Play 'old-school' and succeed!

[Lisandro Lopez]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I play 10 games with my Blyth team using Croat's set of tactics, key highlights on, i get the bugged match engine - 25-35 shots, no goals opponent has 3 shots on target scores all 3.

If i reload, play with only commentary - not only do i have less shots, i can sore. the most amazing thing is, my striker will be one on one and shoot for the corners. This does not happen viewing highlights! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you reload its not going to be the same conditions as your prevoius game. If you reload something else will happen different situations and variables come into play. Its not that simple to just say "ill try 10 games with match engine on" and then reload and "try 10 games with just commentary" do you people not understand this? Once you reload the game its not going to be the exact same game. There for this method is flawed...

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I play 10 games with my Blyth team using Croat's set of tactics, key highlights on, i get the bugged match engine - 25-35 shots, no goals opponent has 3 shots on target scores all 3.

If i reload, play with only commentary - not only do i have less shots, i can sore. the most amazing thing is, my striker will be one on one and shoot for the corners. This does not happen viewing highlights! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you reload its not going to be the same conditions as your prevoius game. If you reload something else will happen different situations and variables come into play. Its not that simple to just say "ill try 10 games with match engine on" and then reload and "try 10 games with just commentary" do you people not understand this? Once you reload the game its not going to be the exact same game. There for this method is flawed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HELLO? How can you blind people continue to ignore what is written infront of you.. I will say again.

I have tried this now 5 thats (FIVE) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5!! times.

My procedure:

Play the same 10 games, 5 times over (play the block of 10, then reload) with key highlights on. In these ten games, EVERY SINGLE RUN THROUGH, I will suffer from the buggy match engine, where my strikers can do nothing but shoot straight at the goalkeeper 25 times in a match.

I then do the same, playing with only commentary. The results are CLEARLY Different. In these 50 games played with only commentary, there were about 3 times where the opposition only had 3 shots on target and managed to score 2/3 goals, and i had 25 on target and failed to score. Also, when viewing replays from these games, goals that i score frequently come from my strikers shooting for the corner of the goals.

When watching key highlights, roughly 25 (thats half) of my 50 games involved me bombarding the opponent and either not scoring or only scoring 1/2 goals, while the opposition scores with their only shot on target.

At what point will some of you blind people understand this? Stop defending the game, you are ruining it for those of us that want a truly realistic and bug free game.

To sum up - I have done this 5 times now! it does not matter that I only use 10 games and then reload, because there is such a CLEAR and OBVIOUS difference when it comes to switching between only commentary and watching the highlights.

[stevereay]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by charliemfc:

Works for me.

And I forgot how much I missed the old days of commentary only

"Nii Lampty rounds the keeper"

"And scores!"

*sigh* I miss those magical days </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. this is a very interesting thread. I have often consider my team give a better performance on comentary only but thoguht it was just a misconception.

[Mike7077]

All this talk of 'commentary only' takes me back to the days when I didn't have a computer and I used to go round to my mate's and longingly watch him play CM for hours on end.

Ahem... I was watching longingly at the game, you understand!

Then we got a computer and I got CM97/98. And I've never looked back.

[gunnerfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HELLO? How can you blind people continue to ignore what is written infront of you.. I will say again.

I have tried this now 5 thats (FIVE) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5!! times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not ignoring it. Just saying you haven't proven that the phenomenon you are seeing isn't normal variance in gameplay, which is why you DO need a large sample size.

Besides, there is no logical reason why one or another mode of viewing a match would tilt the outcome either for or against you. After all, once the match starts, there is no way for the AI to "know" which team is the human participant. This has been stated REPEATEDLY by SI staff over the years in the context of the "evil AI" myth, of which this is just one more amusing variation.

My advice - play how you want to play. If you really think setting to "Commentary Only" gives you an advantage, enjoy! But please don't insult our intelligence by trying to fob it off on us as fact.

[gunnerfan]

You also haven't shown that your in-game decisions are consistent across both modes.

[Wakers]

Try it for yourself then. Don't sit there and fob it off as being made up without trying it yourself.

It certainly is not a myth. Si at first tried to claim that there was no shots to goal issue..that was a myth until enough complained about it!

