retired_lanebo

I am one of those who think that it`s almost impossible to figure out why do you succeed or fail playing this game.

I`ve had both success and failure playing this game. But the thing is that I could not state the reason of both states. The 2D match doesn`t tell everything, since it`s just a representation. The stats? Not even...

I`ve always thought that the game has a random factor that is HUGE. So I wondered for a while, and started an experiment. I selected two teams (Real Sociedad and Sevilla) and when they were up to play against each other, I saved the game.

My target: Play an "x" number of matches, both teams set to a 4-4-2 short farrows on wingers, everything (both team and individual instructions) set to "normal" or "mixed". Of course that I didn`t change anything during the match: no tweaks, no substitutions, etc.
Team talks managed by me, but always set to "none".

After a certain number of matches I would expect some kind of pattern, i.e. : which is the team that win most of matches, or dominate possession, or passes completed, etc.

The result was totally frustrating: I couldn`t obtain not a single pattern in any stat or result. Results varied totally from match to match, as well as possession, passes completed and action zones. This led me to think: How is it possible to realize what works and what doesn`t if there is no single piece of consistency?

I will be grateful to know your thoughts.

retired_warwick79

You touch on a very good point and one that I have pondered on significantly. I perceive this version of the game to be the most random one to date and feel too that there is no consistency with results. It's very difficult to decipher the causes of x or y since there is no clear feedback system. Do I succeed because of my tactics? Do I succeed because of my team-talks? Do I fail because I don't speak with the media? Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. I think the best thing to do is to forget FM07 ever existed in the knowledge that it was a blip on SI's almost flawless history and wait for 08 in the hope that it's improved dramatically. If the game is still as ambiguous and frustrating as this one then all I can say is that SI have taken a step in reverse.

retired_lanebo

One of the things that I concluded is that, given the fact that it`s very difficult to decipher the causes of success or failure, things work or doesn`t (tactically speaking) if I win or loose. But then I run an experiment where neither the result could be taken by a clue, since the result veries so randomly from match to match (playing with both teams set up exactly).

retired_lanebo

My target was: I want to find a tactical set up that raises significantly my chances of winning a match versus a certain team, with certain tactical set up. Well...that was impossible, since no one set up led me to a consistent performance or result!! How could it be possible? How could I decipher which is the best approach and which isn`t??

retired_danig6484

Okupa,

I've tried similar experiments, but with completely equal teams. I have found the pattern you would expect: Teams win more home than away, all else being equal (down to manager stats and every last bootlace).

But this is really superficial to the underlying questions of course. My thoughts on your experiment are twofold:

1. If teams are closely matched, and tactics are identical, you are essentially magnifying the 'random' element. As they say, "It could really go either way", and hey, it does. That so far is realistic.

2. Secondly, if you are looking for consistency of result, I do think you'll have to set the experiment up a bit differently to take into consideration #1.

Things to consider: Reactive tactical changes. The AI does it, so it would behoove the researcher to make similar changes, or just let the AI control 1 team (see Abromovic's thread for tips on how to watch both sides as well). Secondly, tilt the playing field so that it is uneven. It is only when the teams, tactics, or situation are fairly uneven that you can start expecting consistent results.

If you are looking to 'solve' a particular AI tactic you can set up a series of friendlies against that team and then give control back to the AI. If you want a really long period of time for friendlies, its possible to start the game many months before the 2006 season begins (load a country like Iceland and start with their start date of January 2006). If you then create 2 managers in a later-starting league you can arrange a half-season of friendlies just between the two teams.

Good luck.

retired_Cat1123

Still struggling away, so i did as Googen suggested and replayed a fixture to try to find my base away tactic.

All i found was that the opposition, who just happened to be Coventry and 4th from bottom in the Prem(we are 5th), scored in every single game with every shot they mustered on target.

I went through the whole range of tactics with this happening, so i thought i'd try a different tactic altogether and this was the result.



I know others have tried this experiment of replaying a certain game over and over again and it is usually dismissed out of hand, but i think its the most damning of all the evidence provided to prove this game is a complete and utter farce!.

This was something i posted on a different thread, but feel it belongs here.

Not sure how long this thread will stay open?, but i think as far as evidence as to the games inadequacies go, this one tells the biggest story.

I have tried sending the info to SI, but have NEVER had a reply before so why expect one now?.

retired_HAdvocate

Hammer1000: for sure there are settings that can beat that Coventry team. Just by looking at the match stats indicate that Coventry somehow have too much room to move in giving them high quality chances. If you put a minow team against a world class team of course it will take a miracle, but to say that there are games that are impossible to win isn't quite true (especially when you are the favorite). You are missing something somewhere but there's too little info to be exactly sure what it is to be precise.