patch 10.4 vital (incl chelsea experiment)

I've now played a full season on 10.3 and found major problems with the ME. The main 2 I'd like to focus on are the long shots and the headers in open play.

Super keepers have not disappeared from the game but they've just become super in a different way. They are now incompetent at rushing out (move a few steps towards ball then wait for striker to shoot wide of them instead of diving at feet or at least seeming to make themselves big) but amazing at saving shots from long range. Even most shots that are headed for the top corner (from outside the box) are saved. This means that I have every player (including Van De Vaart who has 19 for long shots) on shoot seldomly.

Headers from open play are even a bigger problem. The wingers may be better at beating full backs (who somehow seem to get outpaced by payers who are slower than them) but the crosses they produce hardly ever lead to goals. Playing with Everton this is a huge problem as a sensible option with them should be to try get many crosses in for Cahill and Fellaini to profit from. Instead they constantly head the ball over from close range.

This means that pacy strikers are a must whereas tall strong players may help in the build up but will leave you frustrated in attack. So now you have to decrease the amount of crossing players do. As has been the case with just about every FM the vast majority of goals from open play seem to be scored when there is no defender goalside whereas the vast majority in real life are scored when there is at least 1 defender goalside. I would guess more are scored from just inside the area with defenders making attempted blocks than in any other (single) way.

To back up my observations of my games I watched the highlights of goals that came over 5fixtures in 10.3 and they came in the following way.

90 goals

open play

30 from through ball (33%)

9 from missed tackle/striker dribbling past player(s) (10%)

6 scored from shots from just inside area (7%)

5 from low crosses/square balls (6%)

6 from goal mouth scrambles/rebound goals etc

6 from long balls not touched by attacking team mate

1 from long ball with flick on:mad:

5 from headers

4 shots from outside the box

set pieces

4- dfk

7- pens

2- ifk- headers

3- corner- scramble (scored with foot)

2- corners- header

18 of 90 (20 %) from set pieces i think is slightly low but not majorly. From my recollection around 10 % of goals come from shots from outside the box in open play so there should be at least double as many as now. Not sure the stat for headers from open play in real life but I would think an average premier league team who score say 45 goals in a league season would get more than 2.5. Anyway from the above you can see how much more important attackers and defenders having pace rather than other stats is (queue chelsea experiment).

I created a new game in which chelsea's top 5 scorers from my other save (Lampard. Drogba, Cole, Lampard, Ballack) had 5 for finishing and 5 for composure (gk are so incompetent from close range i figure these attributes won't mean as much as they should). I changed 5 chelsea defenders (Terry, Alex, Cole, Bosingwa, Carvalho) jumping to 5 as well. If the match engine worked as it should they would lose so many headers that they'd conceed from many crosses/set pieces right?

Anyway after 20 games they were right in the champions league hunt. They had scored less goals than previously- but still had the same 5 players as top scorers and Drogba still had over a goal every 2 games. Defense was the thing that was really a shocker (or not as was totally expected). Despite having defenders who were constantly losing just about every header they attempted they only conceeded 10 GOALS IN 20 GAMES. This shows that as long as the defender is putting some pressure on the attacker they can lose the header every time and it will very seldom be a goal.

P.S much of this is not valid at lower league level. I guess because of lower gk stats and def marking/off the ball attributes. However, what I did notice about watching lower league games is that all the teams play like Arsenal....pinging the ball around at pace, using through balls almost as much as the top teams. So If you're so proud you've managed to get your team to do so....big deal so has every other AI manager.

Unfortunately I think the developers are plandering to the masses who simply except whatever team they have to be able to play "beautiful football" and do not consider the minority who'd like to use a variety of playing styles depending on what players they. This being said ball-winners are vital in midfielders...it's the style of scoring that bothers me. To make up for the more goals coming from headers and long shots the developers need only tweak the defenders ability to read through balls slightly to keep number of goals scored roughly the same.

35 league 2 goals

open play

13 from through balls

1 defender missed tackle

1 from long ball not touched by attacking team mate

1 goal from just inside area

3 from headers

7 from shots from outside the area

set pieces

4-pens

3- corner- header

2- corner - taken short to player just inside box

Excellent, your backing up th theory that the corner bug is not important

Nice work and all that, but if you had of read the forums before you put the time into this you'll hav already seen that PaulC has said 10.3 was the last patch and now they are moving onto FM11.

there wont be another patch for fm10;)

as baker says its full ''STEAM'' ahead to fm11

there wont be another patch for fm10;)

as baker says its full ''steam'' ahead to fm11

fm11 = 10.4

I think we can all agree that headed goals & long shots are fewer than on 10.2 but I'm still scoring a fair few. And although I can't disagree about the ME not being perfect it's a long way from unplayable.

