Svenc
-
Posts
5,156 -
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
-
-
21 minutes ago, CFuller said:
It's interesting you say that. My laptop is 10 years old, and when I got it in 2010, it was one of the most powerful gaming laptops on the market. Yet even after RAM and SSD upgrades, it could not run FM17, let alone FM19 or FM20. In just SIX years, it was outdated when it came to meeting Football Manager's specs.
Out of interest: How's that? The game's min requirements are twenty years old Pentium 4s with 2 GB of RAM. You couldn't buy one of those in 2010 as powerful gaming systems. If the OS, RAM and everything else was being halfway kept up to date -- that leaves only the 3d as a hurdle, which is optional. Just wondering, mind!
1 -
Wonder what the long-term plans are regarding feedback and testing of such, e.g. CCCs. It's clear it's not working that well; it's also clear that the average expectation seems to be a CCC is a goal that should have been (when in football analysis chances that are considered better than 50/50 are very rare). This seems crucial, in parts as these debates are the absolute same they've been for like ten years plus running; and they still cause the absolutely same frustrations.
Meanwhile, the feedback that's in there proactively drives players away from every playing defensive spoilsports football themselves, e.g. "never having this the other way round". Quite the contrary, it encourages to turn matches into contests of which team had the most of x on a spreadsheet, when there has always been a bit more to it than this.1 -
57 minutes ago, Novem9 said:
Playing vs lower team. They losing. AI switched mentality for positive->attacking->very attacking
Lower team started to play better.
This isn't so much about the switch in mentalities in isolation but also the switch in roles/duties. If the AI pushes more men forward, it now has additionial passing options and angles in the opposition half. It can keep the ball longer in the opp half, it can more easily construct moves and it also doesn't funnel everything down the middle, which is easy to defend (as overly defensive AI tends to do, usually with at least one FB staying back glued to the backline). Best to be viewed in 2d.
Whether the "pushing added men forward" can be punished accordingly is a different topic.
0 -
@ topic: Hundreds of thousands.
Next.1 -
Imagine Feyenoord challenging for the title, two points behind the league leaders Ajax on match day 16. But then... a mere 8 matches later that gap had suddenly gone up to 22 points!
HOw's that possible? Easy. A series of 12 wins from the first 16 matches was followed by winless run of 9, including seven straight losses on the bounce. Yes, you heard that right.
Feyenoord still finished third, btw. as they didn't lose a single match for the remainder of the season, including a streak of six wins on the bounce.
Only that, this actually happened for real in the 2014/2015 Eredivisie season.
Never say never in football.
0 -
Editing a bunch of CA200s into the Conference.
1 -
1 hour ago, bahmet said:
There's a second experiment. In the weakest team of the championship, we add a goalkeeper and right-back with CA 200. Freeze attributes in the editor. The other players are very low level. As a result, the team wins the championship very easily, all the players just shine. Thanks to GK and WB.
If you give a player a CA of 200, the game automatically re-distributes the attributes so that it is a CA 200 player. He won't be a player with 10s in all attributes anymore if you edit the CA. He will have a lot of very high attributes then. I doubt two players of that calibre, defenders at that, are enough to outright win the championship. You can try though. I had done experiments in the past, such as editing all the highest CA players into a team in the Swiss league, and they destroyed it with over 160 goals scored on each sim (while doing very well in the Champions League). That was under AI management.
Make sure the competition is simulated in full detail under the game's options so that they go through the actual match engine. CA is a player's overall ability. Naturally a team full of world class players should do rather well unless paired with absolutely nonsensical tactics (which are possible -- you can instruct all of your players to man mark the opposition cbs, and the CA 200 team couldn't defend for toffee likewise).
1 -
6 hours ago, Brother Ben said:
People want to win. If it was too hard they would say it was scripted. Was ever thus....