I am of course making the same decisions each time i do this, I know how to do scientific tests.

Now I will play a single game 20 times in each mode. Play it, save it, reload it, change match view, play it again. I will make the same decisions each match, where possible, and come back with the results.

[gunnerfan]

I am absolutely not going to waste my time on such nonsense. Let whoever came up with this silly premise go ahead and prove it if they think they can. Real proof, not a handful of tries.

[IMT]

I think it stands to reason that as there is a major problem with the match engine (certainly on patch 8.0.1, haven't noticed it so much going back to 8.0.0) with this 1v1 issue (and those going "it's your tactics!" till you're blue in the face, even si have admitted a problem), anyway it stands to reason if you turn off the engine and go back to commentary only this bug goes away.

Oh and I think 10 games (over a 1/4 of the season), is more than enough time to prove a point, especially as it happened in 10/10 times.

But hey, there's none so blind as them that wo't see...

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IMT:

I think it stands to reason that as there is a major problem with the match engine (certainly on patch 8.0.1, haven't noticed it so much going back to 8.0.0) with this 1v1 issue (and those going "it's your tactics!" till you're blue in the face, even si have admitted a problem), anyway it stands to reason if you turn off the engine and go back to commentary only this bug goes away.

Oh and I think 10 games (over a 1/4 of the season), is more than enough time to prove a point, especially as it happened in 10/10 times.

But hey, there's none so blind as them that wo't see... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

especially when they're so bias that they are afraid to try it themselves for fear of what they may find..

[Wakers]

You know, I was thinking of making a journal of the procedure I've taken - when I realised there's no catagorical way that I can prove which matches I did with only commentary and which i did with highlights

I could still do it, but I just know gunnerfan and his naysaying ilk will tell me there's no way to prove which is which, and they'll be right.

[cudman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I am absolutely not going to waste my time on such nonsense. Let whoever came up with this silly premise go ahead and prove it if they think they can. Real proof, not a handful of tries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fairness, in the space of a couple of days three people have posted on this thread having tried it and all produced similar results. So it may be a bit hasty to dismiss it as nonsense.

If the figures being posted are correct it would seem to make a very big difference.

Maybe in some way having highlights on makes the game generate more goal chances to fill the highlights (unlikely I know but whos to say not possible).

It would be very interesting if someone did do a thorough test on this.

Although it would seem to satisfy some people in here that test would need to be around 1000 games long!

[Lisandro Lopez]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I play 10 games with my Blyth team using Croat's set of tactics, key highlights on, i get the bugged match engine - 25-35 shots, no goals opponent has 3 shots on target scores all 3.

If i reload, play with only commentary - not only do i have less shots, i can sore. the most amazing thing is, my striker will be one on one and shoot for the corners. This does not happen viewing highlights! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you reload its not going to be the same conditions as your prevoius game. If you reload something else will happen different situations and variables come into play. Its not that simple to just say "ill try 10 games with match engine on" and then reload and "try 10 games with just commentary" do you people not understand this? Once you reload the game its not going to be the exact same game. There for this method is flawed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wakers I am simply stating the facts that a small sample based on this theory isn't enough. You seem to have completely misunderstood my point which is not surprising as you were too busy shouting "HELLO" and reading what you thought I said instead of actually paying attention and reading what I actually wrote.

"At what point will some of you blind people understand this? Stop defending the game, you are ruining it for those of us that want a truly realistic and bug free game."

What a stupid thing to say, I am sorry if we disagree with what you are saying and this somehow makes us blind (which is an idiotic statement to make by yourself). I wish you could practise what you preach and instead of coming out with stupid comments calling people who disagree blind you could be reasonable and add debate to the matter instead of stupid comments. Defending the game? At what point have I defended the game? All I have done is to simply say that if you or any other person run this test method by just reloading the game a couple of times that doesn’t make it a fair or proper test, it does need a bigger sample of tests to make sure all the variables are covered. If you can not accept this then I suggest you just carry on with your moronic “HELLO’s†at the start of your posts.

[Lisandro Lopez]

I would also like to state that before anyone jumps on any sort of bandwagon, I am ofc curoius to see if any effect this has. However I am at this point based on logic and facts at the moment sure that either use of the match engine or commentary has no real effect over any of the "too many shots and no goal" theory.

