retired_rayrhi

I tried it, Millie, and I noticed that my team played a lot more inconsistently since I went back to manual talks. Good luck with it, but I just don't see the benefits of it. Didn't win in three, reverted back to ass-man talks and beat high-flying Swansea away 2-0 then went on a 7 match unbeaten run to the top of the table with my Tranmere team. Not only that, the feedback was mainly reporting that players weren't listening. It's really a poorly executed module.

retired_mgavlick

Thought I would repost my last response to Arteta as it is relevant to the current discussion and was totally ignored, located as it was at the end of page one:


Arteta: You are still shying away from the ridiculous events that occurred. The fact is, I am dealing in fact, and you are still dealing in theory. Even Paul C's explanation is not sufficient to explain it. Why am I dealing in fact? Well, because the stats don't lie. It's commonly agreed now that the AI enjoys a higher goals/shots on target ratio. To me, this is enough to prove that the game over-compensates. This is where my argument ends. Hammer, me, and many others have shown numerous screenshots. Even Millie admits that it happens. I am not trying to prove anything other than this. To me, this is proof enough. To you optimists, it's down to human error. This is where we disagree and probably always will. When formulate it like this:

Tactical Ineptitude is directly correlated with the AI enjoying fewer shots on target but with more goals than the human user

it sounds ever more ridiculous. And this is actually the argument against mine, Hammer's and co.

My argument goes along the lines of:
The AI has a significantly higher goals/shots on target ratio than the human user. We have numerous postings of evidence to prove this.[/B]

Your argument fails because there is no feedback system and no fact. It is all theory. You can't really hide from the fact that these anomalies occur. Hammer, Chandaman, myself, and even Millie will tell you this to be true.


wwfan: But I don't. Having overachieved heavily in my first three seasons of FM I had to play a season in the Premiership with 2,000-1 odds to win the league. My board gave me no money to buy players. I came 14th and consistently out performed the AI in goals/shots ratios. the only reason you see it as an AI problem is because you haven't played a season managing a seriously outclassed side. Any team, be it AI or user, can outperform the other in goals/shots ratio by playing solid defensive tactics and scoring on the break. When I did it it was a job well done in my book. Yet, if the AI does it, it's cheating?


Arteta: My argument here would be that you have never been in a position in which the AI can't match you. The statistical anomaly seems to happen mainly to those players who clearly dominate matches. Seemingly, a user tactic becomes so 'overwhelming' for the AI that it introduces the 'over-compensation' tool in order to match-up to the dominant human user. I have found that I can lead a lower team to instant success in a season or two. It's only when I have a dominant team that significantly dominates possession and enjoys a large number of shots do I witness '1 shot 1 goal syndrome.' Yes this is a theory, but it fits in with my observations perfectly. I feel that this is how 'super tactics' have been nullified.


wwfan: But I have been. I have won the title 7 years on the trot with barely a blip. Most of my losses (no more than 4 league defeats in any season) have come against local rivals or top sides. I always win at home to bottom ten sides and nearly always win away. The most they get is a lucky draw. Equally, I don't concede many goals, circa 0.4-0.6 per game depending on season. The AI can't have that much of an advantage if I can keep my defence that tight.

Thus, my theory of you having developed a tactic that outwits the attacking AI (easy) but fails to outwit the defensive one (much harder) equally holds water. That would fit with your observations, and also with mine, as I did struggle in my first few matches managing a top team before I changed my tactics to counter the ultra-defensive systems I was playing against. Rule of thumb: spread the play, more creative freedom, more forward runs, more through balls.

retired_rayrhi

I think that your argument is sound if we can both agree that the AI gets those 'jammy' goals simply because it plays ultra-defensive and scores om the counter. If this is the case, then:

a. How did you discover that the AI plays super-defensive? Unless you are referring to the dreaded 5-4-1 it reverts to, observing the match engine reveals little.

b. The defensive counter attacking system is extremely effectively when used by the AI and can be used equally by teams of differing abilities. This would indeed explain '1 shot one goal syndrome.'