Funnily enough, a good amount of the "scripted" suspicious actually comes from people who win everything or are generally overachieving except the odd game now and then. "Must be scripted so this easy game is being kept interesting"....
Generally agree though. WIth improved AI managers, say, suspicious of unfairness would increase. AI is already capable of doing stuff many cannot, be it on the transfer market and negotiations or be it the old chestnut of winning matches despite having few shots (duh) -- it's already the kind of stuff that draws suspicious as is. "The AI can do all this whilst I cannot, so the game cannot possibly play fair".
1 -
7 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:
The question of why there would be elements of scripting to annoy the player is beyond me as well. What possible purpose would it serve?
By far the most common reasoning is to keep the super human player from winning everything (keeping things interesting). In the past, this line of reasoning had been particularly taken by users of "super tactics" (it's already in the name, innit).
Presumably, the tactic would be so perfect (I dominate poss+shots every match!) that every once in a while certain leveling mechanisms would kick in. As the user also dominates stats every match, he cannot ever face this the other way around, rather, his only point drops are every time with having more shots and poss (a bit like Pep this term), and things go full circle.
On that tactics front: For as long as a "super tactician" doesn't find a way to field 30+ players visibly occupying every square inch of the pitch at any one time, there will be no flawless tactic ever.
Secondly, matches against an actual run of play are supposed to be part of the game. (Not all matches where a side had far more shots and dropped the points was against an actual run of play).
Thirdly, if the AI managers were to get smarter, such players would feel "cheated" a whole lot more, which is why this is worth figthing against for anybody who'd prefer that AI development doesn't stall at some point. The AI already has an edge over any such player in that it doesn't care about the shots -- it only cares about the goals and may only attack / expose itself in bursts of a match rather than the 90 minutes through.
tldr; If you go with "scripted" theory, you don't get this game. (Unfortunately, not getting this game does not necessarily translate to not winning.)
0 -
3 hours ago, aDuck said:
This is what I'm talking about when I say keepers tap into the f**king Matrix. We scraped this although my team supposedly bossed the game.
And the keeper, for all his Agent Smith inspired efforts? A 6.8 rating. Utter BS. He went full bloody Oblak. Close range or long range, didn't matter. This is what I get every other game despite my strikers all have finishing stats of at least 10 and pretty good compusure considering the level my team plays in. Sure, we're not exactly Barcelona but the amount of miracle saves after miracle saves after miracle saves from eight yards tends to annoy.
HOw is this going OBlak if you scored 4 goals? Going simply by these flawed stats -- on average, that is seasonal long-term average, you'd expect there to be a goal roughly every 3rd shot on target. You're just 1 short of expectations.
Bad example, and there would be quite a few, like 17 SOT for zero goals. That said, over the season you will and should always have variance in this, as that is football. Go through Pep's point drops this term, all of them (-> whoscored). Just in both matches against Spurs combined he conceded 4 goals off 5 shots total. Unless the game wouldn't aim to simulate anything like that, this will always happen. Football, the realz one is a sport where shot conversion is massively variable throughout matches. A club might win 1-0 on a perfect long-distance strike one week and then lose 2-1 the next while firing a dozen shots from good positions right into the keeper's chest, whilst the opposition hits it all.
As said, the only way you don't ever see this the other way around, includig having opponents who struggle to score off a dozen shots on target, is that you don't play consersative or outright counter attacking against an attacking AI yourself -- or are doing it badly.0 -
3 hours ago, aDuck said:
Then there's a hell of a lot of "anomalies" when it comes to miracle goalkeepers who save 14 out of 15 shots on target while the opposition strikers who have not had a single shot on target in the Vanarama North League suddenly turn into Robert Lewandowski and hit a winner FROM THE ONLY CHANCE THEY HAVE HAD ALL GAME with 6 minutes to play.
That's not scoring against the run of play. That's taking the. You're not convincing me this game isn;t scripted.