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

I would also like to state that before anyone jumps on any sort of bandwagon, I am ofc curoius to see if any effect this has. However I am at this point based on logic and facts at the moment sure that either use of the match engine or commentary has no real effect over any of the "too many shots and no goal" theory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you're still not reading the fact that i have played, over the last 2 days, 100 games to test this. At what point have i tested it enough???

[Lisandro Lopez]

Which is it? A while ago you said you have tried this method 20times. (10 with just commentary and 10 with match engine) Nows you have run this test 100 times over 2days? Hmmm.

Either way, I think really a full season with both methods if not longer would be a better way rather than just a sample of 10 games. I don't have all the answers I am simply just trying to help and debate on this matter. Ofc a larger sample will be needed to be well documented and as you have said it may be hard to prove your results etc Although I am sure something could be worked out.

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

Which is it? A while ago you said you have tried this method 20times. (10 with just commentary and 10 with match engine) Nows you have run this test 100 times over 2days? Hmmm.

Either way, I think really a full season with both methods if not longer would be a better way rather than just a sample of 10 games. I don't have all the answers I am simply just trying to help and debate on this matter. Ofc a larger sample will be needed to be well documented and as you have said it may be hard to prove your results etc Although I am sure something could be worked out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you go back and read my posts.. initially it was 20 games (10 games each played twice, you seem to struggle with this) and i was intrigued enough to play the set of ten games 5 times through using each method. Is there any wonder i get annoyed..

[Lisandro Lopez]

There you go again making snide comments because someone is questioning your method or you. Can you actually debate without becomming annoyed? I am not narrow minded but you seem to be quite narrow minded and anyone who questions your way or simply adds to the debate you don't like you attempt to insult them, how sad.

And you actually orginally stated that you only tried it once with commentary and then once with match engine. Then you stated you have tried both ways five times. You just seem to chop and change how you gone about it, maybe you should be alot clearer of your methods in prevoius posts and for future posts. Or are you going to get annoyed with my reply and simply attempt a sly instul or call me "blind"

[bigdirtyjames]

Hopey, you just answered his post in the exact same way you accused him of behaving in previous posts. The simple fact is that there are a few people who believe the same problem exists in their game - and maybe somebody (with too much time) will be able use a season-long sample to try and crack this (i've noticed no difference myself).

The guy has an opinion, and he's right to get ratty, especially since most of the replies simply dismissed him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

There you go again making snide comments because someone is questioning your method or you. Can you actually debate without becomming annoyed? I am not narrow minded but you seem to be quite narrow minded and anyone who questions your way or simply adds to the debate you don't like you attempt to insult them, how sad.

And you actually orginally stated that you only tried it once with commentary and then once with match engine. Then you stated you have tried both ways five times. You just seem to chop and change how you gone about it, maybe you should be alot clearer of your methods in prevoius posts and for future posts. Or are you going to get annoyed with my reply and simply attempt a sly instul or call me "blind" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[bytheway]

some people need to lighten up. IT'S A GAME!!!!

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

There you go again making snide comments because someone is questioning your method or you. Can you actually debate without becomming annoyed? I am not narrow minded but you seem to be quite narrow minded and anyone who questions your way or simply adds to the debate you don't like you attempt to insult them, how sad.

And you actually orginally stated that you only tried it once with commentary and then once with match engine. Then you stated you have tried both ways five times. You just seem to chop and change how you gone about it, maybe you should be alot clearer of your methods in prevoius posts and for future posts. Or are you going to get annoyed with my reply and simply attempt a sly instul or call me "blind" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to debate with you because you can't seem to follow my posts in sequence, hence its pointless. If you read my posts in order, which i assume you are doing, its quite clear how I have tried it. I've explained it in full detail twice. its not my fault now if you can't understand it.

[gunnerfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wakers:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

I would also like to state that before anyone jumps on any sort of bandwagon, I am ofc curoius to see if any effect this has. However I am at this point based on logic and facts at the moment sure that either use of the match engine or commentary has no real effect over any of the "too many shots and no goal" theory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you're still not reading the fact that i have played, over the last 2 days, 100 games to test this. At what point have i tested it enough??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many seasons did you test for each category (Commentary Only and 2-D)? What were the statistical variances within each group? How did they compare between the two groups? Was there any possibility for Co-variance? How did you control for the possibility that you might react differently playing one way than another? How did the game statistics vary within and between both groups? Did you utilize statistically valid methods for computing sampling error for each group?

