:roll: See? You did it again. I posted many possible explanations to your interferences but did you acknowledge them in your post? No. And this proves just how narrow minded you are. And when you look at what you DID include in your posts, they're just petty little excuses like "Oh wait a minute, first you call it cheating and now you dont." or "OMG! Your first post ended with a full stop and the last one didnt. HAHAHA YOUR PUNCTUATION IS SOOOO FUNNY LOLZ!" Stop picking out pointless shit and talk about the matter in hand atleast. :roll:
ClassicD said:
JOIN THE FUCKING CLUB TOOTS! :roll:
That's why I quoted 6 points seperately, just a couple of posts ago. I don't quote half your other shite BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATING THE SAME SHITE OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHICH I'VE ALREADY REPLIED TO.
This is the crap that I'm talking about. And no you havent replied to all the points I made. I gave you perfect explanations to every situation where you and everyone else here accused the game of interferences. You ignored ALL of that and asked "well why does it only happen in the ML?". Well if you werent so narrow minded with this whole issue then you'll remember that in the ML, fatigue is built up over games which makes matters a lot worse than in exhibition games.
Another thing you have to notice is that if you save before the game, no matter how many times you reload the save, the same match will always be hard for you. And I know this is something many of us agree on. Now everytime you reload the game, the oppositions lineup, tactics, etc can all change. But what is the one thing that always remains constant after every reload? Its the fatigue and form arrows. Which further proves that my explanation makes more sense than "the game interferes".
There might be other reasons for these things, I just gave you two other possible reasons. But the fact that you only want to think that the game cheats when there are many other possible reasons, makes you wrong.
I'm not saying that I'm right with all this. As a matter of fact, I never have. I've just told you that there are so many things to consider that cheating is probably the thing thats least likely to be the reason. And on top of that, I've gave you the only facts from this discussion and thats quotes from Seabass himself.
ClassicD said:
No, you didn't want this to get ugly. You just couldn't accept my opinion earlier on, so you accused me of saying I don't give a toss what anyone else thinks and said accepting other people's opinions won't change was totally pointless, and you just couldn't let it go. Your overall tone throughout this thread has been nothing but condescending, you seem to think you are some divine WE/PES prophet who's knowledge engulfs the world, and we should all get on our knees and kiss your arse. You PM'd me and I asked you to keep it in the thread, because it's frustrating enough having to repeat myself for the millionth time in here nevermind doing it over two methods of communication.
Again, another point you made that has nothing to do with the discussion. :roll: I dont care how my posts sound to you. Whether I sound too arrogant with what know about the game or whatever is nothing to do with the discussion but rather a personal problem you have with me. Shit like this doesnt belong in this thread cuz its go nothing to do with the discussion. Hence the reason why I PMed you a while back. Cuz I dont want to waste other peoples time when they have to read crap like this cuz no one wants to read it. This is just something thats more personal so leave it out of this thread.
ClassicD said:
No, you then quoted a piece where I'd said in my experience the hard games were hard because my own team were affected, and that the AI side actually didn't play any better. You haven't read it properly or you are just incredibly ignorant, because you've quoted my opinion on why certain games are hard and then asked me why AI teams playing better is considered as me playing shite. I never said the AI teams played better, you did, so why are you quoting that? :eh:
You've completely lost me with this one. And not being able to find the original post that we quoted doesnt help either. But if it pleases you, I'll just nod my head and say you were right here. :roll:
ClassicD said:
Is that...is it...is it some semblance of acceptance that folk can...they can have different opinions? :shock: :shock: :shock: FUCK ME IT JUST MIGHT BE!
There's a large section you posted here on arrows, form, consistency, etc. I'm afraid you've wasted your time, I and other people have stated they know how these things work and HAVE ALREADY FUCKING EXPLAINED THAT THEY WERE ALSO IN THE OLD VERSIONS OF THE GAME, THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN AFFECT ON IN OUR OPINION! Not to mention, I've seen players with red form arrows exibit these traits, like the weird shooting and AI headers into your own goal.
The more you post, the more you sound like you're making up lies to favour you. What are the chances of you actually going into the formation screen and checking everyones arrows and fatigue levels straight after a "incident"?
You could have atleast just held up your hands and said "Hey, maybe I didnt consider the arrows and stuff. I guess you could be right but I'll stick with my opinion until I see the arrows and fatigue myself". Stop coming up with stories about personal experiences cuz theres no way we can see them. You could say whatever you want and we'll just have to sit here and agree. Everytime I make a post, I dont do this (well I did just once but it wasnt an important point) cuz I know its something that not everyone can believe unless they saw it.
