A little bit of experimenting.

I just did a little experimenting with the game, and these are my results:

I am using Arsenal to play Manchester United at Old Trafford in the PL, saving just before the match. I restarted the same match for 10 times to gather data.

Manchester United Arsenal

Comebacks to win/draw: 2 0

Convincing wins (3 or more goals): 4 0

Red cards (all games combined): 0 2

Draws (with goals): 3 3

Goalless draws: 1 1

Wins: 6 0

Losses: 0 6

Total penalties awarded: 3 0

Total own goals: 0 1

Total stoppage time goals: 2 0

Largest winning margin: 4-0 na

Largest defeat: na 4-0

I replayed this game using two types of tactics, one normal 4-4-2, the other a narrow defensive 4-2-1-2-1. I played 5 games using each tactic.

I noticed that if you play as the underdog, you almost never get a shock victory against the big boys. However, you can expect that at least at some point of the game, some little team from Norway will manage to draw or even win against you even if you play exceedingly well. They say upsets happen in real life, and so can be expected too in the game. Problem is, it never happens to the human player. Naturally this gives the player a sense of one-sidedness in the game, like some sort of handicap.

Probably the other AI managers have cracked your tactics, but I don't think that is very likely. After all, not every one is Mourinho or Wenger. I find the notion that every manager in the game thinks and acts flawlessly...disturbing.

You can scoff at my statistics all you want, you can say that I have no proof or insufficient sample data, but I assure you that this is the real deal. Trust me or not, it's up to you.

Maybe again, it's my tactics.

I just did a little experimenting with the game, and these are my results:

I am using Arsenal to play Manchester United at Old Trafford in the PL, saving just before the match. I restarted the same match for 10 times to gather data.

Manchester United Arsenal

Comebacks to win/draw: 2 0

Convincing wins (3 or more goals): 4 0

Red cards (all games combined): 0 2

Draws (with goals): 3 3

Goalless draws: 1 1

Wins: 6 0

Losses: 0 6

Total penalties awarded: 3 0

Total own goals: 0 1

Total stoppage time goals: 2 0

Largest winning margin: 4-0 na

Largest defeat: na 4-0

I replayed this game using two types of tactics, one normal 4-4-2, the other a narrow defensive 4-2-1-2-1. I played 5 games using each tactic.

I noticed that if you play as the underdog, you almost never get a shock victory against the big boys. However, you can expect that at least at some point of the game, some little team from Norway will manage to draw or even win against you even if you play exceedingly well. They say upsets happen in real life, and so can be expected too in the game. Problem is, it never happens to the human player. Naturally this gives the player a sense of one-sidedness in the game, like some sort of handicap.

Probably the other AI managers have cracked your tactics, but I don't think that is very likely. After all, not every one is Mourinho or Wenger. I find the notion that every manager in the game thinks and acts flawlessly...disturbing.

You can scoff at my statistics all you want, you can say that I have no proof or insufficient sample data, but I assure you that this is the real deal. Trust me or not, it's up to you.

Maybe again, it's my tactics.

Rofl . You just made me laugh out loud. Thanks .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I noticed that if you play as the underdog, you almost never get a shock victory against the big boys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which one of these teams is classed as the "underdog" and which is classed as the "big boy"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, you can expect that at least at some point of the game, some little team from Norway will manage to draw or even win against you even if you play exceedingly well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now THAT is REALLY worrying. If I was playing Arsenal against Man Utd and a Norwegian team suddenly appeared and beat us, I would be astounded.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They say upsets happen in real life, and so can be expected too in the game. Problem is, it never happens to the human player. Naturally this gives the player a sense of one-sidedness in the game, like some sort of handicap.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that in this case there is certainly some sort of handicap at work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can scoff at my statistics all you want, you can say that I have no proof or insufficient sample data, but I assure you that this is the real deal. Trust me or not, it's up to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scoff scoff scoff.

Most ridiculous post of the week, (just when I thought GQ was starting to improve.

I don't think this proves anything whatsoever. The two teams are too well balanced and ten matches isn't much to go on.

I'd say that in my games, I've had a slight edge in underdog victories as opposed to being the victim of them. But that's because I rarely play as a leading team.

However, there could be some truth in the fact that every manager in the game acts the same. No manager appears to have a preference for a particular sort of player or tactic, let alone one who becomes known for dealing or youth development.

Not that this is the point being made.

underdog victories do happen for the player. i was playing as oldham and i beat newcastle in my first season

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Which one of these teams is classed as the "underdog" and which is classed as the "big boy"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost anyone playing at Old Trafford can be considered the underdog, no? I find this difficult to disagree with, and yet you manage to ignore common sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now THAT is REALLY worrying. If I was playing Arsenal against Man Utd and a Norwegian team suddenly appeared and beat us, I would be astounded.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now now, that's just evil, eh? You know well that I do not mean that, and somehow find it pleasurable to misquote me. What I meant was that I rarely get a underdog victory, yet have a much larger chance of getting beaten by or drawing with a weaker side.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think that in this case there is certainly some sort of handicap at work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great. Name-calling. Is that what you are most capable of? Instead of talking sense, you resort to name-calling. Just goes on to show how mature you are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Rofl Big Grin. You just made me laugh out loud. Thanks Thumbs Up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Scoff scoff scoff.

