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.
Not being an SI fanboy as such, but honestly the "random factor" you speak of hardly affects me.
You're the only one then I think. Can we have a copy of your disc?
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.
WHAT? What the heck has pre-season training got to do with this? Once again, pure theory. There is no way you can state that losing on penalties in the final is a direct result of you lacking depth, forgetting pre-season training, or being an 'ass'.
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.
I don't know entirely what your point here is, but hopefully you read my last post regarding my Sunderland team. I never changed a thing all season and then last game, BANG! I could write another full post about the play-off semis, where the same thing basically happened, but I never saw the game. My brother told me it was a disgrace though. If you are somehow blaming my tactics, the ones that led me to the top of the league all season, then I think you are fundamentally mistaken. I can build tactics just fine. What I can't do is prevent the AI from winning when it wants. Nobody can.
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.
All hail King Rashidi. Sorry for the sarcasm here, mate, but your gloating astounds me. Apart from claiming you are a master tactician, you are also indicating that the people who have found flaws in the game are tactically inept. How I long for the day I reach that pedestal.
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
Then I beg you to explain my Sunderland match. Can you honestly hold your head up, look us in the eye, and tell us that losing to 3 penalties after a 2 goal lead at home, after completely dominating, is not monstrous? After you've explained that, pray tell how I once again lost a 2 goal lead against Leicester in the play-off semi-final. As far as I am concerned, the control I had was either an illusion, or at the very least, minimal.
Please, do not take my sarcasm as an insult, it's playful more than anything
I can only base my opinions on my own experiences, much like what you guys are doing. My experiences suggest that I'm not facing the same problems you guys are which leads me to believe that either I'm an extraordinarily lucky person, or I have some inside knowledge of the game.
Having played this game for such a long time I don't know why things are so much easier for me than it is for other people and I can't begin to lambast people for their apparent negativity. Things happen, and unless I'm privy to everything you do in a game I won't know what's causing the bad performances.
I have a friend who was facing the same problems that seem to be indicated by many of you, we sat together as he played FM and I kept asking him why he did things in the fashion he did, and then I started playing on his behalf and showing him a different style. It took a few days to get my message across and it worked.
There are people here who may have had success with their clubs taking them to immediate glory and then struggled in the following years. Some call it re-ranking and other stuff like that, and sometimes people change things around. This after all is a game, for some it can be quite frustrating, for others like me..I see the logic in the programming.
Having said that..I do agree with some of the points:
1. Set-pieces are horrid. I hate the way they are set up, and in a tight match I know I could concede goals simply because the AI is set up in such a way it could have an unmarked man to cross to. This has been brought up to SI and I am working hard to see that this does not happen in FM2008.
2. Set pieces play both ways too...if the AI can score easily from them so can I. The knife cuts both ways and I make sure that the AI gets as good as it gives.
3. Clashes in fixtures between South American friendlies and ECL, when my best players get called up to play some useless friendly. These affect my results.
4. Ludicrous AI substitutions, like yours for example when a centreforward is made to play as a centreback, why? I know I have done that the reverse actually in a 3 man strike force.
5. Training set-pieces so that players actually follow instructions
6. AI keepers who don't follow instructions and just hoof the ball when they are told to play the ball on the ground.
7. Closing down instructions, when players just stand around when they are told clearly to close down..the only way this can be adjusted is via the DLine
8. Opposition Instructions which do nothing for the game
The game has its flaws..these aren't random, SI know about these. I even logged some myself and still continue to. But does the game cheat? No. Are there flaws? Yes. Do these prevent you from winning consistently, maybe sometimes. But will this be enough to make you lose the title? Therein lies the dilemma..for me personally, the AI doesn't win when it wants to...it has certainly tried, and I have walked off with a draw when my apparent fool-proof way of playing has seen me just hammer someone 17 zero. There will be times when my results may not go the way I expect them too...but perhaps I do like this unpredictability...my nectarine could be your poison
But Rashidi, how can you explain my promotion failure? Of all of the games to this to happen, why now? You know what I mean? I was purely devastated yet calm. It just 'felt' like it was going to happen so I was prepared. FYI, I had not conceded more than 1 at home ALL season, Then this. I actually would prefer to stay in the Championship 1 more season to be honest, but I think it was somehow decided already that I was going to be...
Originally posted by arteta is god:
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.