You've obviously put in a lot of work on this but the sample is tiny compared to the soak tests that SI do before comparing the stats to "real" ones.

Since they have already stated there will be no 10.4 I don't think this will matter much. However, do save it and when the next round of beta testing is announced get on board. I'm sure they'd appreciate this type of input.

fm11 = 10.4

It will be a bit pricey for a patch...

i know that but that is a disgrace. Expecting us to play a game for 7 more months that has such obvious flaws? Can you put up with having a player like Cahill put 50 out of 50 headers over the bar from close range over a season? The way goals are scored is surely the most important part of the sim. Forcing you to play one way due to the ME rather than playing in a way that makes sense for the players you have surely is unacceptable. As is not noticing that there are these issues. What do the play testers do? Have they ever watched real football and seen the way goals are generally scored in it? The main thing that sets FM apart from other football sims has been the match engine. It's been rubbish up until the final patch for the past few years but at least they eventually got it right. Are we supposed to overlook the poor match engine and be thankful the abomination that are the transfer system/team talks/ press conferences.

No patch 10.4 = me probably never buying another FM game.

We should create one single moaning thread where people can moan about everything that goes wrong in FM. That way it would save a lot of new threads being created, and would be easier to find people complaining about the game if you wanted to.

Are SI going to release these Soak test figures they do? Perhaps the lower league level goals balance the top league ones out so they seem right to them. I don't see the ME as unplayable for all but it certainly is unplayable if you want to play any other style than with creative midfielders and pacy strikers. It's reminiscent of the terrible FIFA games where you always had to score the goals the same way. Their complacence lead to PES gaining huge market share and if FM go the same route is can only be to their detrimant.

Anyway If I feel the need to continue playing FM I suppose I can just stick to playing in the lower leagues.

Before fm10 was released we were told that they had a quality control and a full testing dept to make sure the game was at it's highest standards and things would be better than fm09 which needed 3 patches before you could say it was playable.

So what did we get another half finished product which needed 3 patches and even now there are still known bugs, ok every pc game released these days need patching but we had to wait till March before i could play the game to the standards i expect, now is this acceptable seeing as the game was released in November.

My advice to anyone wait till the new year before buying fm11 and by then the price would have dropped and maybe there will be 2 or 3 patches to make the game playable to the standards we expect.

Seriously this is not good enough at the end of the day and now they have 7 months to make and bring out fm11, not enough time to produce and update a game of this statue.

Whats worst is the blant Belarus and Russia leagues not working in 10.2 db with 10.3 patch. That just lacks professionalism. Needless to say I'm never buying another FM game again.

I know I'm not going to be very constructive in relation to this discussion, but somehow my players score headers almost every single game.

Whats worst is the blant Belarus and Russia leagues not working in 10.2 db with 10.3 patch. That just lacks professionalism. Needless to say I'm never buying another FM game again.

really? it annoys you so much that you cant play as 2 obscure leagues with already outdated stats? would you have even complained if they werent included in the original game? think about how much stats and coding goes into the game, and your so arrogant to dismiss all that because youve read about an understandable problem on these forums and want to look cool? im not a fanboy, but honestly, your attitude is ridiculous.

fm11 = 10.4

pfft, count me out if that is the case. I'm not spending £25-30 quid on a slightly updated version of FM10. Infact i won't be buying it unless it has a really significant improvment over FM10, or as stated i'll just wait till March 2011 and buy it cheaper when the latest patch is released...

I can't imagine you spending your money on something more valuable.

It's like that famous saying by Omer Haim:

"I don't understand people who are selling wine, because to be honest, what better could they buy for that money?"

Are SI going to release these Soak test figures they do? Perhaps the lower league level goals balance the top league ones out so they seem right to them.

They release plenty of information. You joined the forum 5 minutes ago and you come here shouting your mouth off. Jeez.

there wont be another patch for fm10;)

as baker says its full ''STEAM'' ahead to fm11

*Groan* I think you just won worst pun ever there.

Anyway on topic that is an excellent well thought out OP and is a breath of fresh air from all the Rant threads that seem to pop up.

Unfortunately there won't be a 4th patch so we just have to make do with what we've got.

this is annoying but even more so when you consider fm 09 m.e was ok and fm10 was suppose to be a "polished" version. Yet here we are 3 patches later (4 if you count the actual game) and still problems with m.e. What did they polish, they brass in the office!???

