Post Your Frustations Thread

[miguelalves]

This is probably the most myopic post yet. I posted it because I follow the EPL on twitter. It was a throw away comment, neither condemning nor venerating the number of woodwork hits in the game. Just an observation.

Oh, and whilst YOU may not play a team in the EPL/BPL, I, and many others do. So for those people, it IS relevant.

The only thing relevant is the ridiculous number of woodwork hits.

 

[TonyVilliers]

is it relevant that the shot is intended or not to hit the woodwork ? or the fact that it keeps hitting ?

What he's getting at is misrepresentation of the ball hitting the woodwork. What you see is SI "scripting" "Oh, that'***** the post and gone out" or "Skimmed the bar" or whatever to make the game more exciting to watch. The end result, that the shot is going out, is the relevant part. That it hits the woodwork and goes out or hits the corner flag and goes out is the irrelevant part.

In a nutshell, (and I'm presuming this btw) the ball would have gone out anyway with that particular shot, it's just made to look more exciting by a random generator of how close the ball was to the goal.

 

[miguelalves]

What he's getting at is misrepresentation of the ball hitting the woodwork. What you see is SI "scripting" "Oh, that'***** the post and gone out" or "Skimmed the bar" or whatever to make the game more exciting to watch. The end result, that the shot is going out, is the relevant part. That it hits the woodwork and goes out or hits the corner flag and goes out is the irrelevant part.

In a nutshell, (and I'm presuming this btw) the ball would have gone out anyway with that particular shot, it's just made to look more exciting by a random generator of how close the ball was to the goal.

Well, even if they intended the match to be more exciting it's completely exaggerated and a lot far from realistic. Moreover, I don't think is exciting keep having crosses directly at the woodwork.

 

[WJ]

The thing is, mate, that they had 1 shot on goal and managed to score with that one shot. As I said in my earlier post, I think most of my (and other's) frustrations are born out of the conversion rate discrepancy between my team and the AI team. It seems they need a lot less chances to score than we do.

When watching the game, they always get into the box, cross across the goal (a la Arsenal of about 5 years ago) and someone taps it in.

With my team, and contrary to all instruction, my players shoot from the edge of the box, even when one on one and have go around keeper PPM.

Basically, whatever the reasons, my team needs 30 more chances than them to score the same amount of goals.

Oh, and that is Counter Attacking

So what you're saying is, you're worse than the AI?

 

[mprichard]

looks like this thread is alive and kicking... can anyone help with post #2076 (pg 208)

thanks

 

[TonyVilliers]

So what you're saying is, you're worse than the AI?

No, because I win. LOL hehe

 

[TonyVilliers]

Well, even if they intended the match to be more exciting it's completely exaggerated and a lot far from realistic. Moreover, I don't think is exciting keep having crosses directly at the woodwork.

It may be "unrealistic" but you seem to be translating that into "He didn't score, ergo it's buggered", which is not accurate. What is accurate is that ball would have gone out. The dressing of how it went out should be taken as irrelevant. Whether it hit the post or the corner flag, as I said, the ball would have gone out.

What you should be saying, I guess, is "Stop saying it hit the post to embellish the 'story' of the game". I don't disagree that the number of corners and crosses that are wildly inaccurate are annoying, nor that strikers missing so blatantly is annoying. However one can't misinterpret "hits the post" as "should have gone in" when one knows it's purely a mechanism to say "the ball went out" in a more exciting manner.

 

[TonyVilliers]

looks like this thread is alive and kicking... can anyone help with post #2076 (pg 208)

thanks

It might be a "realism" ploy where the player is saying that to get more money and better contract for his club. I've courted players before and had them express interest when I say something about them in the press (Hope something concrete comes of this or similar) and then they reject me for a new contract at their current club.

 

[miguelalves]

It may be "unrealistic" but you seem to be translating that into "He didn't score, ergo it's buggered", which is not accurate. What is accurate is that ball would have gone out. The dressing of how it went out should be taken as irrelevant. Whether it hit the post or the corner flag, as I said, the ball would have gone out.

What you should be saying, I guess, is "Stop saying it hit the post to embellish the 'story' of the game". I don't disagree that the number of corners and crosses that are wildly inaccurate are annoying, nor that strikers missing so blatantly is annoying. However one can't misinterpret "hits the post" as "should have gone in" when one knows it's purely a mechanism to say "the ball went out" in a more exciting manner.