Aye, shots on target that aren't converted regularly are too easy to come by, in particular headers. That's not "scripting" though. The reason you don't ever see this the other way round is just you not ever parking the bus against an attacking AI yourself (or doing it badly).
https://community.sigames.com/topic/391460-park-the-bus/
Like 9.9/10 FM'ers. This has to be posted every.single.time. You know why? Because the chance of the AI ever improving too much drops below zero if anybody still believes in "scripting". As you can see, the developers care deeply about this. If the Ai were to improve, so would the accusations.0 -
14 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:
So I won the league from a predicted 3rd place (again). I also won the CL when only rated 40-1 and with a salary per annum spend of a quarter of the other finalist, Man Utd. In the league, I lost once (to a 10th placed Amiens, so not a park the bus team) and the 7 draws were against mid-table or better teams.
This season, with the big rep boost, I'm facing quite a few more defensive teams. I've already faced a few of the bottom teams and 2 of the 3 rated at 1001-1 to win the title, winning 5-0 and 5-1. It's 10 matches in, but safe to say, it's a 2 horse race and my players are not scared to score. Even had a 9-0 in there.
At a ridiculous 5.x goals per game, it seems we're finally back on topic.
1 -
8 hours ago, Nahuelzn said:
That's why I'm in favour on having difficulty settings. The game can't include all type of players with one size to fit all shoes. Some players want an easy game and if they lose 3 matches they'll quit. Others, like me, want a real challenge. I enjoy fighting for every win. And both ways of playing the game are valid since this is a solo-game. So we should be able to fully customize how that game operates.
I've always argued that different levels of assistants could act as a (realistic) difficulty setting. Actual managers are working with (tactical / data / training etc. etc. etc.) specialists in real football -- in parts to cover their own acknowledged weakness. What's more, assistants are AI (managers). Improving AI would thus have two benefits: Helping players in the form of assistants, as well as providing additional challenge.
However, difficulty levels come at a price. I think anybody who argues he isn't at all affected by achievements made by players surrounding his -- in particular in this age of social media et all -- is a lier. So for somebody who still finds the game too hard, it may be frustrating to see how many players there are who win absolutely everything. Vice versa, for somebody else it may kill all feeling of achievement if he witnesses the same and that all it takes may be a bit of patience and the right kind of assistants...1 -
Just seen this: Why are Brentford's data facilities rated so poorly in FM 2020?
0 -
The AI has actually gotten better from FM 2009 or earlier, so not sure what influenced your perception. (At the same time, it's gotten harder to make horrible tactics leading to horrible football though).
That said, this series in general has never been say Dark Souls. If it ever had been, it wouldn't have been this big with the casual crowd. The information dumps may make it seem like the most complicated thing, but you can have relative success already by holidaying and letting the assistants do all the jobs (naturally, this isn't fail-proof and shouldn't be).0 -
48 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:
You have played in 13 away matches and probably more by now
Speaking of which, would be interesting to see what it looks over time. Genuine question: Would the away table/form be considered this poor with just two wins more? That'd be top of the tables or thereabouts pretty much away likewise. Just singing, er saying.
0 -
As to creative freedom in isolation, not sure if it works the same way, but prior it used to be a boost to a player's flair attribute. His tendency to do the unexpected. This isn't/wasn't specifically about runs, but also adventurous passes, shots, etc. Some kind of mechanics got's still got to be in there, the flair attribute is.
1 -
10 hours ago, RVP32 said:
Very interesting and expected.
In which sense? This certainly also exposes selfish decision making / finishing issues and lack of awareness in the final third, mind. Still a goal for every minute played basically in an average match minus stoppage time. Bear also in mind that a few of the shots were from set piece play, as there are still fouls and deflections made. However, the most fascinating is actually against the own U19s, in particular if you employ the tactics early enough (prior to kick-off).
