Tips to enjoy the game/be less ragey...?

[louiscfc]

That's not how it works.

Then tell me how 30+ shots for both teams is realistic then, mister expert.

 

[Mike.]

Then tell me how 30+ shots for both teams is realistic then, mister expert.

No need for the pointless attitude. If you can't be civil to be people I'll simply close the thread.

The short answer is that a) It doesnt happen every time and b) its a case of a multitiude of different things both with in the ME and how user and AI set up that can lead to a large number of shots on both sides. But it's got nothing to do with how the final finishing works in the slightest

EDIT: The long answer means writing paragraph or two on this, and I'd really rather not. WJ might do though.

 

[Mike.]

Prove it. If you actually go and look, you'd be surprised at how closely it does compare.

Free kicks in game were being converted at a higher rate than real life.

And injuries are still lower in game than real life

 

[louiscfc]

No need for the pointless attitude. If you can't be civil to be people I'll simply close the thread.

The short answer is that a) It doesnt happen every time and b) its a case of a multitiude of different things both with in the ME and how user and AI set up that can lead to a large number of shots on both sides. But it's got nothing to do with how the final finishing works in the slightest

If there are tons of shots and clear cut chances each game, but the goals are still pretty low, then this only supports avpmoreria's point that the goals/chances ratio is unrealistic.

How do you actually know how it works? Do you work for SI? Not being rude but you seem to know everything...

 

[epic terrorist]

If there are tons of shots and clear cut chances each game, but the goals are still pretty low, then this only supports avpmoreria's point that the goals/chances ratio is unrealistic.

How do you actually know how it works? Do you work for SI? Not being rude but you seem to know everything...

Wouldnt even bother looking at the CCC stat it's what the ME registers as a CCC and it is not always accurate

 

[WJ]

If there are tons of shots and clear cut chances each game, but the goals are still pretty low, then this only supports avpmoreria's point that the goals/chances ratio is unrealistic.

How do you actually know how it works? Do you work for SI? Not being rude but you seem to know everything...

Mike isn't talking out of his ****.

What the game counts as a CCC isn't always a CCC. Take that into account as well. That's why I prefer to look at shots/goal ratios.

High shot count could be because of False Nines. That role seems to have poor shot decision making, although crappy user tactics don't help.

 

[Mike.]

If there are tons of shots and clear cut chances each game, but the goals are still pretty low, then this only supports avpmoreria's point that the goals/chances ratio is unrealistic.

How do you actually know how it works? Do you work for SI? Not being rude but you seem to know everything...

Only supports it if you dont understand how the ME is put together, and thats not meant to be a dig, the vast majority of people will have no clue, and that's understandable, because unless you work for SI, or spend a lot of time talking/interacting with them to them you wouldn't.

I know because i mostly fall into the latter, as does WJ. I certainly don't know everything, but I definteley know a fair bit. It's why I moderate both here and on the SI forums.

Also ignore the clear cut chance stat, its nigh on useless.

WJ: The False Nine is far too aggressive with the shot decision making, to the point where I would call it bad design atm. And any poor setup around it makes it infinitely worse, which is an issue because its quite popular. Bit of a shame, because the role's movement is excellent.

 

[louiscfc]

Only supports it if you dont understand how the ME is put together, and thats not meant to be a dig, the vast majority of people will have no clue, and that's understandable, because unless you work for SI, or spend a lot of time talking/interacting with them to them you wouldn't.

I know because i mostly fall into the latter, as does WJ. I certainly don't know everything, but I definteley know a fair bit. It's why I moderate both here and on the SI forums.

Also ignore the clear cut chance stat, its nigh on useless.

WJ: The False Nine is far too aggressive with the shot decision making, to the point where I would call it bad design atm. And any poor setup around it makes it infinitely worse, which is an issue because its quite popular. Bit of a shame, because the role's movement is excellent.

Ok, but why do even the best players always miss one on ones and the easiest chances? I'm not talking every once in a while, i'm talking at least 1-2 easy chances per game just from one player. This surely isn't realistic as I dont see the best strikers in the world missing every time they're played through on goal IRL...
Please dont put it down to 'form' or random attributes or anything like that as it happens with every team, on every save for several years of FM.

 

[Mike.]

Ok, but why do even the best players always miss one on ones and the easiest chances? I'm not talking every once in a while, i'm talking at least 1-2 easy chances per game just from one player. This surely isn't realistic as I dont see the best strikers in the world missing every time they're played through on goal IRL...
Please dont put it down to 'form' or random attributes or anything like that as it happens with every team, on every save for several years of FM.

here's a question: what percentage of "easy chances" are converted by the best strikers in the world? Don't look it up just try to answer.

 

[louiscfc]

here's a question: what percentage of "easy chances" are converted by the best strikers in the world? Don't look it up just try to answer.