That might have had something to do with it. I am winning but I become more offensive? Surely, grabbing the third goal is best done on the counter. If Derby become more aggressive in trying to get back into the match, leaving the wings exposed isn't going to do you any favours. Especially when you have it all to play for and they don't and can throw caution to the winds. Plus, you were unlucky. However, I can guarantee that had you made the right half-time teamtalk and the right tactical swithc (deeper, tighter, less forward runs, mnore timne-wasting) you would have comfortably seen out the game from a 2-0 half-time lead.
Originally posted by arteta is god:
But Rashidi, how can you explain my promotion failure? Of all of the games to this to happen, why now? You know what I mean? I was purely devastated yet calm. It just 'felt' like it was going to happen so I was prepared. FYI, I had not conceded more than 1 at home ALL season, Then this. I actually would prefer to stay in the Championship 1 more season to be honest, but I think it was somehow decided already that I was going to be...
I was on my way to my second quad..glowing with selfconfidence, we were hammering everyone left right and centre...I then stopped doing what i normally do which is to pay attention to small things. We drew against Forest on the final day of the season and lost to a lousy team in the ECL final. Did the game cheat. Could I have done something different. Definitely yes.
There are changes we can all do in a game to keep a lead safe. Hammer had a 4 goal lead in one game and then lost the next leg playing the same way..which was like an allout attacking tactic, could he have done something different. Yes. I drew against Forest when I should never have found myself in that position, could I have done something different, yeah.
The beauty of this game is that you always need to think about what to do next. In 03/04, the game got so unchallenging I was wellknown for letting my assman finish a season off by taking a holiday in DECEMBER! I can't do that now.
I'm glad the game has improved I'm not so glad that the manual hasn't
Camp A points at fact X and decrees, with the evidence available to them, that the game is at fault.
Camp B points at fact Y and decrees, with the evidence available to them, that the human manager is at fault.
The problem we're having is that both camps believe, for good or bad, that their fact overrides the other camp's. Or worst, that fact X = fact Y.
You know what I've come to understand recently? Both are right. Both camps are right. Those of us who put the responsibility on the human managers are correct when they say, paraphrasing, "it's your tactic", or "there's something you missed". Because... I think they're right. In many, many cases that's right. Simply because there are a lot of things to miss, and most of us by far still don't have a complete, solid understanding of the tactics we build and how they work. We might know them. We might use them a lot. We might know how to adapt them, but as long as we don't know how the system behind those tactics makes them tick, we won't be able to predict how they'd work 100%. We can't.
We're trying to get absolute conclusions via repeatability, conducting experiments on a system that's uncertain by design. That's just poor science. Of course we'll get different results every time. Until we get a controlled environment in which we can isolate single tactical elements to try again, again and again, to see how they work by themselves and not affected by anything else, with all variables removed, we won't be able to predict anything.
So yes, it could very well be that it really is your tactic. And there really are things you're missing.
On the other side of the coin, there are those of us that have our suspicions. The way teams seem to perform, underperform or overperform, depending. The seemingly common ability of the game to throw lemon games at the human player at crucial junctures. The illogical or ridiculous results. The lack of consistency. All that. It all adds to the image of something going on under the hood, which is difficult to pinpoint with exactitude, but many times easy to observe generally.
And I think that mindset is correct as well, just as the other is. I don't think one must cancel the other. I don't think these are either/or propositions. I think it's perfectly possible for both 'it's your tactic' and 'it's the game' to coexist, and act upon things at the same time.
The reason I think it's possible is the game's own uncertainty. I'm not going to say that we don't know anything for certain. However, I'll say that there's a lot we don't know about how this things operates. The fact that some people are experiencing ridiculous results, or runs they can't explain doesn't mean that there can't be more successful managers that achieve more consistency for whatever reason. And likewise, just because these managers exist I don't think that's sufficient reason to rule out the existence of a few nasty things under the hood of this thing.
The problem is that we don't know. We can tell our players to do things. Sometimes they do them, sometimes it's not so evident, and sometimes, for some reason, they don't. We can see the opposition, and how they play, and try to adjust. Sometimes it works, and sometimes the same plan doesn't work. We don't know exactly why. We have our guesses as to why, of course. We have some stats. We have some theory. We have tactics that work better than others at some situations. But we don't have knowledge.
If we want to approach this more or less scientifically, then you pretty much need to go by the scientific method. You formulate a hypothesis, you test it, and you observe the results.