By default, at home, I play a very wide adaption of the 4-4-2 (anchor man and 2 wing forwards) with a fair amount of creative freedom in the right positions. I play a very slow, short passing game, which I adapted after my Man Utd v Chelsea experiment. I often dominate possession 65% v 35%. I press the opposition, and I have my full-backs getting forward whenever the situation arises and depending on their pace, crossing, stamina, and work rate. My point, is that I do use an attacking system that does dominate games significantly, and it does agree with your suggestions for opening up a defensive system. Now, it could be said that I am left wide open for the counter when my full backs are rushing forward, but then again if I play more conservatively, it could be said that I am not penetrating enough and matches could end 0-0. It's a catch 22 situation. Thus, it could be said that the AI always has the upper hand. If I am at home and playing against a weaker opposition, then it is not entirely fair that I should constantly be tweaking to keep up with the AI. Football is not chess-like in nature. 'It's just not football' that I aim to counter the computer's counter. Imagine Alex Ferguson thinking: "I can not attack Watford in case they counter me."

The game of football is a dynamic game by nature, but it is not a game of continuous 'out-foxing' between two rival managers. It is the players that take care of matches, not the managers. This element was the main factor behind the success and playability of the previous versions, as easy as the games became. Unfortunately, FM seems to have forgotten this aspect of football and has lost itself in a complex void of tactical intricacy, outside variables, lack of feedback, and randomness. Currently, I can't tell the difference between Steven Gerrard and a central midfielder from the Vauxhall Conference. I wouldn't mind so much, but the tactical system doesn't even allow you to micro-control your players in its current state due to broad and ambiguous slider settings, so it's not all that complex once you peer in. In fact, I would venture to diagnose that the slider system is quite limiting. I say bring the players back. I don't need to break the bank to sign Kaka anymore when I can find a guy such as Robert Koren from West Brom who is just as effective. Let's have the game rely on player ability and let's give the players some personality. I want to see Steven Gerrard driving forward from box to box, hitting long range pile drivers from distance. I don't want to see some muppet hit his only 30 yard strike ever against me in the dying seconds after a silly foul just because I am playing a notch too narrow, and because my full back's creative freedom is a notch too high.

retired_jacque90

Maybe one of the things at the root of the problem could be that the AI would tend to be generally very good at the defensive counter? Better than one would expect, given some teams' qualities?

I don't think that would explain the 'one shot, one goal' syndrome, because as far as my experience goes, whenever I was on the other end of the syndrome, that 'one goal' came in a variety of ways. Sometimes, at first, yeah. With a lot of tactics I was attempting to play so wide that my back four were just too loose to contain a quick counter. But once that was solved, that 'one goal' kept coming in other ways. Free kicks, PKs, corner kicks, silly backpasses, etc.

Personally I think the AI reverting by default to a 5-4-1 (or similar) regardless of the team is as silly as when it reverts to the 4-2-4 on the other end, regardless of the team. I don't know if the AI generally has these 'failsafe' tactics it switches to, but something like that is plain to observe. Not every team defends the same. Not every team attacks the same. If it's just a matter of piling people on attack or defense, then what's the point?

In other words, why does it seem that we're told (rightly so) to spend time with our tactics, adapt them to the kind of players we have, pay attention to individual instructions, make sure it makes sense and we don't give contradicting instructions, etc.... when the AI just seems to always either switch to a 4-2-4 or a 5-4-1 as needed, regardless of the team, regardless of players, regardless of manager, etc.

I don't dispute that the basic tactic idea is sound: When you need a goal, put people on attack. When you need to defend a result, put people on defense. But not every team should do it the same. Not every team should be able to properly execute a 4-2-4 or a 5-4-1. Not every team has the right players to play on the counter effectively. Not every team has managers that would go for that and never try something else.

Right now it's pretty much clockwork that if you're leading the AI, at some point 20-25 minutes into the second half you're gonna be dealt a 4-2-4. That's pretty much a given, I think, and it's accepted. Would it be so far fetched then to think that the AI plays the defensive counter perhaps much better than some AI teams should?

retired_rayrhi

Great point, Chand. I agree that at the minute, AI tactics override ALL. Herein lies the problem methinks.

retired_mgavlick

The AI's defensive strategy is easy to pick. One: no farrows. Two: heavy closing down. If you spread your play (wide and deep) it pulls the AI players out of position and opens up attacking space. Slow tempo guarantees possession. If you are not utilising as much of the pitch as you can, the AI will frustrate you and hit you on the break.

You are misreading my tactical thinking. At home I play the same way, every match, no matter the opposition. The AI has to adapt to me. If it has and I am only leading by a goal with 15 mins to go, I adapt my tactics to protect the lead. That is not countering the AI, it is adapting to the match situation. For away games I may choose to counter opposition strategies or I may choose to attack from the outset. It depends entirely on the callibre of the opposition.

