Should artificial limits be put in place?

Do you think SI would be in the right to have certain parameters in the ME that kept scores down to a realistic level, in an unrealistic manner?

Let me rephrase that. You're 3-0 up and dominating after 20 minutes. All your players have superb morale, the highest possible motivation, are in fantastic form, and have near 100% fitness. All the opposition players are carrying minor injuries, have less than 30% fitness, morale and motivation shattered, and no form to speak of. Furthermore, every player on your side is world class, and have a "perfect" personality, whereas the opposition are poor players for the level. Oh, and your tactics are brilliant, compared to the AI manager, who thinks he's watching a rugby match. Do you think there should be a bit of code in the game that stops your team absolutely running away with it, and maybe limits the score to 9-0?

Less extreme: you're playing a manager-less side, who have key players injured. They're a bit down in the dumps, and can't really motivate themselves. They've lost a few matches in a row. You're a good side, but not the best, maybe around the level of Everton or Tottenham. You create a lot of chances. Should there be something stopping you scoring a chance that you otherwise would have scored, in order to keep the score to something "reasonable", like 4-0?

Even less extreme: you've got a poor defence but a great attack. Let's call this team "Can Mity". You're playing a team in a similar boat, "Warsenal Oolwich". Both sides create fantastic chances, neither goalkeeper is much good. If an attack does break down, the other team have the perfect players to launch a counter. It soon gets to 5-3, before halftime even. At the half time team talk, both managers say the perfect thing. Both teams come out motivated, and sure enough, they add another goal apiece in the opening minutes. Should a magical restriction stop them from adding to their totals?

Basically, should SI hypothetically worsen the Match Engine (i.e. make it less realistic) in order to make up for deficiencies in other areas and keep scores realistic?

Personally, I think creating a problem so solve another problem, such as score "capping" to mask poor defending, or limiting the movement of attackers in the box at a corner to make up for the goalkeepers being unable to deal with crosses at corners, will only complicate the problems already facing the game, making it harder to solve them, as these improvisations aren't really solutions at all.

Please do not turn this into a "superkeepers" thread, a "bash SI" thread, or an "abuse" thread. I would remind you of the House Rules, and the individual GD rules, found here. Thanks.

I don't think the ME should interfere.

We'd just need a less cumbersome way to tell our players to "run out the clock", and so should do the AI manager.

So far I haven't really found a convincing way to stop my team, while leading by 3 or 4 to just keep possession with idle passing and similar time consuming tactics.

They either keep on going forward, at a slower pace but still forward, or they basically stop playing, allowing the discourager AI team to have a comeback.

Same, in the case of goal-fests, it's hard to stop them from happening

no i dont think thats the way to go about it. personally speaking these games are rare in my experiences. going with that i dont think there is enough merit to qualify changing the match engine just to stop a few things.

I have to disagree, SCIAG. There should be nothing in the match engine, that purposely detracts from a team scoring more goals, just because its unrealistic. When Man U beat Ipswich 9-1 all them years ago, they didn't suddenly hit a forcefield when around the area, stopping them from scoring the 10th. At 5-0 in the Spurs v Wigan game this season, Redknapp didn't tell his players to stop scoring, because he wants to keep it realistic. When Spurs went 3-0 up at HT v Man Utd a few seasons ago, Man Utd wasn't told that they shouldn't score the 5 goals to win the game, because its not realistic.

There are so many variables in real life football, as well as FM, that you can't honestly tell me what a "realistic" scoreline is. Do you think scores should all be in the 1-0 to 4-0 range, for the sake of realism? Lets also not forget, that in the Spurs v Wigan game, it was only 1-0 at half time. Nobody told Spurs that it would be unrealistic to score 8 goals in 45 minutes of football, because it quite simply isn't. Anything within the realms of possibility, is realistic. And if someone achieves something that isn't common, but is realistic, they shouldn't be penalized, because of the FM match engine.

I think, if you checked every game, form every nation, and every division, you would find so many different score lines, ranging from 0 goals, to 10 goals, that you wont honestly be able to tell me what a realistic scoreline is, again, due to the sheer mass of variables that the game contains.

And Spurs beat Wigan 9-1, Wigan are a good side for what I expected them to do in the Premiership so I was surprised by that one like most people were so it's all down to the one particular game. On the other hand if both teams were near perfect, e.g. Barcelona vs. Man U, then I would agree to an extent.

Neppo, liam, you seem to have misinterpreted what I'm saying

I'm asking, in effect, whether realistic scorelines should be achieved at any length.

