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

[Mike.]

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.

I have Januzaj converting at the same rate as Ronaldo at one point. Had him perfectly set up to isolate his winger one on one.

 

[Crane]

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.

Didn't the user claim that the AI had a much better conversion rate than him, and uploaded his save. Someone went through and proved that he'd had a better conversion rate than the AI?

 

[epic terrorist]

Didn't the user claim that the AI had a much better conversion rate than him, and uploaded his save. Someone went through and proved that he'd had a better conversion rate than the AI?

That sounds like an fm base thread lol

 

[louiscfc]

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.

But shots to goal ratio doesn't tell you everything either. Any player can start thumping balls from 30 yards out and that doesn't help the validity of the stat when it comes to converting good chances. What I've been telling you from the start is that there are many more easy chances missed than in real life (not even mentioning clear cut chances as they're broken as you've stated) but just watching the matches and determining with my own eyes what are easy chances, my players rarely convert. And since you have produced no conclusive stat (as admittedly, it is very hard to come by unless you're a data analyst for SI) you cannot argue with any certainty that my statement is incorrect.
The fact of the matter is there are far too many easy chances such as one on one opportunities missed. But as this argument will go nowhere it might be worth ending it right here.
Thank you all for your help. Happy FMing.

 

[Mike.]

Didn't the user claim that the AI had a much better conversion rate than him, and uploaded his save. Someone went through and proved that he'd had a better conversion rate than the AI?

Yes we proved that he didnt just have the best rate in his league, but the best rate in the european leagues full stop. In fairness to him he was a very good sport and said how he was a classic case of perception not matching the actual stats. He'd funnelled in on the counter goals he was conceding, and was missing the wider picture. What he has was a very finely balanced tactical set up that would work well most of the time, but on the few it did you would almost certainly concede. But actually it worked well enough that it would still probably win you the league quite comfortably, but could cost you in a knockout cup.

 

[WJ]

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 found the post (bookmarked as well). Football Manager 2014 - Update 14.2.2 - Feedback Thread - Page 21 (wwfan's Post 2003)

This is the thread where the user was proved wrong, FWIW: Why is the AI so much better at finishing?

 

[Mike.]

But shots to goal ratio doesn't tell you everything either. Any player can start thumping balls from 30 yards out and that doesn't help the validity of the stat when it comes to converting good chances. What I've been telling you from the start is that there are many more easy chances missed than in real life (not even mentioning clear cut chances as they're broken as you've stated) but just watching the matches and determining with my own eyes what are easy chances, my players rarely convert. And since you have produced no conclusive stat (as admittedly, it is very hard to come by unless you're a data analyst for SI) you cannot argue with any certainty that my statement is incorrect.
The fact of the matter is there are far too many easy chances such as one on one opportunities missed. But as this argument will go nowhere it might be worth ending it right here.
Thank you all for your help. Happy FMing.

Define far too many. For that you need to have the number in real life, and then the number in game.

The data sits in a place that is not readily available for the wider public. FYI WJ and I have seen them. It really doesnt bother me if you accept that or not, as it doesnt change the stats themselves. But we do know what we're talking about.

And again I did not tell you clear cut chances were broken. I said the STAT is useless because its a subjective interpretation of a subjective stat that has no uniform definition. Which makes it a useless stat

 

[Crane]

If you believe that top strikers convert more than 50% of their one on ones, then yeah, you will believe that too many chances are missed. Doesn't help when your initial belief is wrong.

 

[WJ]

But shots to goal ratio doesn't tell you everything either. Any player can start thumping balls from 30 yards out and that doesn't help the validity of the stat when it comes to converting good chances. What I've been telling you from the start is that there are many more easy chances missed than in real life (not even mentioning clear cut chances as they're broken as you've stated) but just watching the matches and determining with my own eyes what are easy chances, my players rarely convert. And since you have produced no conclusive stat (as admittedly, it is very hard to come by unless you're a data analyst for SI) you cannot argue with any certainty that my statement is incorrect.
The fact of the matter is there are far too many easy chances such as one on one opportunities missed. But as this argument will go nowhere it might be worth ending it right here.
Thank you all for your help. Happy FMing.