Most ridiculous post of the week, (just when I thought GQ was starting to improve. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make up your mind. Like this post or hate it. You can't like me and hate me at the same time. Unless you were being sarcastic. Oh wait, you were. Bah.

What are you trying to prove here?

All you seem to have found out so far is that you are struggling to get a win at Old Trafford, which is no big surprise really.

All I am trying to say is this: the computer opponents play almost perfectly. If smaller teams can sneak a win at the Emirates, why can't I (Arsenal) win at Old Trafford? Luck is in play? Or, as everyone's favourite idiom says, it's just my tactics?

I'm sure if you replayed that game enough times you would eventually get a win.

The computer isn't cheating you, just try running the same experiment with something like Arsenal vs Derby, I'm sure Derby would struggle to get a win against you.

Hmm, now that things have cooled down a bit, in retrospect, what I have said indeed looks like a rant. Fair enough, dafuge, what you have said makes sense. But I still have the funny feeling that the computer is eerily adept at the game.

it's not your tactics, it's your team talks

10 matches and not a single win is a little odd to me. but it doesn't proove anything, due to many circmstances like maybe you're using wrong tactics, team talks, morale...but I wouldn't say that ME favours AI it's just human chances to mess things up are much bigger then AI's.

as for tactical cracking (bull s...), I think IRE everybody's cracked tactics of barca, real, inter, man u, chelsea, arsenal, lyon... but that doesn't meen they can't win matches anymore and that they must change tactics every 5 games. afterall the quality of better players is something that wins you most matches, defenetly not tactics. (correct me if I'm wrong)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by meriadoc:

Hmm, now that things have cooled down a bit, in retrospect, what I have said indeed looks like a rant. Fair enough, dafuge, what you have said makes sense. But I still have the funny feeling that the computer is eerily adept at the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the computer is pretty good at managing, perhaps better than in previous versions. In my opinion this is a good thing and makes the game better. It will be harder to get results at places like Old Trafford, but this is the way it should be. I'm sure even Arsene Wenger would be pleased with a draw at Old Trafford.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sure even Arsene Wenger would be pleased with a draw at Old Trafford. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, indeed.

Rofl.

1. I didn't misquote you.

2. I didn't call you any names.

3. I am not in 2 minds at all. It was a ridiculous post so I told you.

4. The likes of Arsenal or Chelsea and Man Uts are reasonably well matched in the game and although home advantage gives a slight benefit, to call 1 team an underdog and one a big-boy is very misleading.

5. As for your overall experiment it's ridiculous in the extreme. It tells us absolutely nothing.

[Join my list]

6 Wins and 6 Losses? Can you count? You said Ten times you replayed the game, try again

No, YOU count. They had six wins, I had six losses. The other four are draws.

I can't believe I missed that .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by meriadoc:

No, YOU count. They had six wins, I had six losses. The other four are draws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's still 16 surely

Ugh. I meant head to head. Hello?

Ignore posts option enabled

Due to the sure idoisey of the Topic Poster

I do not have to restate what I have said in my post. Read it, it's there. Can't grasp the message? not my fault innit?

Sigh, I refuse to continue with this argument. We are all entitled to our opinions, eh? Pointless going on squabbling with someone else who won't offer constructive criticism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by williamshankley:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by meriadoc:

No, YOU count. They had six wins, I had six losses. The other four are draws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's still 16 surely </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Team 1 wins 6 games. (minimum of 6 games).

Team 2 has 6 losses. (minimum of 6 games still).

4 drawn games. (minimum of 4 more games so now total of 10 games).

Thanks for clearing it up for him, Jimbo.

I dont konw why you went so hard on him.

I don't thnik it's a bad experiment. it isn't representative too much (bad tactics?), but arsenal should have won at least once in 10 matches.

meriadoc you could at least post some more match stats like SOT/G ratio...

Hm, on that, only once did Arsenal have the upper hand in the match, with 16 shots around 6 on target to M.U. 4 shots with 3 on target. That game they won 1-0. Could be a freak result, as the other 9 games M.U. totally dominated no matter what tactical tweaks I made in game.

I play with Arsenal most of the time, and I've thrashed Man Utd several times at Old Trafford.

When I first started playing FM 2008, I could never beat them though.

Went 52 games unbeaten in my last game.

So, if your aim is to win, then keep playing and experimenting.

well i was playing as tottenham and grabbed a draw at old trafford, so man utd aren't impossible to beat...

then again, in real life, they are simply unbeatable at old trafford, and this game is supposed to echo real life...

I'm playing as Gateshead and despite being relegation candidates every single season I'm now in the Championship. I can assure you that I've won a lot of games where I was the underdog.

I know you don't want to hear it, and probably won't believe it but it really is your tactics. Or perhaps your team talks or your use of opposition instructions. Either way it's down to something you're doing, or not doing.