Cudman - the sample population is way too small to be considered anything but purely anecodotal at this point. Given the fact that the basic premise - that the AI can recognize the team of the human player and change its actions accordingly - is one that has long been debunked by SI, I remain highly skeptical until and unless statistically demonstrated.

[Wakers]

Ow for god's sakes its hopey's buddy.

How many seasons? none. There would be no point doing a season test because there would be too many random events to account for.

This is the last time i am explaining what I have done.

I play the same block of ten games.

I first play with highlights on. I only make subs when I have to (injuries). I don't tweak the formation, opp instructions, team talks etc.

After each game, i look at the match stats and make a note.

Upon completion of these ten games, i then close FM, reload, play the same ten games without highlights. There, simple.

I have repeated this 5 times now. Thats 100 games.

Now why on earth do you need to go into sodding co variance? do you want me to use standard deviation on the shots/goals ratio between the two groups as well?

There is no need to go into all that detail, because just by glancing at the match stats there is CLEARLY something wrong here.

Your point about the AI is rubbish. Its not about the ai at all, its about the MATCH ENGINE.

The simple conclusion from my results are this:

Without highlights: There is only the odd game, in my case 3/4 games out of 50, where you have 25 shots only to be defeated by a singular, or a couple of shots on target from the opposition.

With highlights: it happened actually 24 times, not 25 as i said earlier. Which is almost 50% of games.

Its not up to me to go into great detail testing SI's game. I've done more than i should have had to already.

Its immensely irritating to have my ideas fobbed off by people who simply think "well that sounds silly, can't be true" and won't actually test it themselves.

My sample size is 100 matches ffs!

[Bongo-Bongo]

Why not post some screen shots to show the difference? At present, no evidence has actually been posted to suggest otherwise, and until it is, I don't think many are going to be convinced until some actuall evidence is posted to show the results and statistics.

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bongo-Bongo:

Why not post some screen shots to show the difference? At present, no evidence has actually been posted to suggest otherwise, and until it is, I don't think many are going to be convinced until some actuall evidence is posted to show the results and statistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posting screenshots won't help. This is why its important for people to test it themselves.

If i post a screenshot it doesn't prove that i've played it with or without highlights.

I need some other people to try doing this when they hit a patch in which they are having tons of shots but losing.

[Lisandro Lopez]

Ah erratic Wakers you do make me laugh.

Anyhow, If you don't back up your theory with evidence how can you expect others to see your theory or to infact belieive you. How do I or others know that you have just not simply made up your findings or parts of your findings and so on...

I have noticed no difference between using either, but I am not on the witch hunt to find a problem either tho.

If you can't back up your points with evidence then other people are right to disagree and dismiss your point of view. I have no doubt that you will attempt to fob of these questions. Perhaps you can go back to amusing shouting at the start of your posts?

Or better still just rage quit

I look forward to your findings with evidence to support it, otherwise I can't see the point in trying to debate with you. Your too wishy-washy in your posts >.<

[Wakers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoPeY:

Ah erratic Wakers you do make me laugh.

Anyhow, If you don't back up your theory with evidence how can you expect others to see your theory or to infact belieive you. How do I or others know that you have just not simply made up your findings or parts of your findings and so on...

I have noticed no difference between using either, but I am not on the witch hunt to find a problem either tho.

If you can't back up your points with evidence then other people are right to disagree and dismiss your point of view. I have no doubt that you will attempt to fob of these questions. Perhaps you can go back to amusing shouting at the start of your posts?

Or better still just rage quit

I look forward to your findings with evidence to support it, otherwise I can't see the point in trying to debate with you. Your too wishy-washy in your posts >.< </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like i've said - if i post screenshots, there's no way i can show in which way i played each match. Therefore i don't see any point in it because people will just say; "how do we know which method you used for these games".

thats why i'm urging people to try it for themselves.