I couldn't answer that until we have a mutual understanding of what is an "easy chance" and who are the "best strikers". There would be no conclusive stat for this anyway. But in terms of one on one chances, I'd say at least 50% are converted for a typical striker. In terms of the Rooney's, Aguero's, Costa's, Messi's etc I expect this to be 80%+.

However, in FM, I hardly ever see a one on one converted. I know that when my player is played through that I will not be scoring.
Please also note that these are just one on one chances and not countless other easy chances that I see being missed all the time on this game.

 

[Mike.]

I couldn't answer that until we have a mutual understanding of what is an "easy chance" and who are the "best strikers". There would be no conclusive stat for this anyway. But in terms of one on one chances, I'd say at least 50% are converted for a typical striker. In terms of the Rooney's, Aguero's, Costa's, Messi's etc I expect this to be 80%+.

However, in FM, I hardly ever see a one on one converted. I know that when my player is played through that I will not be scoring.
Please also note that these are just one on one chances and not countless other easy chances that I see being missed all the time on this game.

Not even close with both those stats, you can more than half the figures for both of them. And thats the thing. Ignore the clear cut chance stat anyway. but strikers simply do not convert in the manner people think. That doesn't mean finishing couldnt be tweaked a little, but strikers do not finish with the lethality you think.

It's also complicated by other factors too

 

[louiscfc]

Not even close with both those stats, you can more than half the figures for both of them. And thats the thing. Ignore the clear cut chance stat anyway. but strikers simply do not convert in the matter people think. That doesn't mean finishing couldnt be tweaked a little, but strikers do not finish with the lethality you think.

Source to this stat please?

 

[Mike.]

Source to this stat please?

Its not one, its many. I'd have to dig them back out again. But to give you an example that I still have to hand: Costa IRL is converting at 27.9%.

 

[louiscfc]

Its not one, its many. I'd have to dig them back out again. But to give you an example that I still have to hand: Costa IRL is converting at 27.9%.

Thought not. But that isn't easy chances is it? Which is my annoyance. Not chances in general. There's no way you could get this stat as it is down to opinion on what is "easy".
Any link for that Costa stat please? Thanks.

 

[WJ]

I have stats bookmarked. It's a few years old (but numbers are pretty much the same every year) and is unfortunately not one-on-one specific.

Soccer By The Numbers: Graph of the Day: Goal To Shot Ratios For Teams in European Leagues

Premier League Shooting Statistics 2012/13 | Barrie's View

The Premier League's most lethal teams revealed | talkSPORT

 

[Mike.]

I have stats bookmarked. It's a few years old (but numbers are pretty much the same every year) and is unfortunately not one-on-one specific.

Soccer By The Numbers: Graph of the Day: Goal To Shot Ratios For Teams in European Leagues

Premier League Shooting Statistics 2012/13 | Barrie's View

The Premier League's most lethal teams revealed | talkSPORT

SI will have the newest numbers, though unlikely to be made public.

 

[WJ]

SI will have the newest numbers, though unlikely to be made public.

Oh, definitely. They keep up to date with the latest numbers across a number of leagues. I'm lazy and just bookmarked these when wwfan posted them (last year, I think?) in a feedback thread.

 

[Mike.]

Thought not. But that isn't easy chances is it? Which is my annoyance. Not chances in general. There's no way you could get this stat as it is down to opinion on what is "easy".
Any link for that Costa stat please? Thanks.

Yes thats because the CCC stat has no proper uniform definition. Something I have been trying to tell you from the start. So you have to use what different sites class as CCC, which all differ. Which is why anyone with half a brain uses the uniform shots to goal ratio.

If you want the Costa stat, go to Whoscored and calculate them.

 

[Mike.]

Oh, definitely. They keep up to date with the latest numbers across a number of leagues. I'm lazy and just bookmarked these when wwfan posted them (last year, I think?) in a feedback thread.

It might have been the year before We have this discussion every year tbh. Each time the numbers back them up, so I increasly dont bother dropping in.

It might have been the thread where we proved the user could create far more clinical set ups than the AI, when someone was claiming the AI always finish better.

 

[WJ]

Yes thats because the CCC stat has no proper uniform definition. Something I have been trying to tell you from the start. So you have to use what different sites class as CCC, which all differ. Which is why anyone with half a brain uses the uniform shots to goal ratio.

Which, when this was the complaint last year on here too, I created a thread about shot conversion. My strikers had better shot/goal conversion ratios than the top strikers IRL. I didn't have (and still don't) any problems with one-on-ones. They miss, but they score their fair share too.

It might have been the year before We have this discussion every year tbh. Each time the numbers back them up, so I increasly dont bother dropping in.

It might have been the thread where we proved the user could create far more clinical set ups than the AI, when someone was claiming the AI always finish better.

I remember that thread. Quite possible.