That is something: so, my comment was simply that there are too many balls hitting posts, even from crosses, and from this you state that it seems I'm complaining those balls should turn into goals. I never said anything about goals, I'm stating a simple fact: there are too many balls hitting the posts, simple as this. Stop putting words in "people's mouth". And they really hit the posts, it's not about reading the match comment.

 

[TonyVilliers]

That is something: so, my comment was simply that there are too many balls hitting posts, even from crosses, and from this you state that it seems I'm complaining those balls should turn into goals. I never said anything about goals, I'm stating a simple fact: there are too many balls hitting the posts, simple as this. Stop putting words in "people's mouth". And they really hit the posts, it's not about reading the match comment.

I said "Seem to be translating that". That implies I am deducing, not stating, what you are thinking.

As you will have read, in the second part of my comment, I suspect that you are saying what you now state you are. That you would rather it just said "X player misses" than "the ball hits the post and goes out".

You seem to miss the fact that the ME displays the ball hitting the woodwork on it's way out, is the same as the Commentary saying "he hit the woodwork". There is no real difference, other than you watch one, and see the other displayed in text form.

That being said, what you seem to be complaining about, if I'm correct, is that the mechanism of the ball going out of play, via the woodwork is overused in the matches, and you would rather it said "He misses" or similar?

 

[MisterBurkes]

The thing is, mate, that they had 1 shot on goal and managed to score with that one shot. As I said in my earlier post, I think most of my (and other's) frustrations are born out of the conversion rate discrepancy between my team and the AI team. It seems they need a lot less chances to score than we do.

When watching the game, they always get into the box, cross across the goal (a la Arsenal of about 5 years ago) and someone taps it in.

With my team, and contrary to all instruction, my players shoot from the edge of the box, even when one on one and have go around keeper PPM.

Basically, whatever the reasons, my team needs 30 more chances than them to score the same amount of goals.

Oh, and that is Counter Attacking

You might need to tweak your tactic and player instructions to reflect your player's attributes/PPMs rather than simply plug'n'play. All those tactics in the tactics forum usually give a list of attribute requirements and PPM requirements. So until you meet those, it might not work that well.

A lot of my own tactics basically use a forum tactic as a starting point, and then get heavily tweaked around to suit my team (often changing the formation itself)

And yea, if you are counterattacking, you should be converting like 50% of your CCCs with an effective tactic.

Also to prevent AI from scoring a late goal, you basically need to pause the game whenever they make a substitution for a winger/striker and set opposition instructions to close him down. Otherwise, your 70% condition defender will often get outpaced by a 100% condition super-sub and then you concede. I think 99% of the late goals I've conceded are because of an unnoticed sub rather than some bizarre goal.

 

[miguelalves]

I said "Seem to be translating that". That implies I am deducing, not stating, what you are thinking.

As you will have read, in the second part of my comment, I suspect that you are saying what you now state you are. That you would rather it just said "X player misses" than "the ball hits the post and goes out".

You seem to miss the fact that the ME displays the ball hitting the woodwork on it's way out, is the same as the Commentary saying "he hit the woodwork". There is no real difference, other than you watch one, and see the other displayed in text form.

That being said, what you seem to be complaining about, if I'm correct, is that the mechanism of the ball going out of play, via the woodwork is overused in the matches, and you would rather it said "He misses" or similar?

i really can't get a clue why you keep focusing the match comment and what we can read in it. It's something that hasn't nothing to do with the issue. I'm stating, complaining, whatever, that there are too many balls hitting the posts, both from shots as from crossings.

 

[TonyVilliers]

i really can't get a clue why you keep focusing the match comment and what we can read in it. It's something that hasn't nothing to do with the issue. I'm stating, complaining, whatever, that there are too many balls hitting the posts, both from shots as from crossings.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just unable to grasp the concept here.

I'm not "focussing" on the match comment, other than to explain (and I'll try again here) that the match comment that you see saying "He hit the post" in commentary only, translates DIRECTLY into the 2D game. So if you see it in Commentary, it would have happened in the 2D/3D match AS WELL.

I realise English may not be your first language so I'm trying to be as clear as possible, without patronising you.

You are stating "There are too many balls hitting the posts". Yes. There are lots of balls hitting the posts. BUT this is because SI have made it like this to show a degree of accuracy/excitement whilst ULTIMATELY the ball was ALWAYS going out. I don't think you're quite getting the point, here. The ball was going out, and they just added in "hitting the post" as a variant of it going out in all Commentary, 2D and 3D.

