gunnerfan

But you're still not reading the fact that i have played, over the last 2 days, 100 games to test this. At what point have i tested it enough??? </BLOCKQUOTE>

How many seasons did you test for each category (Commentary Only and 2-D)? What were the statistical variances within each group? How did they compare between the two groups? Was there any possibility for Co-variance? How did you control for the possibility that you might react differently playing one way than another? How did the game statistics vary within and between both groups? Did you utilize statistically valid methods for computing sampling error for each group?

Cudman - the sample population is way too small to be considered anything but purely anecodotal at this point. Given the fact that the basic premise - that the AI can recognize the team of the human player and change its actions accordingly - is one that has long been debunked by SI, I remain highly skeptical until and unless statistically demonstrated.

Wakers

Ow for god's sakes its hopey's buddy.

How many seasons? none. There would be no point doing a season test because there would be too many random events to account for.

This is the last time i am explaining what I have done.

I play the same block of ten games.

I first play with highlights on. I only make subs when I have to (injuries). I don't tweak the formation, opp instructions, team talks etc.

After each game, i look at the match stats and make a note.

Upon completion of these ten games, i then close FM, reload, play the same ten games without highlights. There, simple.

I have repeated this 5 times now. Thats 100 games.

Now why on earth do you need to go into sodding co variance? do you want me to use standard deviation on the shots/goals ratio between the two groups as well?

There is no need to go into all that detail, because just by glancing at the match stats there is CLEARLY something wrong here.

Your point about the AI is rubbish. Its not about the ai at all, its about the MATCH ENGINE.

The simple conclusion from my results are this:

Without highlights: There is only the odd game, in my case 3/4 games out of 50, where you have 25 shots only to be defeated by a singular, or a couple of shots on target from the opposition.

With highlights: it happened actually 24 times, not 25 as i said earlier. Which is almost 50% of games.

Its not up to me to go into great detail testing SI's game. I've done more than i should have had to already.

Its immensely irritating to have my ideas fobbed off by people who simply think "well that sounds silly, can't be true" and won't actually test it themselves.

My sample size is 100 matches ffs!

Bongo-Bongo

Why not post some screen shots to show the difference? At present, no evidence has actually been posted to suggest otherwise, and until it is, I don't think many are going to be convinced until some actuall evidence is posted to show the results and statistics.

Wakers

Posting screenshots won't help. This is why its important for people to test it themselves.

If i post a screenshot it doesn't prove that i've played it with or without highlights.

I need some other people to try doing this when they hit a patch in which they are having tons of shots but losing.

HoPeY

Ah erratic Wakers you do make me laugh.

Anyhow, If you don't back up your theory with evidence how can you expect others to see your theory or to infact belieive you. How do I or others know that you have just not simply made up your findings or parts of your findings and so on...

I have noticed no difference between using either, but I am not on the witch hunt to find a problem either tho.

If you can't back up your points with evidence then other people are right to disagree and dismiss your point of view. I have no doubt that you will attempt to fob of these questions. Perhaps you can go back to amusing shouting at the start of your posts?

Or better still just rage quit :thup:

I look forward to your findings with evidence to support it, otherwise I can't see the point in trying to debate with you. Your too wishy-washy in your posts &gt;.&lt;

Wakers

Like i've said - if i post screenshots, there's no way i can show in which way i played each match. Therefore i don't see any point in it because people will just say; "how do we know which method you used for these games".

thats why i'm urging people to try it for themselves.

HoPeY

I know, I know, at the moment I too don't know a way in which you can show your evidence. *puts thinking cap on* oh its broke &gt;.&lt;

CowRonaldo

Maybe it's NOT a coincedence.

Could it be that the 2D match engine produces more shots because we're watching it? (After all 10 shots a game isn't a very entertaining 2D match).

Where in the commentary less chances are created because you're reading it. Also there could be different goals because it describes it to you and doesn't have to show it on the engine.

Kriss

Not often such a laughable theory makes a two page thread

It's as realistic a theory as the old have to keep the mouse pointer in the commentary line one.

The ME does the same things whatever mode you watch (or don't watch) it in.

littlebeagle

Diana being murdered by the establishment is a much more laughable theory, currently millions of pounds of taxpayers money (mine included) is being spent to establish that she died as a result of a car crash as the driver was drunk.

I'd say this was a much more credible theory.