[Lisandro Lopez]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like i've said - if i post screenshots, there's no way i can show in which way i played each match. Therefore i don't see any point in it because people will just say; "how do we know which method you used for these games".

thats why i'm urging people to try it for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I know, at the moment I too don't know a way in which you can show your evidence. *puts thinking cap on* oh its broke >.<

[CowRonaldo]

Maybe it's NOT a coincedence.

Could it be that the 2D match engine produces more shots because we're watching it? (After all 10 shots a game isn't a very entertaining 2D match).

Where in the commentary less chances are created because you're reading it. Also there could be different goals because it describes it to you and doesn't have to show it on the engine.

[Kriss]

Not often such a laughable theory makes a two page thread

It's as realistic a theory as the old have to keep the mouse pointer in the commentary line one.

The ME does the same things whatever mode you watch (or don't watch) it in.

[littlebeagle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

Not often such a laughable theory makes a two page thread

It's as realistic a theory as the old have to keep the mouse pointer in the commentary line one.

The ME does the same things whatever mode you watch (or don't watch) it in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diana being murdered by the establishment is a much more laughable theory, currently millions of pounds of taxpayers money (mine included) is being spent to establish that she died as a result of a car crash as the driver was drunk.

I'd say this was a much more credible theory.

[williamshankley]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

Not often such a laughable theory makes a two page thread

It's as realistic a theory as the old have to keep the mouse pointer in the commentary line one.

The ME does the same things whatever mode you watch (or don't watch) it in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! If anything when i try to rush through games on commentary I lose!

I do think that it doesn't matter which way you choose to watch the match though

[Saintjonny]

I just wish that the commentary would come up in the middle of the screen - that would be proper 'old school'

[rikirani]

I kinda see what wakers is saying...if the difference is so obvious, you don't need to analyse it. If I breath water instead of air, I don't need stats to tell me it sucks!

However all he is saying is that after his short tests it still seems to be holding true. Why shoot him down? He isn't claiming fact, just that it seems to be an unusual co-incidence and asking for help to verify.

I'll have a go when I get home and see if I notice any difference, if I do then MAYBE I'll do a full season test. But if the change is really obvious, I'll just play the game instead!!

Peace out dudes

[Lincoln Imp2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

Not often such a laughable theory makes a two page thread

It's as realistic a theory as the old have to keep the mouse pointer in the commentary line one.

The ME does the same things whatever mode you watch (or don't watch) it in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The crux of the issue lies in whether you believe the match engine "tweaks" certain things depending on whether you are on commentary or 2D.....in theory I can see why programmers might want the 2D view to create more chances to increase the drama....and technically it must be possible to do.

Wakers test certainly seem to show an area worth someone tresting more scientifically...even if it is not proved one way or the other as yet.

It then boils down to whether you believe SI when they say it can't happen.

mmmm...SI admits match engine is a fraud?? Does anyone really believe they would just admit even if it was true.

I may not be a conspiracy theorist but I'm not a niaive idiot either....

[The Flux Capacitor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Saintjonny:

I just wish that the commentary would come up in the middle of the screen - that would be proper 'old school' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There always used to be a way of editing the commentary and I spent ages at Uni changing it say something funny. Not sure you can do that now though

[neilb242]

a couple of things about this.

1) if you watch a game with no highlights, then after the game in which say, a sending off occured, and the media ask you to comment, you will be able to watch the incedent. so wouldn't that suggest that even though you weren't watching, the 2-d match was still happening, if you get what i mean? just because you don't watch it, it doesn't stop it from happening.

although...

2) i've seen many people on these forums suggest that the 2-d display is just a representation of the match engine. so when your forward bursts through one-on-one, all thats really happening is that your team is having a chance on goal, and that its not that different from any old shot. so if you don't watch this, would your chances and scenarios within the game be more 'realistic'?

These are just observations. feel free to moan at me if you want, i don't expect any less from some people on here.

people are saying what a waste of space discussing this, but at least its more interesting than most of the crap that appears on here.

'theories' like this often have two sets of people, those who agree and those who totally disagree. all these people dismissing it straight away, thats your choice but you aare starting to sound almost scared he is right. why not give it a go yourself? in my humble opinion, watching without the 2-d shouldn't make any difference, but even in the small sample of results provided, you have to admit the results are odd.

