retired_dego72

I can see why people would think that but that isn't the way it works. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you enlighten us as to where the problem lays then?

It would be useful as it might help people play around the issue as we know it doesnt happen to everybody.

retired_dego72

I agree with this completely. Although I've managed to create a tactic that doesn't suffer from this problem, and have realised that results are more important than number of shots (meaning I'm now enjoying the game as much as ever), I can completely understand why it is so misleading to people. As has been said it's very difficult to know what to do to improve a tactic when all the signs point to it being a good one already. If you're creating vast numbers of chances that look good but still losing, then how will you have any idea what you're supposed to do to stop losing?

So while the game is playable and enjoyable for many of us this issue makes the tactical side of the game very difficult and frustrating for many, which is why more tools are needed to help the user have the same level of understanding of the tactics that the AI managers seem to have. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on.

BTW what do you find gets around this issue?

retired_Kam_macca

I also agree with this and have been harping on this a lot lately. Tactics need a overhaul and need to be made more understandable instead of the cryptic way they currently react with the match engine.

I don't have the time or patience to watch every game with full highlights in an effort to try and work out what is going wrong. Even if I do manage to isolate a problem, trying to translate a solution through the sliders can be frustrating in itself.

Tactics and match analysis need to be made more accessable because the match engine is increasingly becoming more complex but the information and tools given to us are never improved. We are playing FM08 now, not CM4, it's no longer acceptable for this part of the game to be neglected.

firefighterhilf

I'm currently using a very balanced 4-1-2-2-1 formation with high creative freedom and stuff on the 2 AMC's. The tactic's neither particularly attcking or particularly defensive and seems to do the trick.

If I'm perfectly honest I can't really pinpoint the exact reason why my tactics don't result in a noticeable amount of missed one-on-one chances but if you'd like to take a look at it yourself more details can be found in this thread which includes a link to the tactic if wanted.

arman920

I can see why people would think that but that isn't the way it works. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you enlighten us as to where the problem lays then?

It would be useful as it might help people play around the issue as we know it doesnt happen to everybody. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry George, I wasn't offering a solution, just pointing out that they don't tune up keepers so that they effectively ensure the correct goal ratios occur.

Are you sitting comfortably?
Please read this, it will help explain why we are where we are with the ME.

In the beginning Fred Dev sat down with a whole list of changes and improvements he wanted to make for the FM08 version of the ME.

Fred doesn't just know the ME, he created it so he's not flying blind, however even he can't predict every consequence of every change he makes.

So he makes the calculated adjustments to.
Improve GK's closing down a striker.
Get strikers to try rounding the GK more often.
Get strikers trying more chips or lobs.
Change the effect of the proximity of defenders on strikers muffing a chance.
Reduce strikers taking long shots.

And more and more and more, because these are all things people have suggested needed improving from 07.

Now that is just one minute area of the ME touched in several different ways and the consequences in terms of match play can only at this stage be estimated.

Fred actually makes hundreds and hundreds of changes right down to adding different goal celebrations.

All of these changes have an effect on and are affected by the external factors such as match fitness, pre match morale, effect on morale of in match events, referee and assistant settings.
Rep and current form of the two teams.

The list is endless and the code changes run into thousands.

After many a long hour Fred declares the ME ready for it's first test.
This is a soak test and the ME is set to automatically play hundreds of matches so the end data can be analysed for accuracy.

A key stat is the number of goals per match and of course Fred has the real life figures, so at the end of the test if all those matches produce a goal average within a decimal point of the real life ones Fred can declare the changes a sucess can't he?

Well no he can't actually, because he has no idea how realistic the in match football which created those correct stats was played out.
The only way to be sure that the stats were created by a beautiful rendition of the beautiful game is for real people to play hundreds of matches and that's where beta testing comes in.

The problem with having real people judge the reality of Fred's efforts is that it takes a long time and as you see on this forum everyday peoples opinions tend to differ somewhat.

Accept that after a while Fred and the testers agree that there is certainly a problem with defenders closing down.
Fred makes a series of adjustments and a new copy of the ME goes to testers who start the testing process again.

We now discover that improving closing down has caused a big increase in fouls, more adjustment, another ME version issued, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Several ME's later the testers are only moaning a little about the match play so we must be close.
Time to run another soak test, this produces too many goals per game.
Oh hell! here we go again.

I hope this gives some people a clearer idea of how it works without appearing patronising.

So to sum up, keepers aren't set to control the score line, their performances are just a result of the settings in place, which also produced the correct goal count at the end of the soak tests.

I know that's very simplistic but I hope it helps clarify things.
It is of course a very layman type explanation and Paul C will probably beat me with a big stick, but genius sometimes has difficulty explaining it's superior rationale

retired_dego72

Cheers Kriss and Chopper for the replies- I'll give the 41221 a go, as I too play this formation but have an AMR/AML instead of AMCs.

retired_pamjoseph

As software developer, I understand you perfetly kriss and love your explanation. With ME there are not program errors, just values for everything, there are lots and lots and they are interconnected. For example, how many probabilities has DMC that is playing as RB, with low form, 77% fitness, 12 marking, 14 tackle, 11 bravery, etc to take the ball from a LW who has good form, 81% fitness, 16 dribbling, 12 pace, 14 acceleration, 15 technique, 9 balance... who has been running for 20 meters and dribbled 1 CM, and has space ahead to dribble and a ST to pass the ball? You can make your maths and say 43%!!! And ohhh, ME gives now a 45%!!! so ME has to be tweaked. What can we do? downgrade importance of winger's dribbling? or just his pace? maybe the importance of the form? isn't better to tweak the marking influence? have you said tackling? Well, let's say a couple of these things. And now DMC playing as RB has a 43% of chances of taking the ball. Brilliant
But what??? now a CD that tackles as ST has a 67% of taking the ball and with real life statistics it should have a 64%!!! Let's tweak the ME again.

This is one of the problems of creating a great ME as Fm has: there are lots of things involving everything, more than can we imagine. So please, be nice with soft developers. We try to do our best, but things are sometimes just TOO much complicated.

retired_dego72

Well I tried your tactic and won my first game with it 7-1 at home to bottom placed MKDons- my striker scored 5 of them!

After that it settled down to my usual drawing streaks but I put that down to me incorrectly praising my striker, and after I got a chance to criticise him I then beat the 4th placed team 4-1 away and drew unluckily to the top team 3-3.

What did I think was different?

Well imo my tactic created (imo) clearer chances than your one, but the 2 AMCs and the FC in your tactic would cut through defences like butter with their short passing- and I found it very pleasing to watch.

I found a lot of the goals were where the striker was able to pull shots across the keeper- whereas many of my efforts were very square on goal.

So although players in my tactic were unmarked the angle for shooting was less favourable than the ones created in your tactic.

Im also amazed that the AI isnt able to take advantage of the massive hole in midfield- they seem too preoccupied in marking the AMCs rather than exploiting the gaping hole, although to be fair thats probably the best Ive seen a DMC play in FM08.

firefighterhilf

I'm chuffed it's working for you. I agree that it's very difficult to understand why tactics are going wrong when you see good chances missed a lot. As you say, the chances in your tactic seem to be more clear cut than in mine and it's this that makes it difficult and frustrating for people as it's difficult to know what to change when things look like they're working. I'm just glad I've managed to create something that works.

But as you say the 2 AMC's and Striker combo seems to overwhelm the defence and create chances that seem to be well converted.