Luck - does it play too big a part in tactic success?

retired_elpata · 11-09-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln Imp2:
rashidi1....again I agree with you. There are many complexities and the game is tough.
But that simply does not explain away my point.
Take the Newcastle v Loc Moscow scenario.
The tactics were EXACTLY the same, the team picked was EXACTLY the same, the team talk was EXACTLY the same and the opposition was EXACTLY the same.
In a scientific experiment these would be called the control factors...they are the elements of the scenario which remain unchanged.
yet the game played several times throws up a crazy number of different outcomes.
yet in real life football the random element only plays a small part (big teams will nearly always beat small teams as the EPL shows).
I think the game seems to have over-exaggerated the random effects.

Just because you use same tactics, same team talks etc doesn't mean the outcome will be the same. You will have a different amount of tackles, shots, possession. Players can have good/bad days, also remember Morale changes at half time.

If your team talk at half time was same as you used in other games, then this could be a factor, seeing as the score etc and performance will be very different. Its not as black and white as you first think when you leave some elements same. Mistakes, weather etc all happen and change.

As for the big clubs always beat the lower ones, partly true but it doesn't guarantee you a win. Look at Spurs, Villa, WestHam etc, all got results against the bigger teams.

You cannot compare real life elements of winning games etc to a video game. How many times have Liverpool got a good result this season in Europe, only to loose the following Saturday? Consistency in real world football is hard to come by unless you are the top 3 of each league imo.

You being a football manager is over exagerrated

retired_elpata · 11-09-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln Imp2:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by rashidi1:
At least this aint one of the other versions, when the engine got licked a month after the demo, 3 months later people were complaining the game was too easy.

The conspiracy theorists may feel that the programmers have coded in some huge random factor to prevent this very thing happening!!
Let's be honest IRL Chelsea buy all the best players because they have a huge budget and frankly, it doesn't matter that much what tactic they play they win because they are better, man-for-man, than most teams.
FM07 doesn't seem to work quite that way!! </BLOCKQUOTE>

And thank god its not, or we would end up with CM days again. Having a team is 1 thing, but you need the right tactics too. If it was just a case of buying the best players on FM, then the game would be utter **** and no fun to play. It would be easy mode.

retired_sojinha · 11-09-2006, 06:39 PM

Cleon....hmmmm...not sure you're following my argument here.
You say: "Just because you use same tactics, same team talks etc doesn't mean the outcome will be the same. You will have a different amount of tackles, shots, possession. Players can have good/bad days, also remember Morale changes at half time."
I accept that...I'm not arguing the RESULT or even the SCORE should be exactly the same every time.
But if all the control factors are the same (team, tactics, team talk and opposition) then surely there should be some level of consistency!!!
That consistency will depend on who the teams are. Chelsea v Man Utd could go either way and you'd expect scores and results to be different.
But a 2-0 defeat and a 7-1 victory...come'on...surely not even a moderator would argue that this level of inconsistent results is dependent on the half time team talk!!

retired_sojinha · 11-09-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Lincoln Imp2:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by rashidi1:
At least this aint one of the other versions, when the engine got licked a month after the demo, 3 months later people were complaining the game was too easy.

The conspiracy theorists may feel that the programmers have coded in some huge random factor to prevent this very thing happening!!
Let's be honest IRL Chelsea buy all the best players because they have a huge budget and frankly, it doesn't matter that much what tactic they play they win because they are better, man-for-man, than most teams.
FM07 doesn't seem to work quite that way!! </BLOCKQUOTE>

And thank god its not, or we would end up with CM days again. Having a team is 1 thing, but you need the right tactics too. If it was just a case of buying the best players on FM, then the game would be utter **** and no fun to play. It would be easy mode. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure I agree with you...if buying good players doesn't make any difference to your results because they are so inconsistent anyway then doesn't that equally make the game **** and no fun to play??

retired_elpata · 11-09-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

But if all the control factors are the same (team, tactics, team talk and opposition) then surely there should be some level of consistency!!!

These arenot the control factors though. They are only factors.

Quote:

But a 2-0 defeat and a 7-1 victory...come'on...surely not even a moderator would argue that this level of inconsistent results is dependent on the half time team talk!!

Me being a mod as nothing to do with it, so that shouldn't even be brought up tbh.

How many times have you replayed the game? I see the 7-1 result as a fluke and they do happen. You haven't offered me no solid eveidence to back up the claims that the results you get against the same team are inconsistent. All you have done is offered 2 comparisons a 2-0 and 7-1.

Maybe the game is coded to reflect Newcastle in real life, either **** hot, or **** poor no inbetween

retired_elpata · 11-09-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln Imp2:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Cleon:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Lincoln Imp2:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by rashidi1:
At least this aint one of the other versions, when the engine got licked a month after the demo, 3 months later people were complaining the game was too easy.