The U19s manager would then copy the formation, but -- this is crucial -- not the man marking instructions. So you have a lot action on either end. However, the own U19s still get some men back in time behind the ball
whereas your guys would glue to the guy they're supposed to mark and gift the U19s more free routes on goal.
This can make for interesting (lop-sided) stats... your own side is still under pressure somewhat, the U19s not, so their conversion goes through the roof, whilst your own may plummet for a while... The scoreline got closer again later on, however the U19s conversion reigned much supreme, ditto their shots to shot on target ratio, which was almost 100% for most of the match -- admittedly I had also nuked the senior team's defending set piece routines somewhat, which helped. 
0 -
1 hour ago, MBarbaric said:
so? four hours passed, what is this delay and what was the result
Oops sorry. Things eventually slowed down a wee bit. But the final result still had almost crashed my PC.
1 -
Haven't done this since release. Basically, I put up a lone FB as the last line of defense, and instructed all the other guys to man-mark the opposition centre back.
https://i.imgur.com/HNczviw.png
But interestingly, whereas at initial release the conversion was a cut above 50/50ish, it's 1-10 against the Under 19s 16 minutes in, and except for the odd shot wide and keeper save, almost every shot goes in. Crazy stuff. Admittedly it's against a greyed out keeper, as both Bürki and Hitz are on international duty. Will still be interesting what the final scoreline is gonna be.
0 -
Perhaps more a frustrating screen shot than a funny one, but still... an early penalty lead, then us sticking men behind the ball on d-duty to frustrate for the remainder of the match. Only to add a second goal in injury time and rub it in. Had the stupid ref not awarded us a free kick, including a wasteful shot at goal in the 16th minute, this would have been my perfect match.
0 -
52 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:
Always nice to see a goal / build-up that has actually wrong-footed the keeper. Cut-backs, lay-offs having drawn the keeper etc. are so underrated as opposed to your bang average one on one, where the keeper has to focus just on that one man.
0 -
Re: Benchmarks. What's interesting is that the 6C/6T i5 8600 comes close to top of the pile. That's multiple times cheaper a chip than the 9900k, at almost the same speed. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 3 3600 is much behind. Guess that even on full detail match simulations, there are many parts of FM that don't benefit of having that many cores/threads. Plus, the game in general for some reason seems to favor Intel chips in general.
Now what would be really interesting was somebody running the benchmark with the minimum specs of Pentium 4. SI surely must have one of those still in the cellar, don't they? Else they couldn't possibly recommend support.
0 -
On 17/12/2019 at 14:30, Keyzer Soze said:
for me the thing that i think really needs to be fixed is the amount of 1-on-1 situations you have per game.
This has always been an interesting point. When you miss over a set of games, it is perceived hugely differently to when that happens in a single / a finite set of game (s). Ask Martin Palermo, a decent kicker who will be forever be remembered for his penalty rott in that single game.
I don't know the game Maths exactly. But going with the average 1 in 3 one on ones is a goal (they're rated xG ~0.3 plain average*), this is the streak I simulated rolling virtual dice . A 1 in 3 chance is basically the same chance you either roll a 1 or 6, so I went with that.x is a goal, o is a miss/save: xoooxxxxoxoxxxooooooxxxxooooooooxoooxxoxoooooxxooxooooxoxoooo
* there are evidently ones that are converted at somewhat higher rates in-game too, but they seem to require the forward to be in loads of actual space. E.g. this:
0
Feyenoord still finished third, btw. as they didn't lose a single match for the remainder of the season, including a streak of six wins on the bounce.
Will anyone be buying FM21?
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Svenc
https://understat.com/match/9887
https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1317965/Live/Italy-Serie-A-2018-2019-Atalanta-Empoli
47 shots, 18 on target, at least 8 chances that actual football analysis classes as "big" and no win.
The in-game flaw is that it's too easy to get shots on target that justified or not don't result into a goal that regularly (in particular headers); plus that the in-game CCC sucks. Actually, it always has sucked.