I know I'm not going to be very constructive in relation to this discussion, but somehow my players score headers almost every single game.

I'm scoring over a goal a game from headers after 8 games this season. Only one from a set piece as well. In LIGA BBVA as well, as Atletico.

Can I ask the OP whether his stats are taken from his own team's statistical breakdown or general and random matches?

this is annoying but even more so when you consider fm 09 m.e was ok and fm10 was suppose to be a "polished" version. Yet here we are 3 patches later (4 if you count the actual game) and still problems with m.e. What did they polish, they brass in the office!???

It worries me how little some people notice, the M.E. has clearly improved, it is a joy to watch, and is by far one of the hardest thing to code. Have you for one second thought about how much work must go into it before coming out with these comments.

Yeah its not perfect, buts its miles better than 09. Its going to take a lot longer than a year to perfect something as complicated as the M.E...... But you know... if you can do better I more than look forward to seeing you release by September, yeah?

I think we can all agree that headed goals & long shots are fewer than on 10.2 but I'm still scoring a fair few. And although I can't disagree about the ME not being perfect it's a long way from unplayable.

You've obviously put in a lot of work on this but the sample is tiny compared to the soak tests that SI do before comparing the stats to "real" ones.

Since they have already stated there will be no 10.4 I don't think this will matter much. However, do save it and when the next round of beta testing is announced get on board. I'm sure they'd appreciate this type of input.

I know I'm not going to be very constructive in relation to this discussion, but somehow my players score headers almost every single game.

what league are you playing and are you sure you are using 10.3?

Interesting data. Haven't played enough if 10.3 to add my own input to that yet.

Still I hope this isn't closed just because the OP has used the secret 'please close this thread' tag by using the word 'patch' in the thread title. Other than that the OP is constructive and providing evidence.

Though in all fairness the sample size is still somewhat small to jump to too many conclusions. Also, the ME of every FM has always tended to favour and disfavour different kinds or styles of play. As it's just the engine of a video game that seems pretty inevitable to me. A new patch before FM11 might thus not be necessary unless the flaw reaches a ridiculous extent.

i have serious problems scoring headers with the new patch.

Nothing seems to work for me.

It worries me how little some people notice, the M.E. has clearly improved, it is a joy to watch, and is by far one of the hardest thing to code. Have you for one second thought about how much work must go into it before coming out with these comments.

Yeah its not perfect, buts its miles better than 09. Its going to take a lot longer than a year to perfect something as complicated as the M.E...... But you know... if you can do better I more than look forward to seeing you release by September, yeah?

You totally miss the point. It's a joy to watch if you want your team to play in one specific way....which happens to then be exactly the same way that every other team in the entire game plays. If you want to play any other way it is a joy to watch while the ball is in midfield but a nightmare to watch in terms of goalmouth action. I don't recall any previous (last patch) FM or CM version forcing you to play one specific way.

You totally miss the point. It's a joy to watch if you want your team to play in one specific way....which happens to then be exactly the same way that every other team in the entire game plays. If you want to play any other way it is a joy to watch while the ball is in midfield but a nightmare to watch in terms of goalmouth action. I don't recall any previous (last patch) FM or CM version forcing you to play one specific way.

You mean playing down the wings being useless in 10.2?

Most of the successful tactics for the previous patch were narrow formations.

I'm scoring over a goal a game from headers after 8 games this season. Only one from a set piece as well. In LIGA BBVA as well, as Atletico.

Can I ask the OP whether his stats are taken from his own team's statistical breakdown or general and random matches?

oh sorry. It was 90 English premier league goals scored over 4/5 weekends- i just watched the goal highlights of each game day. As i indicated the league 2 stats were quite different as were those from FA Cup games- probably due to gk's = worse =more long shots being scored and more goals from headers probably due to marking of players in the box being worse or possibly just that more crosses are made.

You mean playing down the wings being useless in 10.2?

Most of the successful tactics for the previous patch were narrow formations.

i mean it being equally useless in 10.2 and 10.3. I mean 9.03, 8.03, 7.03 being open to play on different ways.

i mean it being equally useless in 10.2 and 10.3. I mean 9.03, 8.03, 7.03 being open to play on different ways.

Ah my mistake.

I dont have the best memory so best I dont comment.

Good work on the stats so far, but I think if you really want to test something like this you need to do it over a full season and with screenshots. 5 games is just too small a sample really.

