieces.1 -
2 hours ago, dolph11 said:
I guess training defensive free-kicks is the best option.
There was a lot of talk about penalties in particularly early on FM 2020. Some players experienced this, some less, and it seemed more pronounced in certain leagues (referee attribute research?). I'd expect the ref attributes in leagues as small as yours to be wholly randomized at the start of the game to begin with.. Haven't seen such a thing since, but may be worth a look.
As an an optional ado to the 16 games, and this goes for any kind of statistical analysis: Sample size.
I thought it was Wolves back then but I got that wrong, but still as an example of curiosities over small/er samples. In the 2017/2018 Season, Crystal Palace lost their first seven games on the bounce, failing to score a single Goal from the first 90-100 shots in that Season. Even if they'd all have been from poorer chances or exclusively set pieces, you'd expect there to be a deflection of something, but nada. But then even from the quality, things were rather curious…Despite this start into the season, Crystal Palace still managed to finish 11th, and a Closer statistical Analysis suggested their Performance had been better than their results even during that spell. The "Turnaround" of fortunes came too late for de Boer, however. This is the same story in any sports, however football is even more curious as it's such a ridiculously low scoring affair (not for lack of trying mind) -- and even if a team would be truly all over an opposition, they oft lead by no more than two points, er goals.
0 -
18 minutes ago, dolph11 said:
Oh, of course. It happens. I once went to watch Wolves v Southampton at Molinuex, circa 2006, and Wolves lost 6-0 but outplayed Southampton. These crazy things happen in general. I'm talking about patterns of the problematic inconsistencies in the ME at the most convenient times for the AI.
Any flaws would affect both AI as well as the player. The "issue" that only the AI Benefits for some is that the AI manages Matches in a completely different way to the average human Player. E.g. it doesn't give a **** About how many shots it has. It only cares About any current result during a match.
2 -
On 24/04/2020 at 12:37, zyfon5 said:
stats analysis are quite underrated among FM players often i see someone making some claims but fail to back himself with statistics. it is very easy to perceive something very noticeable and thought that is the common norm.
Plus this.
It's impossible to have the Opposition scoring consistently like 80% of their "chances", unless you would field no defense whatsoever, would put your central defenders on man marking so that they are dragged over the pitch on every opposition attack (or you would trigger a bug).
0 -
The absolutely only reason this goes purely in "favor of the AI" is that the AI for most is the only Entity in the game that focuses some on defending to begin with. E.g. Football isn't a game About haveing moar shots on some spreadsheet. Plus, nobody tries something like this. Sometimes the AI then may win lucky, sometimes not so much -- however, it's Bound to happen.
Plus, if you're successful, you play against a lot of defensive AI. Playing defensive means having far lesser shots, mainly focused on frustrating.
All of this will continue until the dawn of time, or until FM reworks both its Feedback as well as AI managers. Most FM communities on the download front are filled with ridiculously attacking tactics to begin with, which also can struggle to create attacking space (e.g. pushing all Players narrowly forward where they hold hands may not make the pitch big enough to stretch defenders -- no matter who receives the next pass, he would be immediately pushed).
3 -
On 12/04/2020 at 14:30, Cadoni said:
AI vs AI "tactics" obviously, though AI doesn't deal in "tacticz" as such. They manage Matches dynamically and apply changes. Plus whatever their testers throw at the game.
Maybe they should though. A good portion of those FMBase tactics are abominations that a) shouldn't work and/or b) should lead to much more frustration than it typically does. The reason the aforementioned AI for instance can at all "frustrate" anyone vs. the human players can't is that the AI on occasion fields players actually focused on defending, for a start. Rather than having no defenders at all to begin with outside a pair of centre backs as the only guys sticking behind the ball. The human Player never even tries, certainly not at FMBase et all.
0 -
19 hours ago, Cadoni said:
Let me show you something interesting about RNG factor of the game.
Testing a tactic. Real players, real all.
- No IGE (In-Game Editor)
- No FMRTE
- Responsibility (all to me)
- Disable First Transfer Window Activity
- 3 Slots Full for Max Tactical Familiarity1st Test - Half Season - Premier League - Norwich
2nd Test - Half Season - Premier League - Norwich
Currently, I am running more tests to see the RNG factor of the game.
Since FM19, RNG factor seems double % boost.
Well, that tell me "it's not my tactic" issue.
It's RNG issue with the game.
That's not randomness, that is limited AI.
First half of Season Norwich are seen as the Underdog, so most AI Teams try to crush them and Play attacking tactics.
Second half of the Season this reverses for a lot of sides, as NOrwich are now considers equal/favorites, they Keep Things tight and finally punish the "no defenders super tacticz" used 24/7. On the odd additonal Occasion.