There's my opinion:

Personally, I think creating a problem so solve another problem, such as score "capping" to mask poor defending, or limiting the movement of attackers in the box at a corner to make up for the goalkeepers being unable to deal with crosses at corners, will only complicate the problems already facing the game, making it harder to solve them, as these improvisations aren't really solutions at all.

Edle: I don't mean "should they be added now", I mean if it ever got to that stage.

The only length that should be taken to ensure realistic scores is a more realistic simulation of the details of football. I don't see why time should be taken to artificially determine scorelines when that same time could be spent on improving the AI's reaction to in-game tactical events or improving the realism of ingame events.

Anyway I don't see anything unrealistic in my current save so I don't see what the problem is. There will always be the odd result when multiple leagues are being simulated by multiple users so that the number of matches compared to real life for particular teams and leagues grows exponentially. If 10,000 Manchester Uniteds played in 10,000 Premier Leagues each season you would get record breaking scorelines every week.

aha well if its a hypothetical situation my opinion on the matter would still be no.

I havent noticed it in the 2010 match engine greatly, but in the match engine that Football Manager Live used this was practically already in effect. Once you got to 3-0, your players would give up and your opposition would inexplicably find a new wave of motivation. The number of times you would reach 3-0 and then get battered for the remainder of the match was unbelievable.

Given 2010 is an evolution of that same match engine, I don't think theres that much debate to be had. Artificial limits already are in place...

Is there an artificial limit to prevent scores from getting too high?

I know keepers have been made better to keep scores down, but that is not exactly the same as as artificial limit if you understand what I'm trying to say.

And Spurs beat Wigan 9-1, Wigan are a good side for what I expected them to do in the Premiership so I was surprised by that one like most people were so it's all down to the one particular game.

I was gonna say pretty much this, but liam already beat me to it. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what falls into the frame of 'realistic' and what doesn't, as freak results happen too IRL, so I don't think that's something SI ought to worry about. As long as these freak results remain rare, as they are IRL, I don't think it would be necessary to put something like that in place.

The only length that should be taken to ensure realistic scores is a more realistic simulation of the details of football. I don't see why time should be taken to artificially determine scorelines when that same time could be spent on improving the AI's reaction to in-game tactical events or improving the realism of ingame events.

Anyway I don't see anything unrealistic in my current save so I don't see what the problem is. There will always be the odd result when multiple leagues are being simulated by multiple users so that the number of matches compared to real life for particular teams and leagues grows exponentially. If 10,000 Manchester Uniteds played in 10,000 Premier Leagues each season you would get record breaking scorelines every week.

This is what i was thinking

I think people fail to realize how hard it is to simulate RL football.

AI needs to be very clever. Type of AI that takes over the world (often trying to wipe out human beings ) in movies.

I'd rather have a realistic cap in place. Doubt we'll see what everyone is craving for any time soon.

The match engine should be made good and accurate enough so as to render this question meaningless.

is OP serious?

the situations described lead to high scorelines because that would be realistic. but this is too much realism, so lets toss realism out the window and limit scorelines.

this makes no sense mate. if you have two teams playing a 2-3-5 formation, then ofcourse you are going to get a crapload of goals being scored. in fact, if you got anything but a bunch of goals, then not only is the match engine unrealistic but the score would also be unrealistic too.

realistic scorelines derive themselves from a realistic match engine. they are linked.

the worst part is that I reckon you know all this, and have tried to shield yourself with those last fews lines of your post.

dude, the idea makes no sense. it just seems like you really, truly dont want high scores. why this is? I do not know

Yeah i'm not sure i understand the point of this either.

is OP serious?

the situations described lead to high scorelines because that would be realistic. but this is too much realism, so lets toss realism out the window and limit scorelines.

this makes no sense mate. if you have two teams playing a 2-3-5 formation, then ofcourse you are going to get a crapload of goals being scored. in fact, if you got anything but a bunch of goals, then not only is the match engine unrealistic but the score would also be unrealistic too.

realistic scorelines derive themselves from a realistic match engine. they are linked.

the worst part is that I reckon you know all this, and have tried to shield yourself with those last fews lines of your post.

dude, the idea makes no sense. it just seems like you really, truly dont want high scores. why this is? I do not know

Crichton, this is harsh, but SCIAG I do basically agree that capping scorelines is madness. High scores happen (Arsenal beating Everton 6-1 this season, anyone ?), and so they should in the game, ideally as rarely as they do in real life, which is another question is it not ?

Crichton, this is harsh, but SCIAG I do basically agree that capping scorelines is madness. High scores happen (Arsenal beating Everton 6-1 this season, anyone ?), and so they should in the game, ideally as rarely as they do in real life, which is another question is it not ?