Questions:

You press the opposition: to what degree?

How do you set tackling?

Width settings?

D-line settings?

Through ball settings: who and how much?

Free roles: who?

Creative Freedom: who and how much?

Off-side?

Counter-attack?

Forward runs: who and how often?


I have ideas as to how these should be best set, which I think are in conjunction with real-life football and not totally lacking in logic. However, I'd like to see your settings and argument for such settings before debating any further. I await your response.

JeffRogers

:thup:

JeffRogers

the above is to artetas post!

but to answer wwfans post, i'll tell you what i have:

press opp; i press always (at least 15) throughout my team except for my CBs who are mixed around 10ish!

tackling; i have set to normal except for my CBs and my STs!

width; 10 as is dline!

through balls is set to mixed for whole team!

no free roles!

CF for wingers AMC and STs the rest little or none!

offside; no

counter; no

FRs; wingers STs and AMC!

i am intrigued to see what you think wwfan as i have gone down the route you suggest! going narrow, maybe defensive and countering to protect a lead! yet an AI of any given team, be it arse or halifax can summarily dispose of my team at any given time no matter what i choose to do!

retired_mgavlick

Originally posted by bob:

press opp; i press always (at least 15) throughout my team except for my CBs who are mixed around 10ish!

tackling; i have set to normal except for my CBs and my STs!

These are two related. Hevy pressing with an attacking mentality requires hard tackling. You will look to win the ball high up the pitch, so it won't matter if you foula s the resulting free kick will be easy to defend. If you do win the ball though you will immediately pressurise the opposition defence and find it easier to exploit holes as they try to get back into position. I would do both with a top side at home.

width; 10 as is dline!

Open space. No wonder you can't break the opposition down. A good, controlling, home tactic should have close to maximum width and a deep d-line. That way the opposition has to chase you all over the pitch to get the ball. This a) opens attacking space & b) tires them out so you can exploit tired legs in the last 15 mins. I have lost count of games I have won with one or two late goals as the opposition simply runs out of energy ands starts making mistakes.

through balls is set to mixed for whole team!

Often for whole team. In conjunction with high FWRs for wide players, mixed/often for midfielders, having everybody on often will have them all looking to feed ball into space in front of players, rather than just passing to feet. This allows for much more free-flowing football. Don't percieve through balls as a ball past the opposition's d-line, rather than a ball played ahead of anyone in space. The more players look for it, the more the attacking opportunities.

no free roles!

Free roles are vital for a top side. They allow players to pull opponents out of position which opens up exploitable space. I would suggest at least two (prefer three) for a top four team.

CF for wingers AMC and STs the rest little or none!

Fine

offside; no

Fine

counter; no

Fine

FRs; wingers STs and AMC!

You need to have your full backs getting forward regularly if you are a top side playing at home. Equally, having both strikers with FWRs often doesn't help as newither will ever drop deep and perform the link role. You can choose mixed for both, rarely/often or rarely/mixed, but both on oftewn will jusut lead to disjointed patterns and offsides. An AMC can also get isolated with FWRs often. I would suggest allowing him the opportunity to drop deeper (mixed/rarely)

Furthermore, to totally exploit space focus passing down flanks. It keeps the ball alive and aids possession. It also encourages the FBs to overlap. Equally, loose, zonal marking helps create space. Finally, don't time waste!!


i am intrigued to see what you think wwfan as i have gone down the route you suggest! going narrow, maybe defensive and countering to protect a lead! yet an AI of any given team, be it arse or halifax can summarily dispose of my team at any given time no matter what i choose to do!

Obviously, to defend you do roughly the opposite. Narrow width, high d-line in relation to mentality i.e. an attacking tactic for top sides will have a mentality of circa 17 with a d-line of 5-8, for less good sides who need to press 14 with a d-line of 14-16, for a defensive system mentality 6, d-line 5-7, easy tackling, tight marking, counter-attack, no free roles (maybe one for an FC), rare TTBs, few FWRs, high time-wasting.

retired_ccase315

I am curious about this part. If everyone is set on often, wouldn't the team have more misplaced passes? Especially central defenders as their passing attribute are the poorest of the team?

And if an opposition plays a deep d-line, wouldn't it make it easier for them intercept all your through balls?