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 want to say to Chand - excellent post, and perfectly sums up what I've been trying to say in another thread and failed to get accross properly.
To Kiwi_Mark_LFC: well, I don't like using real-life examples for this sort of stuff, but let's take Chelsea-Tottenham last year. Chelsea should (and indeed did if you argue that their goal was wrongfully disallowed) have taken the lead confortably, but on the counter they let in a goal. For the rest of the game they were on the back foot and ended up losing 3-1.
Now, had they taken the lead, chances are they would have kept it. I don't know exactly what the stats were, but Chelsea lost 1 (or maybe even 0) games when they took the lead last year, but when they went behind I bet the stats are very different.
I'm willing to stick my neck out and argue that you weren't analysing the games properly if you think that the results are totally random. Besides which, if you play the same tactic throughout, the computer doesn't. Some games the AI will be able to find a way around you, sometimes it won't. Oh, like real life then...
Agreed. I've had fun with tactics and decided to see if it was possible that there was a large random factor. Played 7 games - Manchester United vs. Steaua Bucharest. Results range from 5-0 to 0-4 (fielding strongest possible team - no red cards or injuries). I use an offensive tactic (mentality of 16-18, depending on how I feel), and Steaua also used a mentality similar to that. Fairly irritating, to have a range of results within 9 goals.
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.
Exactly, Rashidi. I agree completely. But I just take it one step further.
Someone saying "I lost a game that by all accounts I should've won. Therefore, the game cheats" is hogwash. However, someone else saying (and forgive me for using your example, but it's a good one for what I'm trying to illustrate) "I missed a couple of key penalty kicks. Therefore, I should've had more pre-season training" is also hogwashy. Not because the idea of training, season or pre-season, affecting PKs is hogwash. But just because we don't know why those PKs were missed.
We can't point at one thing, be that thing success or failure, and happily attribute it to one or two factors we like or make some seonse without really knowing what happened.
That's one of the points I believe Luketi is making. If he replays the same match, with the same tactics and the same lineup, with the same weather, same pitch size, same referee, etc. That's controlling as much as we can control. When he does that, and he gets different results pretty much spread evenly and randomly, then it's the end of tactics a little bit. From a general perspective, randomness rules then. Not tactics. And if I adopted this 'chaos theory' of sorts, I could say that consistency passes more through being able to (or lucky enough to) hit the right results in the right sequence. Of course it's not completely random, because we know some variables and we know some things we can do to affect outcomes one way or another. But it's not that what we do eliminates randomness from the system.
And on the other side of this, just the same, arteta's experiment where he replayed the same game 27 times and lost each one also makes an important point. Either he's one of the unluckiest managers I've seen, or the game is able to inject some order into that randomness for its benefit. I'm not talking about cheating, I'm talking about overcompensating.
We can't deny that there are managers that come up with a system, are able to adapt it and achieve good consistency. We can't deny that there are managers for whom the system seems to keep throwing them lemons, or can't seem to get any tactic going (even when replicating 'proven' work from others). We can't deny there are people who just pick one or two, at most, of the standard tactics, pick up a starting XI, or let the assistant pick it, and off they go to win seasons.
Given all that, I think we're confusing cause and effect. All that just illustrates that we're dealing with an uncertain system, with lots of variables out of our control. Nothing more. Getting the lemon result doesn't prove the game cheats anymore than a successful season(s) proves the randomness was controlled and 'a way'(tm) was found.
What do you get when you cross an uncertain system with an utter lack of feedback? A theory forum.
I like the direction that this thread is heading in. Chandaman, I think you have so eloquently phrased what so many of us have been trying to communicate. Well written, mate.
In response to Wwfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by wwfan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>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. </BLOCKQUOTE>
I appreciate your reply, but all you are doing is emphasising that the AI has the upper hand at all times. You claim that I had my wings exposed by having my full backs get forward. I have been doing this all season. Why aren't I overpowering THEIR wings? Why should I have to react to the AI? I'm the dominant team and I'm playing at home. You have no proof to claim that Derby 'threw caution to the wind' just like there is no way you can 'guarantee' that had I selected the correct team-talk (how do you know I selected the wrong one anyway?) and changed my system that I would have comfortably seen out the game. I am not sure you can predict varying outcomes unless you have a time-machine. Even then, if perhaps you are correct, then how the bloody hell is this somehow linked to conceding 3 penalties? And why oh why did this happen on the very last day of the season when I needed a win for promotion? Furthermore, why did I lose a 2 goal lead to be dumped out of the play-offs against Leicester? I looked through my matches, and of all the games I had lost (only 5 in total), not once did a team come from behind to get a win.