These scores happen in FM just like RL though.

They're sporadic but they happen. This season alone I've managed to beat United 4-1 at Old Trafford (Who needs Benitez?!), Birmingham 6-0 and Wolves 9-1 all in the Prem. I've also managed to beat Juventus 5-0 in the Champions League. My team isn't filled with stars too. Mostly Liverpool's original players + 1 guy who's average at best and 3-4, 18-19 yo newgens who've filled 1.5-2 out of 2.5-3 stars (none by any means amazing).

dude, the idea makes no sense. ...

No, what you mean is that you don't understand it. There is a difference. SCIAG, it makes perfect sense to me, don't worry, or at least enough sense to see what you're trying to say. Although to be fair, it probably does help to have knowledge/understanding of AI programming in order to appreciate what you're getting at.

Personally, I think creating a problem so solve another problem, such as score "capping" to mask poor defending, or limiting the movement of attackers in the box at a corner to make up for the goalkeepers being unable to deal with crosses at corners, will only complicate the problems already facing the game, making it harder to solve them, as these improvisations aren't really solutions at all.

I agree with you. For example, one of the dangers of having such artifical caps/limits and other "unrealistic" restrictions, is what happens when two or more of these clash, and one tries to force a particular outcome, while the other(s) are preventing it? It's gonna happen sooner or later.

I don't see why time should be taken to artificially determine scorelines when that same time could be spent on improving the AI's reaction to in-game tactical events or improving the realism of ingame events.

Yes, in the case of high scorelines, teams running up a cricket-score should not be handled by a hard-and-fast limit, but by perhaps making them less likely to score more via methods that are explainable in real-world terms. The winning team might "take their foot off the gas", or the losing manager might switch to a "damage limitation" more-defensive formation/tactic, etc. It doesn't stop more goals from being scored, but it perhaps reduces the likelihood...

These scores happen in FM just like RL though.

They're sporadic but they happen. This season alone I've managed to beat United 4-1 at Old Trafford (Who needs Benitez?!), Birmingham 6-0 and Wolves 9-1 all in the Prem. I've also managed to beat Juventus 5-0 in the Champions League. My team isn't filled with stars too. Mostly Liverpool's original players + 1 guy who's average at best and 3-4, 18-19 yo newgens who've filled 1.5-2 out of 2.5-3 stars (none by any means amazing).

Bardock, I think my question is do these scores happen as often as in real life or more or less so?, I'm not saying they don't happen. Personally I think it's only a matter of tweaking but is that an incorrect perception ?

Capping is what exists now I believe.

I think SCIAG is saying there shouldn't be any capping it's a problem incorporated into the game to compensate for another problem (bad defending).

is op mentally ill or what exactly is the problem? you saying that world class doesnt beat amateurs 10- 0 in rl ?

or that both world class teams cant go beyond 3 total goals? do i need to remind couple of games 2 weeks ago.. with huge scorelines between top teams..

clearly unrealistic..

I am not saying I do not want high scores no matter what! I am playing Devil's Advocate! And fwiw, no, world class teams rarely beat amateurs 10-0, partly because they rarely play.

I'm also not saying I think there is a problem as things stand.

Surprised that nobody's brought up the 31-0 or whatever it was yet... anyhow.

I'll try and make this easier to understand, I obviously didn't make myself clear, sorry.

Let's say all SI's computers crash tomorrow and all back ups are destroyed. There isn't time to re-create the whole Match Engine, but they can get attacking play sorted. Would you rather SI allowed matches to get to rugby scores (25-23, for example), or would you prefer them to lower shot conversion rates once, say, eight goals have been scored? For the sake of argument, that adjustment would take thirty seconds, compared to twenty months to completely fix defending.

I am not saying I do not want high scores no matter what! I am playing Devil's Advocate! And fwiw, no, world class teams rarely beat amateurs 10-0, partly because they rarely play.

I'm also not saying I think there is a problem as things stand.

Surprised that nobody's brought up the 31-0 or whatever it was yet... anyhow.

I'll try and make this easier to understand, I obviously didn't make myself clear, sorry.

Let's say all SI's computers crash tomorrow and all back ups are destroyed. There isn't time to re-create the whole Match Engine, but they can get attacking play sorted. Would you rather SI allowed matches to get to rugby scores (25-23, for example), or would you prefer them to lower shot conversion rates once, say, eight goals have been scored? For the sake of argument, that adjustment would take thirty seconds, compared to twenty months to completely fix defending.

Tbh I understood perfectly what you meant. Maybe those people just read your title and then jumped to conclusions. Pretty amusing, though.