The conspiracy theorists may feel that the programmers have coded in some huge random factor to prevent this very thing happening!!
Let's be honest IRL Chelsea buy all the best players because they have a huge budget and frankly, it doesn't matter that much what tactic they play they win because they are better, man-for-man, than most teams.
FM07 doesn't seem to work quite that way!! </BLOCKQUOTE>

And thank god its not, or we would end up with CM days again. Having a team is 1 thing, but you need the right tactics too. If it was just a case of buying the best players on FM, then the game would be utter **** and no fun to play. It would be easy mode. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure I agree with you...if buying good players doesn't make any difference to your results because they are so inconsistent anyway then doesn't that equally make the game **** and no fun to play?? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Its hard for the game to replicate 'just buy good players and you win' its not as simple as that. All you'd have to do every game was pick the best 11 and the result would take care of its self. You think that is very realistic because I don't.

Buying good players helps, but you seem to forget FM is all about 'strategy' and 'combination'. The strategy includes tactics, training, media, morale etc. If you got good players then you have a big advantage, but without the right tactic and training then you dont stand as good a chance, as you would with the correct combination.

retired_sojinha · 11-09-2006, 07:00 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Cleon:

Quote:

But if all the control factors are the same (team, tactics, team talk and opposition) then surely there should be some level of consistency!!!

These arenot the control factors though. They are only factors.

If your team, your tactics, your team talk, the opposition, their tactics, the weather, the ref, the pitch and the date you play the game are NOT the only factors that dictate the outcome of a game that what other factors do you think play an important part in the result???????

retired_elpata · 11-09-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

It would be interesting to see a 10 game stint for the same team run a few times to see how different the outcomes are.

Already I can see flaws in that idea. For example;

Test 1 Game 1

Striker A scores a hattrick and you win 4-0, all the players morale will be sky high. This as a knockon effect for game 2 and so on.

Test 2 Game 1

Striker A fails to score and you win 2-0 due to 2 mistakes by the opposition. Your teams morale might not have changed much. So again this has a knock on effect for game 2.

Or

Test 1 Game 1

Striker a is injured and out for a few games

Test 2 game 1

He isn't injured

See where im going with this? so the test would be very inaccurate and very inconsistent. The only way a such test could be even remotely accurate would be to do as you have been doing and play the game over and over again from the same date, just before kick off on the actual match day. Even then, this isn't accurate as the Ai might switch formations more than he did in the other game, or make a different sub and so on.

Quote:

It took my side almost 3 seasons of training and working together from the depths of the conference. 3 consecutive promotions now..and they are on a 6 match winning streak and they haven't conceded a goal yet. Making the game consistent is possible, it takes a bit of time to figure things out, but its not that impossible. The linkages between the modules takes a lot of time to figure out.

This is how it is IRL too, the only consistent team over the last 10 years in England would be Man U imo. Other teams like Arsenal and Chelsea have achieved consistency but only in periods.

Quote:

I agree that there should be an element of luck - just like real life - but I suppose it's a question of how much it plays a part.
An unlucky Chelsea/Man Utd will still win 9 games out of ten

Not if they are tactically outclassed or the 'bigger players' think its gonna be easy and under estimate the team. Something which all big clubs seem to do

On FM07 I have had many manager comments saying I tactically outclassed them.

For consitent experiements, you need all the factors to stay the same or it will be in accurate. Not just a few controlable ones imo.

retired_elpata · 11-09-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

If your team, your tactics, your team talk, the opposition, their tactics, the weather, the ref, the pitch and the date you play the game are NOT the only factors that dictate the outcome of a game that what other factors do you think play an important part in the result???????

Mistakes? Players under performing, players over performing. injuries, A free kick in a different position, set pieces, a player in the right place at the right time. A fluke goal. Posession of your team, what they do with the possession. A sub.

I can list more, but you get the idea

All major factors and totally uncontrolable. You can tell the players what to do for most cases, but it doesn't mean it will work 100%

retired_sojinha · 11-09-2006, 07:18 PM

Fair enough...I can see how a series of ten games can throw up circumstances that would substantially chnage a team and its chances of winning.
But that doesn't address the issue of the one-off game.
You keep saying that your team, your tactics, your team talk, the opposition, their tactics, the ref and the weather are ONLY factors.
I'm interested to know....other than the random/luck effect that I'm raising....what factors YOU think are effecting the match engine?

Luck - does it play too big a part in tactic success?

It's no use having a squad full of star players without a decent way for them to play their football.

Luck - does it play too big a part in tactic success?