There are a couple of threads around where they mention testing. The simple answer is that not all flaws are fixable in the timeframe. The corner exploit was found but given lower priority than other issues because fixing that meant other things got a lot worse. I've not seen crosses mentioned, but I imagine it was the same issue. Either the testers didn't have this problem or it was discussed and decided that the knock-on effects would be far worse than sticking with the minor issue as it is.

I've played as Man City and Leeds on 10.3 and *I* certainly don't have much of an issue with it. I've found it similar to the so-called "superkeeper" bug, where the overall number of one-v-ones scored was actually pretty realistic, yet the ratio of chances-to-goals was way out. Attempts at headed goals are very high, with the ratio scored quite low. But the overall number of headed goals is about right. For me around 1 every 3-4 games in League One, mainly Mantorrass (heading 15, jumping 13-14, sorry can't remember exactly) but also Beckford getting a couple, which is about right for Leeds.

There's always a difference of opinion on these issues. Some people have the problem, others don't. So, to those asking why SI can't get something as "simple" or "obvious" as this correct, there's your answer. It's not an exact science. And programming a game like this is VERY complicated.

There are still flaws, but this is, overall, a really excellent game.

Ah my mistake.

I dont have the best memory so best I dont comment.

Good work on the stats so far, but I think if you really want to test something like this you need to do it over a full season and with screenshots. 5 games is just too small a sample really.

ok i'll spend 24 hours a day for 3 weeks unpaid and get back to you on that.

In relation to headed goals

EPL stats (16 teams) as of 25 Feb 2010

Proportion of goals from headers

Birmingham 3/25 12%

Wigan 7/26 27%

Bolton 7/29 24%

Wolves 5/26 19%

Burnley 3/27 11%

Portsmouth 5/21 24%

Chelsea 10/63 16%

Man city 6/48 13%

Stoke 8/26 31%

Arsenal 8/63 13%

Liverpool 5/43 12%

Blackburn 8/29 28%

Sunderland 9/32 28%

Fulham 2/32 6%

Tottenham 8/48 17%

Everton 9/48 19%

Total 103/581 = 17.7%

59 goals from open play cross (head, foot etc)

40 goals from corners (head, foot, etc)

Best I could do with google for a specific team, Everton 2008/2009

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Newcastle-v-Everton-Premier-League-predictions-previews-and-team-news-article38967.html

Everton attempted 75 headed shots as of 20/02/2009 [25 matches]

Before playing Chelsea on 22 April

32 matches played, 47 goals scored, 15 headers = 32%

Approximate continued average of 3 headed shots per match => In 32 matches 96 headed shots => 15/96 = 16% of headed shots were goals

-----------------------------------

Personally, I think part of the issue is wingers but the problem is when it was much closer to ‘reality’ (but was still too ‘high’) the general forum was up in arms about how useless wingers were. So now we have wingers beating full backs too often, too many crosses and too few completed with the divergence of the last two making the in game effect more pronounced.

Also a lack of low crosses, cut backs, too robotic marking in and around the box and strikers stalling their runs too often which limits certain types of goals/chances which are a fairly regular occurrence in real life. This seems to have a secondary effect on cross trajectory with limited whipped balls into no man’s land between the back line and keeper, with a few too many going almost completely laterally (timing of cross and tactical settings probably contribute also).

The way full backs mark/position, the manner in which they close down are both off in my opinion leading to excessive number of dribbles attempted by wingers (compounded by tactical settings) and far too many successful dribbles.

That’s my 2 cents on it anyway.

ok i'll spend 24 hours a day for 3 weeks unpaid and get back to you on that.

Well come on, he is right. It's like waiting for 1 bus which then turns up late and then saying 'all buses are late'.

They release plenty of information. You joined the forum 5 minutes ago and you come here shouting your mouth off. Jeez.

i asked a simple question. I find the search engines on forums generally really bad but I'll try find these released figures you speak of seen as you couldn't be bothered to provide a link. Been called "fanboy" much?

i asked a simple question. I find the search engines on forums generally really bad but I'll try find these released figures you speak of seen as you couldn't be bothered to provide a link. Been called "fanboy" much?