We got the hypothesis part down pat. The tactical forum is chock full of theory. We also have the testing going just fine. Either we test as we play, or we set up scenarios in which we test something or other. What we're not getting are results. Or rather, what's throwing us off is that we're getting different results. Sure, if we're industrious we can start chopping and trimming at the options, testing, reducing some more, testing, until we get things so distilled that we have some idea of what's going on, and what happens to it on every run. The problem is that we still don't get coherent results. These experiments cannot be faithfully and properly replicated, because we cannot eliminate all the variables. Depending on what we're testing, sometimes we get similar results. We see the patterns. And from those patterns, we come up with solutions (ex. press them if they play possession, etc.). But some other times, the uncertainty and the variables affect the experiment so much that we can't get honest results. We get different results, and we don't know which variable is affecting it. We can't isolate anything.
That's what I think. Me? Personally? After playing this damn game since CM Italia, and reading stuff about it over and over again, it's gonna be what... 15 years of it soon? After all that? After having some tactics work very well, and some others poorly, by myself and others, I can sum it up as this:
I can make or play tactics that work well, but I don't know 100% why.
I can make or play tactics that don't work well, but I don't know 100% why.
I don't think the game cheats, but I'm quite convinced it overcompensates many times.
I don't think player stats matter as much as we think, which is unfortunate.
I (still) don't think I can visually tell the difference between short and direct passing.
I (still) don't know how often is often, and how rarely is rarely. I don't know how attacking is attacking, or how defending is defending.
That's about it. I don't think the game is as rigged as some of us maintain. However, I don't think it's as cut and dried, do A and B will happen, as some of us also maintain. The fluke or suspect result can coexist with the consistent campaign, and none of them can prove anything against the other.
The problem is, quite simply, that we are dealing with a system that's uncertain by design. Pointing at an uncertain system and saying, unequivocally, that it cheats is wrong, because we don't know it. And likewise, pointing at an uncertain system and saying we are achieving success and consistency because of items X, Y and Z is also wrong, because we don't know it. I could be items A, B and C instead, for all we know.
I'd kill for a controlled environment in which to test tactics.
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.
a reasonable theory...
but completely wrong...
for many reasons...
if you have the superior team and tactic its irrelevent if the opposition score a goal...at the very least u will be able to earn a draw - but in most cases u will get a win....this does not happen in fm07...
thus if your tactic is superior and you play the game n times you should expect to win 80-90% of the time...if your tactic is crap you should expect to lost 80-90% of the time...
i have done the same experiments and got the same results...and the results have varied regardless of who scored first...which means that randomness is influcencing the game far too much...
Originally posted by rashidi1:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Luketi:
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 </BLOCKQUOTE>
just because u cant see it doesnt means its not there...
u just lack the knowledge to see it...
there is nothing wrong with my tactics...they work...there is nothing wrong with my players...they are all class...but incredibly unbelievable events occur within this game that cannot be explained by anything else other than undue random influence...
That's about it. I don't think the game is as rigged as some of us maintain. However, I don't think it's as cut and dried, do A and B will happen, as some of us also maintain. The fluke or suspect result can coexist with the consistent campaign, and none of them can prove anything against the other.
And likewise, pointing at an uncertain system and saying we are achieving success and consistency because of items X, Y and Z is also wrong, because we don't know it. I could be items A, B and C instead, for all we know.
I'd kill for a controlled environment in which to test tactics.
Knowledge is always a sum total, some of us may get things right most of the time, and some of us may not. I don't pretend to know everything about the game, which is why I can accept some "randomness" for want of a better word.
My position in all of this has been the same since day 1, in the absence of all the facts, one cannot unequivocally suggest that the game is rigged. Accept it for what it is a great game with some flaws that do not affect its playability out of the box. If there are people who can enjoy success with the game, can't they co-exist with those who aren't in some utopic universe?
Johnny Optimist: "Have you used team talks?" Eddie Negativity: "No, I can't be arsed." Johnny Optimist: "Why?" Eddie Negativity: "Because its useless..I leave it to my assman" Johnny Optimist:"You need to learn how to use it, see I got them fired up for the biggest game and they came back from 2 down to win the game." Eddie Negativity:"Ok I'll try"
2 days later..
Eddie Negativity:"Its a bunch of hogwash..I can't seem to get it right" Johnny Optimist: " Have you been giving individual team talks." Eddie: "..yeah but hell its still giving me the same result" Johnny Optimist: "You need to spend some time, understand your players.." Eddie: "I know my players they are all world class"
Actually I wanted to carry on with this little script...but at the end of the day there will always be 2camps...a group that finds it easy and another that finds its randomness something they can't accept. The absence of certainty within the game doesn't help, but to say that this is a sign that the AI cheats is hogwash.
Linear Mode