[homerjnick]

In every penalty shootout now I ALWAYS lower the speed of the Match Engine as I ALWAYS lose when it is up high.

I kid you not...

[Lisandro Lopez]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by homerjnick:

In every penalty shootout now I ALWAYS lower the speed of the Match Engine as I ALWAYS lose when it is up high.

I kid you not... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, I await for the flurry of posts about this one ;D

Neilb242 - I have never been in either camp, I have just debated about it. I have often stated that based on logical thinking and lack of evidence to support otherwise that I don't think the whole commentary or 2-d match engine makes any real difference. I have tried it out and I didn't really notice anything majorly different, however I also have never had the "super keeper or 30 shots on target bug" that is claimed, ofc I have had games where I cant't score for the world and then the opposition has a couple of shots and scores but this is how it sometimes happens in life, so I expect this now and then. But I have not completly dissmissed Wakers or other peoples notion that this may be a problem or a bug. But I feel personelly until evidence suggests otherwise I don't see there being a problem.

This thread is much better than other stupid flame fests such as http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/1322037473 I am not saying this thread is perfect but there is a little bit more debate and construstice points made here then most recent threads, most especially when compared to that thread I have linked to

[x42bn6]

I'm under the impression that the two engines are not the same. Obviously, I haven't done enough testing, but some of the arguments don't make sense.

A sample size of 100 is good enough to approximate some awful things. After all, a sample size of 3,000 can justify the population of China for a basic statistic (I think it was boy-girl ratio) with I think to 95% certainty.

By the way, there is no covariance between both engines, partially because unless one switches between engines during the game, the games' modes are independent (if a commentary game can affect a full match game after the game is saved and restarted, we'd have computers that can manipulate files created in the future!)

The easiest way to probably debunk this is as follows: Take control of a rubbish team and a good team, arrange a friendly, save and play, then restart, changing modes every restart. One then has a good set of data which is sensible. One could probably use FMM to give each player a fully professional attitude with no dirtiness and not injury prone with full natural fitness and stamina, no substitutions and discarding any game which ends up with a sending-off or injury.

I think that a sample size of 100 is more than enough. The test statistic for a standardised normal distribution using the Central Limit Theorem is (difference in means*100)/standard deviation - quite a large standard deviation is required to start knocking this down to accept the two modes are equivalent. But we're not talking "commentary is 20-0, full match is 1-0" here.

[James.Clench]

Whether you choose to watch the entire match, fly through the game with only commentery, or even go on holiday for a day after seeing the first minute, the result will be exactly the same and whats more I can prove it

A few months ago I took it upon myself to muck around with the editor. I decided to Edit all of HJK's players so they all had Dirtiness and Aggresion at 20 as well as giving them 1 for Sportsmanship, Temprement...etc basically making them ultra dirty footballers, I also made every HJK player dislike (100/100) every FC Haka player as well as disliking FC Haka (100/100). Anyway when the time came for HJK to play FC Haka, needless to say not many HJK players lasted the full 90, infact sometimes the game actually crashed, due to the fact that the match engine works out in advance that not enough HJK players (i.e. 2) would be left on the field to take the kick-off, The game never crashed before I reached the end of the first half, but when trying to start the second half it would sometimes crash, whats more, is that sometimes when I had got the second half under way I decided to make a substitution or two around the hour mark, and now and then after I had confirmed the sub's, the game crashed, which means that the Match engine works out in advance that the players i'm going to bring on will change the game in such a way so that too many men get sent off.

So basically, this proves that the game is worked out in advance up to half-time, and from half time up to full time, unless you make a substitution, and it doesn't matter whether you chose to watch the whole thing or just have the commentary.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cafe_latte:

maybe coincidence? Hmm.. I doubt it, but I will go back to the 2D engine and test this theory.

Post results ASAP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have tested this. And it was a proper test using VM Ware, so i kept the same random seed each time.

You get the EXACT SAME MATCH regardless of which commentary you choose. I played a match with the 2D engine, then reloaded the virtual machine and played the same game under the commentary only. Every single line of commentary is exactly the same.

Sorry to disappoint.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

BTW, if you're not going to test this using VM Ware Workstation or something similar, then there is no point in testing it, or even bothering to debate. I encourage all of you to try the demo version of VM Ware Workstation and test this out for yourself.