I'd love to see the tactic and PKM for these matches where they regularly miss one-on-ones.

 

[louiscfc]

I'd love to see the tactic and PKM for these matches where they regularly miss one-on-ones.

No single tactic bud. This is with different tactics, different teams, different players on different versions.

 

[Mike.]

If you believe that top strikers convert more than 50% of their one on ones, then yeah, you will believe that too many chances are missed. Doesn't help when your initial belief is wrong.

I once saw a stat where Danny Welbeck spiked at 87% for about four months (that was down to the relatively few number of games and goals), but strikers do well to get 50% of shots on target, let alone do anything else with it.

Also what people should really is what define the best strikers is usually their ability to finish the tough chances. OPTA had a stat 2 years ago where Van Persie missed more "CCCs" than anyone else in the league. He scored 26 goals with a conversion rate of 20%

 

[WJ]

No single tactic bud. This is with different tactics, different teams, different players on different versions.

Still. PKMs would be the best way to judge.

 

[louiscfc]

If you believe that top strikers convert more than 50% of their one on ones, then yeah, you will believe that too many chances are missed. Doesn't help when your initial belief is wrong.

Ok, give me a valid stat that proves otherwise and i'll shut up. Until then...

 

[louiscfc]

Define far too many. For that you need to have the number in real life, and then the number in game.

The data sits in a place that is not readily available for the wider public. FYI WJ and I have seen them. It really doesnt bother me if you accept that or not, as it doesnt change the stats themselves. But we do know what we're talking about.

And again I did not tell you clear cut chances were broken. I said the STAT is useless because its a subjective interpretation of a subjective stat that has no uniform definition. Which makes it a useless stat

If it's useless then why is it in the game? All it is doing is misinforming players on what is actually going on in a game. The casual player does not have the luxury of seeing all these top secret stats so why don't they allow the players to see these real life stats so they can shut us up with how accurate their game is. What are they hiding I wonder...?

 

[Crane]

https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/football/europes-worst-finishers-diego-costa

(please let this be enough for you to shut up! )

 

[Mike.]

If it's useless then why is it in the game? All it is doing is misinforming players on what is actually going on in a game. The casual player does not have the luxury of seeing all these top secret stats so why don't they allow the players to see these real life stats so they can shut us up with how accurate their game is. What are they hiding I wonder...?

It's in the game because the fan base asked for it!

They don't allow you to see them, because you have to pay (a lot of money) for that level of detail. You can't just show publicise it for free. You think opta just do the occaisonal free tweet or something? What they do goes to tremendous detail in metrics (same with prozone) and this data is sold to people in and around the sport. So yeah they hide it. Because its not for your eyes. You want that level of detail, buy access to it.

 

[WJ]

If it's useless then why is it in the game? All it is doing is misinforming players on what is actually going on in a game. The casual player does not have the luxury of seeing all these top secret stats so why don't they allow the players to see these real life stats so they can shut us up with how accurate their game is. What are they hiding I wonder...?

How the **** are you taking the game not always calculating CCCs correctly (something that's incredibly difficult to program) to a conspiracy theory about SI hiding something?

I'd be happy if they remove it. It's far too subjective, which is why I asked for PKMs rather.

Does the AI have the same conversion problems as you?

 

[Crane]

If it's useless then why is it in the game? All it is doing is misinforming players on what is actually going on in a game. The casual player does not have the luxury of seeing all these top secret stats so why don't they allow the players to see these real life stats so they can shut us up with how accurate their game is. What are they hiding I wonder...?

You do realise he's criticising the game when he said the CCC STAT is broken? He's right though, it is broken. I hate seeing shots from impossible angles with a player in the way being counted as a CCC

 

[Mike.]

You do realise he's criticising the game when he said the CCC STAT is broken? He's right though, it is broken. I hate seeing shots from impossible angles with a player in the way being counted as a CCC

At least you see my point. Starting to remember why I dont bother trying to help and inform people as much anymore

 

[ajt09]

At least you see my point. Starting to remember why I dont bother trying to help and inform people as much anymore

Could be worse-you could be a mod on the World of Warcraft forums. I wouldn't wish it on anyone...........