If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
I don't think these repeat game experiments prove anything at all since there are many variables before the save which may the cause of success/victory.
However you have a point. Whilst it is often obvious if you are dominating the game and playing well, it is not so obvious if you are not playing so well (and sometimes the stats may decieve one into thinking the opposite). This is particularly true if you have variable results andare trying to establish consistancy. Once again it is a flaw of the games feedback system, something we are all clamouring for, so sort it out SI.
Originally posted by moggydave:
I don't think these repeat game experiments prove anything at all since there are many variables before the save which may the cause of success/victory.
However you have a point. Whilst it is often obvious if you are dominating the game and playing well, it is not so obvious if you are not playing so well (and sometimes the stats may decieve one into thinking the opposite). This is particularly true if you have variable results andare trying to establish consistancy. Once again it is a flaw of the games feedback system, something we are all clamouring for, so sort it out SI.
That`s what I mean, there is a lot of times where the player has no single way to realize why the tactic isn`t working. The stats don`t seem to has a consequence on the result, there are no reports after the match, so we are in dark many times.
The team then hold on because the opposition are coming at you but can't break you down. 1-0 win.
Say you let in a goal playing a defensive tactic.
The other team back off and you won't break them down since you're not trying hard enough.
End result, 0-1.
That's on the most simple level. Goals really do change matches and change the way the AI plays, so it's not that surprising that results vary so wildly.
Originally posted by kolobok:
<BLOCKQUOTE>What I`m trying to say is: How on eartth could we prove what works and what doesn`t if the isn`t a minimun pattern? I have many examples from my test, here`s one: I had games where (in the first 20 minutes) Getafe had 35% of crosses completed, and the next game they had 8% of crosses completed. So, how can I conclude if a tactic is capable of neutralize oposition tactics if there is no proof of what works and what doesn`t?
Luketi,
Let's do simple math here. 8% of crosses completed means Getafe tried it at least 12-13 times during first 20 minutes. 35% of crosses completed means that they tried it 13 times. In the first case they completed only 1 cross (lucky for you), in the second case 5. But in both cases you allowed their players to cross way to often and the fact that 3 more were intercepted does not make a big difference here - your flanks are exposed, though your DCs and GK do a decent job intercepting crosses. But you don't expect them intercept every single one, do you? Applying your theory "A neutralizes B...80% of the times", and thinking that your DCs better than Getafe STs in the air, but the difference is not too big (so 70% instead of 80%) => you see exactly what you would expect. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Kolobok,
Let`s do simple math. 0% crosses would mean 0 cross tried as well as 238, since we don`t even know how many crosses were tried by the oposition. So, how can I conclude that the problem are the crosses reading the stats?
what you need to do is to change your tactics acording to current situation in the game (like many people have already said). e.g if the opposition score and switch to defensive tactics, you have to switch to much more attacking tactics-its not rocket science.
Let`s do simple math. 0% crosses would mean 0 cross tried as well as 238, since we don`t even know how many crosses were tried by the oposition. So, how can I conclude that the problem are the crosses reading the stats?
Luketi,
I have always said that we need number of crosses as part of stats. In your Getafe example numbers are more or less unique, so it's easy to calculate. 33% may mean 1 out of 3, 2 out of 6 etc. If you see 0%, crosses are not a problem . Anyway, what I was trying to say that sometimes it's relatively easy to identify potential problem, sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes impossible. My conclusion: with better feedback system many of "anomalies" could be easily explained, so let's hope the next version will give us such feedback.
Originally posted by Millie:
Say you score playing with a defensive tactic.
The team then hold on because the opposition are coming at you but can't break you down. 1-0 win.
Say you let in a goal playing a defensive tactic.
The other team back off and you won't break them down since you're not trying hard enough.
End result, 0-1.
That's on the most simple level. Goals really do change matches and change the way the AI plays, so it's not that surprising that results vary so wildly.
ok ive come accross this and i have tried:
A: ultra attacking! nothing happened and the clock ran down to final whistle!
B: i tried counter attack to try and get to opposition to come out more and expose themselves! nothing happened and the clock ran down to final whistle!
C: i made subs and changed things around a little! nothing happened and the clock ran down to final whistle!
D: i change nothing in the hope that my superior team would turn it round on the end! nothing happened and the clock ran down to final whistle!
Finally my question is: How can we conclude that a tactic is good or bad if the random factor seems to play a great percentage of the result??