[LFCrouchinho#15]

I could never play with just commentary.. watching those little, colored dots race around a football pitch is the heart and soul of FM

[Guest arrogantio]

IRL, Man Utd have a better record when I watch the full match than when I watch the highlights

[Buzzur]

OK, I've given this theory a try:

I've played the same game 10 times. (St. Albans vs Stevenage) 23.3.2009, Clarence Park

I've played it with exactly the same tactics and players each time. No changing of tactics or instructions during/or before the game, and no team talk. If a player on either team got a red card, i quit the game.

5 times I played it with key highlights.

5 times I played it with text only commentary.

Here are the results:

With highlights:

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-0, Shots/On goal: 21/12

St.Albans v Stevenage: D 1-1, Shots/On goal: 18/10

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-2, Shots/On goal: 15/6

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-0, Shots/On goal: 18/10

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-2, Shots/On goal: 19/8

Goals scored: 13 Shots: 91/46

Text only:

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 4-2, Shots/On goal: 22/12

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-0, Shots/On goal: 15/12

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-1, Shots/On goal: 16/9

St.Albans v Stevenage: L 2-3, Shots/On goal: 20/13

St.Albans v Stevenage: W 3-1, Shots/On goal: 18/11

Goals scored: 15 Shots: 91/57

I leave you all to conlude. Although i admit this is poor statistical material.

I really should have played the games 3-400 times, but it's far too tedious.

At least it's enough to convince me there isn't much of a difference.

[Midge]

I usually just play with commentry as I cant be arsed to spend 10mins on a single game. The shots per game useless as it always has been and you dont play any better.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

LOL...okay, i'll just keep repeating this until people start to get it.

I'll run the same test as the guy two above.

Icelandic League, i'm HK in the First Division. I'll play a match with 2D view (2D), then reload, and paly the same match with Commentary Only (CO). I will post stats that are so arbitrary, that you can't call it a coincidence. I am using VMWare.

v. Selfoss:

I saved the memory state just before submitting the team.

2D: Score 4-2, shots 21-10, pass% 60-56, tackle% 71-68. Jesper Henriksen missed a penalty in the 34th minute.

CO: Score 4-2, shots 21-10, pass% 60-56, tackle% 71-68. Jesper Henriksen missed a penalty in the 34th minute.

Just to test further, i restarted again, played the whole first half, then changed the GK at halftime. Results:

2D: Score 2-1, shots 15-8, pass% 57-56, tackle% 70-70. GKs completed 3 and 4 passes, respectively.

CO: Score 2-1, shots 15-8, pass% 57-56, tackle% 70-70. Only goal scored after HT was by Gudmunsson in the 77th. GKs completed 3 and 4 passes, respectively.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm......of course, the sample size of my standard deviation (or whatever) is small, so it could be total rubbish

Next game, v. Þrottur:

Before i submit the team, i saved the memory state, then i swapped my left and right mids.

2D: Score 1-0, shots 10-4, pass% 61-59, tackle% 74-77. Jaya scored the only goal from his swapped Right Mid position in the 48th.

CO: Score 1-0, shots 10-4, pass% 61-59, tackle% 74-77. Jaya scored the only goal from his swapped Right Mid position in the 48th.

Now i reloaded again, this time i did not switch my left and right mids before submitting the team.

2D: Score 3-0, shots 14-6, pass% 72-62, tackle% 77-67. Jaya scored in the 68th this time, and Ngwenya scored twice in the first half.

CO: Score 3-0, shots 14-6, pass% 72-62, tackle% 77-67. Jaya scored in the 68th this time, and Ngwenya scored twice in the first half.

Need me to test anything else?

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Sorry, i should also mention that in the Selfoss match, Gudmunsson scored in the 77th in both modes. I left it out the first time.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Sorry, i made a mistake...the save state was created AFTER the team submissions.

It wouldn't make sense to save the state before team submissions, because the outcome of the game hasn't been decided yet, so the "random" factors still have a chance to change the outcome, until you hit submit.

Anyway, i'm actually in the middle of making a video of the test. I'll put it on YouTube if it's under 10 minutes.