If the AI of the game were smart, that would all happen from match day 1.0 -
21 Corners. Considering that's just the corners, and no free kicks, throw ins, and the like: Was there any Football being played? :P
If the game would include xG like stats (which would likely make it too easy), the numbers wouldn't look anywhere near to this from experience. Mind you, it's still too easy to amass crap shots.0 -
Re SOT:
It's all fine Looking at SOT stats, but the biggest difference to football will likely still be the amount from genuingelly open play (typically in some space) vs set piece (on average a pressured Header). I've seen loads of matches in way prior editions already where teams had like a dozen+ SOT with barely a goal -- but looking at those shots, this rarely disappointed in that regard…
In balancing, this needs to be treated separately, no less as set pieces have their own distinct attacking / defending Settings -- plus, a set piece to simplify is the result of an open Play move beforehand "defended". Plus, that pressured Header would see the keeper in a lot better Position on average than from a tap-in after a move actually wrong-footing him. Plus, you may not notice else whether it's too easy to get shots off set pieces.0 -
32 minutes ago, CFuller said:
Ah, another Gazhammer special from the archives.
But the fact that the user I directly replied to was basically complaining about these same issues 11 years ago (and doesn't appear to have taken any of the counter-arguments on board) is... interesting.
Yeah, as argued by wwfan back then also, anything that may stretch a packed defense more may bring down the "statistical" Domination a bit (poss+shots), which makes him feel uncomfortable. So he keeps on retreating to such tactics dominating shots/poss (which on FM arguably too often happens often anyway, as the AI so oft simply parks the bus to spoil). His hope is that Mainstream Programmes more recent have introduced statistics at least a tad more valuable, such as aforementioned xG, which FM lacks (and the CCC is by no means a replacement).
In Theory, he should have more Problems with it, as defending Deep has become much more robust in the Overall balance of Things (too robust as some argue?), and direct/Long balls in really vintage Editions were poor.0 -
16 minutes ago, CFuller said:
It's all well and good hogging the ball and having 30 shots at goal, but if they're all from outside the box and/or from wide angles,
Don't forget set pieces… which are rather numerous on FM anyhow. Somehow, this is like going back ten years in time. And whilst this vintage edition didn't allow for highlight uploads to show, wwfan was 100% Right by the way. The video in the first link was a match of Hammer1000s (just one of them, and they were all repeats). In his pursuit of Possession he kept the pitch this compact that the Opposition may have been pinned back, but got a foot into every open Play move. Having more shots and/or Possession in itself is more often than not simply the byproduct of one Team attacking, and the other defending anyhow. Actual managers manage spaces, not simple numbers on a spreadsheet. The AI of this game is doing this in simple ways. It oft lets the opposition have more shots/poss. Admittedly, FM's never had better stats to show such (such as in real Football, xG, post-shot xG, et all).
1 -
We will never know this, but I'd love to see whether Things at LFC would actually be repeatable. Not whether they could challenge for the title, perhaps not even whether they could have a Point gap to the second placed, but whether things are repeatable. I personally think that, above of having a great Performance Season -- they also have a bit of the opposite of what Klopp had in his last rotten season at BVB -- luckily for Liverpool. Stuff like that doesn't happen like like that in such leagues. This is a one-in-a-Lifetime Season,.
One Thing is clear, on FM's Level of simplistic data, if the human Manager was Managing City, and the AI Pool, they'd mass accuse the AI of cheating. But that's a bit OT now.
0 -
Interestingly, on FM's simplistic Level of data, the majority would actually Question how much in Control Liverpool would be. They unleash just 16 shots per game (3rd in the league, City Clock in at 20) whilst conceding almost 10 (3rd, ditto).
Conceding no shots at all in-game would Sound either way curious.
1
Football Manager 2020 January & February Transfer Updates Feedback Thread
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Svenc
Until SI have this worked out, we will have these kind of discussions forever.
(And even if they do, every match where a side had the better chances and dropped the points may still be perceived as a bug, when it needn't necessarily be).
What I'd be working on either way is that it's oft too easy to get shots that -- obviously -- don't seem to have that high a chance of conversion. In parts that is match engine related (too little pressure on the shooter), in parts that will be AI tactics related (too passive too readily), and so on. Naturally, the actually higher quality chances would also need to be checiked, and if they are being converted at realistic ratios (the perceived one on one problem).
A while ago I'd reported similar AI tactics to yours (everybody move foward), and it cost the AI points on that release. It should have actually cost it more, imo. At least it resulted in horrible football, with additional set pieces all over the place, as the opposition defenders had zero ground to cover.