Not being an SI fanboy as such, but honestly the "random factor" you speak of hardly affects me. I have massive winning streaks, last season I was neck and neck with United going into the last game of the season we had to beat cellar dwellers and relegation bound Forest, we went on and all out attack against them, possession was 65%, we had something like 30 shots and they just hung on bruised and battered for a point. It was a great performance, but looking at my own team I was disappointed because the match flow they are so used to seeing wasn't there.
We then went to lose on penalities in the champions league final. So would I have called that a random factor...actually I was an ass the whole season, I should have had greater squad depth, I should have had preseason training.
Do I change my tactics and switch from a massively successful home to a slew of other tactics cos I am on a winless run? Nope. Is the random factor in the game so badly skewed. No. Are people generally stubborn and unwilling to accept that they could be fundamentally mistaken about how to build tactics. Most definitely yes.
If you see the best tacticians in the game all come out and complain, then there is something wrong with the game. In all cases, the best tacticians are all saying that the only way you're going to perform badly in this game is not because of some random factor...its because of YOU.
If the random factor was "huge" then I would have "huge" variances in my game. I can pull out 12 seasons of results and they all prove that the monstrous random factor you speak off doesn't exist
I posted this earlier, but it seems nobody has read it. I think this fits perfectly in with this post. Please take a read.
This morning I went over to my brother's to finish off our season. I am Sunderland, and it was a 3-horse race for the title. Reading, Sheff Utd, and me were all joint top on exactly the same points. I was top on goal difference by a mile. Best defensive record in the league. It's the final game of the season and a win will guarantee me automatic promotion.
Home to Derby who are 10th and can NOT make the playoffs:
I started with my trusty home formation, a moderately attacking 4-4-2. I've played this home and away ALL season long. The only tweak I have made are having my full-backs on rare forward runs when I take the lead.
It's worth noting at this point that Derby started the match with Steve Howard playing centre back. Ive had him at Derby and he's a goal machine. Strange.
5 minutes—Andy O'Brien plays a 30 yard ball over the stumbling Howard. He completely misses it and Freddy Eastwood is in. 1-0 Sunderland.
43 minutes—Freddy Eastwood takes the ball to the byline (as per my instructions) and pulls a glorious ball back to my new signing, Helguson. Header. Goal. 2-0 Sunderland.
Half-Time
Sunderland 2 Derby 0
Possession: 60% v 40% (accurate depiction. Killing them.
Shots/shots on target: 10/5 v 1/0
47 minutes—Nyatanga whips a cross in from the left for Derby. A Derby striker crumples in the box. Penalty. O'Brien brings him down. Up steps Steve Howard (still playing centre back) Goal! 2-1.
Ok, no worries, it's just a goal. We can still push on here. At this point I change my full backs to forward runs again to sneak another goal. We are in full control and the highlights are flowing. I pepper the goal.
68 minutes—This time a Derby winger plays a ball in from the left, and once again their striker crumples like an Italian. Penalty! O'Brien again. After the first penalty, I had set all of my centre backs to easy tackling, they usually play on normal. Up steps Steve Howard from centre back. Goal! 2-2. What an amazing comeback. I take off O'Brien for James Collins.
We still dominate. Other than these two 'incidents' there has been nothing of note for Derby.
92 minute—James Collins whom I brought on for O'Brien 'dallies' on the ball. It's the 92nd minute and my time wasting is set to a minimum. Why would he dally when I'm fighting for promotion? The Derby striker is clean through when along comes Anthony Gardner from nowhere to scythe down Lionel Ainsworth in the box. Penalty! AGAIN! and a red-card for Gardner's troubles. Up steps the veteran striker, Howard, whom is still playing centre back and who is so good that we actually can't score against him in the 2nd half. Goal! A penalty hat-trick for Howard. Reading and Sheff Utd, of course, both win, and I am left in 3rd place to fight through the play-offs. I'm not even going to replay the match. In fact, my brother just called me (I let him carry on after I left for work) and I lost to Leicester in the play-offs semi-fina. I won the first-leg 2-0 he said, and lost the second 3-2. What's one to do? I love playing the game, but this is really a step too far...
Final Stats
Sunderland 2 Derby 3
Possession: 62% v 38
Shots/Shots on target: 21/12 v 4/2 (I would have thought that a penalty is a shot on target?)
I would love SI to explain this one. I can hear it now. Well the pressure was off Derby. what about the three penalties? Oh your centre backs couldn't handle the pressure. But I took O'Brien off. Yes, but Collins was scared to take his place. Blah blah blah...
. Anyway, what I was trying to say that sometimes it's relatively easy to identify potential problem, sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes impossible. My conclusion: with better feedback system many of "anomalies" could be easily explained, so let's hope the next version will give us such feedback.
Linear Mode