I could have told you that I just played the game for a 100 hours straight and I didnt experience any changes in difficulty or any interferences. Now by saying that, my post is as valid as all your posts. But are you gonna believe me? Regardless of whether its the truth or not, its something thats not worth saying cuz I cant prove it and it also gives be an artificial arguement meaning it can very easily be a lie.
ClassicD said:
If these are bugs, why do they only happen in the games that the AI makes tough for you to win, why don't they happen in the games that the AI favours your team?
*Waits for RuneEdge to accuse me of only pressing the wrong buttons in the hard games*
*Laughs*
Well if the bugs did stop the CPU from playing, how would you know? As far as we know, it might be happening all the time. But is the PS2 gonna log into Evo-Web like you and moan about it? :roll:
*realises that 3rd person text isnt funny*
*Cries*
ClassicD said:
You've already admitted the AI has preset difficulties for different games! It's not a question of reading someone's mind, it's coded into the fucking game that 'Match X' will be tough and 'Match Y' will be a breeze!
So have you seen the coding of the game? Cuz if you havent, how can you come up with something as dumb as that. Saying the game has bias is one thing but now claiming you know how its coded is just too funny. What a joke.
ClassicD said:
What, like you did?
"Its a simple sign of the CPU doing everything with maximum accuracy which I personally call "cheating" since it only happens in games and moments that are convenient for the CPU."
Hypocrite. :applause:
I just gave it a name "cheating". Its nothing like the cheating you say the game does. :roll:
Maybe a better word to use would have been "cheap". If I played you in a match of PES5, and you were a much better player than me (ie being able to dribble past my whole team using skill you've mastered with hours of training, or being able to score goals from every freekick you take within the 30m radius), of course I'm gonna call it cheap or cheating or something. Cuz your skill would be so great that it leaves me with no choice but t accept my defeat every time without being able to do anything about it. But its doesnt mean you're technically cheating.
Now whenever I say the game cheats, its exactly the same thing. One minute the game is normal, the next minute, they'll have a corner and will score the perfect header or volley. Cheating is just a word I used, it doesnt mean they are actually cheating in the sense you say it is.
This is just one of the many examples of you not understanding me.
ClassicD said:
RuneEdge, if, and remember this is just an 'if', Seabass came up to you and slapped you in the face with a rubber glove, that he'd just dipped in poo and used to write on the wall "The AI interferes." in 20-foot high letters, you'd probably tell us all he didn't really mean it, his wife spiked his saki an hour earlier and he was just a little crazy right now. You could explain anything, you have been clutching at straws the whole thread.
I'm only believing the only person you CAN believe. You on the other hand are making things up to explain things that you dont like about the game. If Seabass came out and said himself that the game interferes then there wouldnt a discussion since its something thats confirmed.
But you have completely made up the whole idea of cheating. You might have experienced moments in the game where its just not possible to explain why the CPU might have gained an advantage. But unless you know for a FACT that its cheating, what you're claiming is just an assumption. I on the other hand have gave you possible explanations to the same situations with reasons that we know are TRUE. Not something that I made up. As a matter of fact, has anything in my posts been made up? No. I just used the information that we all KNOW and used it to explain as much of the game as possible.
So who is wrong here, thats right its YOU. It doesnt matter if Seabass came out tomorrow and said "ClassicD is right, the game does interfere". Cuz thats not whats wrong. The reason why you're wrong is because you're too narrow minded and dont want to agree that there are other possible explanations to this that are more valid than your made up accusation of the CPU interfering. Since I have looked at all possible answers, I can also accept it if the game in fact did interfere. But you probably still wont accept it if Seabass came out and told you personally that you were wrong.
Its just like the theory that we evolved from monkeys. Theres a lot of true facts involved and it all makes sense. But the whole idea is not a proven fact. Its the same with what I'm saying. Whether we're right or wrong on this matter stil remains to be proved but the way you're so determined to only believe in what you think is the truth is where you are wrong. Even though my idea is just an opinion, it makes more sense than than "the game interferes". Notice how its always been you asking the questions while I'm answering them? You have nothing you back your case.
With that said, I think this pretty much concludes this discussion. Hopefully we wont have to drag this along any further.