Yes, it is over used. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But you have to understand that it's just a way of the ME giving variances on how the ball goes out. That it hits the post, or hits nothing, is irrelevant. The ball was going out.

In a nutshell. "Hit's the post" could always be replaced by "Missed completely". It would make no difference to how the match plays out.

 

[MisterBurkes]

You are stating "There are too many balls hitting the posts". Yes. There are lots of balls hitting the posts. BUT this is because SI have made it like this to show a degree of accuracy/excitement whilst ULTIMATELY the ball was ALWAYS going out. I don't think you're quite getting the point, here. The ball was going out, and they just added in "hitting the post" as a variant of it going out in all Commentary, 2D and 3D.

Yes, it is over used. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But you have to understand that it's just a way of the ME giving variances on how the ball goes out. That it hits the post, or hits nothing, is irrelevant. The ball was going out.

In a nutshell. "Hit's the post" could always be replaced by "Missed completely". It would make no difference to how the match plays out.

Actually, I don't think this is true. Occasionally, the ball hits the post and still goes in, or hits the post and rebounds into an oncoming attacker or onto the back of a defender for a goal.

 

[TonyVilliers]

Actually, I don't think this is true. Occasionally, the ball hits the post and still goes in, or hits the post and rebounds into an oncoming attacker or onto the back of a defender for a goal.

I'm afraid that misses the point.

The point is that when the ball hits the post and goes out, it's just a variant of saying "he missed". Therefore whilst sometimes the ball hits the post and goes in, the larger volume of post hits going out means that it gives a misguiding aggregate total of post hits.

The minute you read "hit the post and goes out" as a potential missed goal, you are being misled.

 

[miguelalves]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just unable to grasp the concept here.

I'm not "focussing" on the match comment, other than to explain (and I'll try again here) that the match comment that you see saying "He hit the post" in commentary only, translates DIRECTLY into the 2D game. So if you see it in Commentary, it would have happened in the 2D/3D match AS WELL.

I realise English may not be your first language so I'm trying to be as clear as possible, without patronising you.

You are stating "There are too many balls hitting the posts". Yes. There are lots of balls hitting the posts. BUT this is because SI have made it like this to show a degree of accuracy/excitement whilst ULTIMATELY the ball was ALWAYS going out. I don't think you're quite getting the point, here. The ball was going out, and they just added in "hitting the post" as a variant of it going out in all Commentary, 2D and 3D.

Yes, it is over used. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. But you have to understand that it's just a way of the ME giving variances on how the ball goes out. That it hits the post, or hits nothing, is irrelevant. The ball was going out.

In a nutshell. "Hit's the post" could always be replaced by "Missed completely". It would make no difference to how the match plays out.

I don't think it's important if it says "hits the post" or "missed completely", they thought it could have a little more excitement if people read "hits the post", ok fine, although if it's a post hit, than the comment could not be anything else. And even being variances on how the ball goes out, it's completely exaggerated and unreal. And there's also the issue of too many crosses directly at the posts, I don't see this as variances on how the ball goes out, it's just a bug.

 

[TonyVilliers]

I don't think it's important if it says "hits the post" or "missed completely", they thought it could have a little more excitement if people read "hits the post", ok fine, although if it's a post hit, than the comment could not be anything else. And even being variances on how the ball goes out, it's completely exaggerated and unreal. And there's also the issue of too many crosses directly at the posts, I don't see this as variances on how the ball goes out, it's just a bug.

I've already agreed with you that the shooting and crossing does seem exaggeratedly bad. However is the ball hitting the post and going out being over used THAT irritating, compared to some of the other stuff.?

 

[MisterBurkes]

Very lame result, had 2 goals disallowed due to offside, and had 2 howlers denied by woodwork (unmarked header from a corner, and a point blank shot 1-on-1 hitting post and out) Shouldn't have been a close game either way. 5-2 or 7-3 would've been a fair result.

View attachment 397176

 

[miguelalves]

I've already agreed with you that the shooting and crossing does seem exaggeratedly bad. However is the ball hitting the post and going out being over used THAT irritating, compared to some of the other stuff.?

It's just as much irritating as several other issues , I've posted some that have nothing to do with tactical problems.

 

[LiamOT]

Best way to approach the Premier League after getting promoted with a weak squad?