Without feedback, nobody can claim that the 'tactical inadequacy' theory is correct. On the flip side, nobody can claim that the 'tactical inadequacy' is wrong. But from where I am standing, I see facts. I see these anomalies. Clearly, something is awry. The stats don't lie. The comebacks don't fit. The ludicrous fashion in which goals are conceded feels cheap.
Perhaps in my Sunderland V Derby match, the AI could not score, so it 'created' 3 penalties against me. This is the 'over-compensation' theory that I think Chandaman has discussed and I think it is the sole mechanism that is causing all the frustration. In my eyes, it absolutely exists.
And why oh why did this happen on the very last day of the season when I needed a win for promotion? Furthermore, why did I lose a 2 goal lead to be dumped out of the play-offs against Leicester?
Maybe that's because your players knew that if you get promotion, you would get rid of some of them because they are not good enough for premiership .
Seriously speaking, arteta, your example with penalties is ridiculous. What I noticed is that I usually earn either 2 penalties per game, or none. And this is ridiculous too, even though I benefit from it. So it could be some sort of a bug, i.e. penalty is a random event, but once it happens, it repeats every X minutes or so.
I almost agree with you Kol, but listen to my team:
Ben Foster
Greg Halford/Sun Jihai
Samba
Anthony Gardner (16 goals, no sh*t!)
Ross Wallace
Giles Barnes
Mark Noble (player of the year)
Gavin McCann
Matty Etherington
Helguson
Freddy Eastwood (top scorer)
Ghaly
Robbie Fowler
Hysen
Rommedhal
David Connolly
Graham Kavanagh
That's a mid-table Premiership team if I ever saw one!
Actually, I was joking about your players wish to stay in the Championship. I seriously doubt SI implemented such feature. And btw, you forgot to mention O'Brien and Collins - the men who caused you the problem. Did you let them go already? If so, they made a mistake if they thought they will stay in the Championship.
Anyway, somebody mentioned that most "anomalies" happen in English leagues. I tend to agree, as in Italy, Spain, and Russia if I lost, I almost always knew why. It could be that SI actually implemented "difficulty" levels with EPL on top. That is, to succeed in EPL you have to use all aspects (tactic, tweaking, media talks, player interaction, etc.), while playing at "easier" league you don't have to use them all. I remember playing Russian league was no fun because I won the league after first 15-20 matches repeatedly, and the only challenge was to win CL.
We can't point at one thing, be that thing success or failure, and happily attribute it to one or two factors we like or make some seonse without really knowing what happened.
That's one of the points I believe Luketi is making. If he replays the same match, with the same tactics and the same lineup, with the same weather, same pitch size, same referee, etc. That's controlling as much as we can control. When he does that, and he gets different results pretty much spread evenly and randomly, then it's the end of tactics a little bit. From a general perspective, randomness rules then. Not tactics. And if I adopted this 'chaos theory' of sorts, I could say that consistency passes more through being able to (or lucky enough to) hit the right results in the right sequence. Of course it's not completely random, because we know some variables and we know some things we can do to affect outcomes one way or another. But it's not that what we do eliminates randomness from the system.
Given all that, I think we're confusing cause and effect. All that just illustrates that we're dealing with an uncertain system, with lots of variables out of our control. Nothing more. Getting the lemon result doesn't prove the game cheats anymore than a successful season(s) proves the randomness was controlled and 'a way'(tm) was found.
What do you get when you cross an uncertain system with an utter lack of feedback? A theory forum.
That´s what I´ve been trying to illustrate with this thread. I think the game is uncertain since I play the same match and get so different results. My team is far superior, I used the same tactic and the results varied no matter who scored first, so stop trying to explain the differences via "but you scored first!".
Another thing: I DON´T EVEN EXPECT TO STICK TO A TACTIC FOR THE WHOLE MATCH/SEASON!! This was an e-x-p-e-r-i-m-e-n-t!! What I meant to show was: if my tactic stinks...well then I should loose a big percentage (say 80%) of matches, while if my tactic is great, I expect to win the same percentage.
I went a step further with this, and repeated the experiment but this time I only played for the first 20 minutes of each match (total: 15 times). The results weren´t that much different of course, but Getafe started winning 5 times, Betis (my team) opened the score first 3 times and the other 7 matches the score hadn´t been opened in those first 20 minutes. So, in the name of science: how can I conclude something from my tactic if the results vary in such way.
Things like possession and shots on target also varied from match to match, in my favour or against me, without any apparent reason.
So again: I think much more than ever that there is a huge random factor in this game, and the features available are useless to get the picture of what´s really happening/happened.
Linear Mode