Thread ruined by yourself slinging insults

In relation to headed goals

EPL stats (16 teams) as of 25 Feb 2010

Proportion of goals from headers

Birmingham 3/25 12%

Wigan 7/26 27%

Bolton 7/29 24%

Wolves 5/26 19%

Burnley 3/27 11%

Portsmouth 5/21 24%

Chelsea 10/63 16%

Man city 6/48 13%

Stoke 8/26 31%

Arsenal 8/63 13%

Liverpool 5/43 12%

Blackburn 8/29 28%

Sunderland 9/32 28%

Fulham 2/32 6%

Tottenham 8/48 17%

Everton 9/48 19%

Total 103/581 = 17.7%

59 goals from open play cross (head, foot etc)

40 goals from corners (head, foot, etc)

Best I could do with google for a specific team, Everton 2008/2009

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Newcastle-v-Everton-Premier-League-predictions-previews-and-team-news-article38967.html

Everton attempted 75 headed shots as of 20/02/2009 [25 matches]

Before playing Chelsea on 22 April

32 matches played, 47 goals scored, 15 headers = 32%

Approximate continued average of 3 headed shots per match => In 32 matches 96 headed shots => 15/96 = 16% of headed shots were goals

-----------------------------------

Personally, I think part of the issue is wingers but the problem is when it was much closer to ‘reality’ (but was still too ‘high’) the general forum was up in arms about how useless wingers were. So now we have wingers beating full backs too often, too many crosses and too few completed with the divergence of the last two making the in game effect more pronounced.

Also a lack of low crosses, cut backs, too robotic marking in and around the box and strikers stalling their runs too often which limits certain types of goals/chances which are a fairly regular occurrence in real life. This seems to have a secondary effect on cross trajectory with limited whipped balls into no man’s land between the back line and keeper, with a few too many going almost completely laterally (timing of cross and tactical settings probably contribute also).

The way full backs mark/position, the manner in which they close down are both off in my opinion leading to excessive number of dribbles attempted by wingers (compounded by tactical settings) and far too many successful dribbles.

That’s my 2 cents on it anyway.

Thanks a lot. Good to see something else constructive. 20% headers scored in real life (compared to atm 10% in Fm).

How come no one has commented on my Chelsea experiment? All defenders with 5 for jumping yet they only conceed 10 goals in 20 games? I keenly await the justification for that scenario.

Defending is far better and I still see headers being scored.

At least now I can play my 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 without feeling the need to play narrow to win.

My tactics that were constantly woeful in 10.2 now work fine and I once again can feel as though I am in control tactically and not being told I cant play because the match engine just didnt know how to defend.

Thanks a lot. Good to see something else constructive. 20% headers scored in real life (compared to atm 10% in Fm).

How come no one has commented on my Chelsea experiment? All defenders with 5 for jumping yet they only conceed 10 goals in 20 games? I keenly await the justification for that scenario.

There is only roughly a 7.7% differance, and the other example has been over 16 games. Who is to say that after 16 games in you save things may have changed?

And I see you waited around for someone who shared your viewpoint rather than answering poeple that don't? What is it, it's only right if it back you up?

Thanks a lot. Good to see something else constructive. 20% headers scored in real life (compared to atm 10% in Fm).

How come no one has commented on my Chelsea experiment? All defenders with 5 for jumping yet they only conceed 10 goals in 20 games? I keenly await the justification for that scenario.

There's two key questions about your Chelsea experiment that relate to in game mechanics and need to be answered

Mechanic 1

Attributes are related to CA. If you drop their jumping attribute and hit the holiday button then unless you also adjusted their CA, their jumping attribute (alongside others) will realign to match CA. So the questions are did you do this, and also did you reduce the entire squads CA values to try to ensure that the 'crap' players were first team regulars and picked by the AI consistently

Mechanic 2

AI teams set up strategically based on match odds which in of themselves are influenced by home or away/form and more importantly at the beginning of a season reputation. So a simple leap of logic that holds up in my experience is that teams facing Chelsea will not recognise they have crap players if the reputation remains high, hence they will not be as aggressive and will not attack as much as if they felt they could get something from a match against Chelsea. The logical knocf on from this, which again holds up in my experience, is that they will not have as many attacks/shots/goals against them.

This is not me making excuses for what happened in this Chelsea experiment, just highlighting why the results/conclusions might be flawed. But again in order to prove this requires in depth analysis which from your previous posting you have neither the time nor inclination to do. You are on the official forums so the burden of proof is on you, regardless of how unfair you believe this to be.

I AM FANBOY #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (smiley face => joke, so need to descend into argumentative chaos)

There is only roughly a 7.7% differance, and the other example has been over 16 games. Who is to say that after 16 games in you save things may have changed?

And I see you waited around for someone who shared your viewpoint rather than answering poeple that don't? What is it, it's only right if it back you up?

Or because he actually has something to back up what he says. How about you actually spend some time (as i did) looking at the issue- rather than just complaining about other people complaining. If every person spends an hour going through the goals scored in their games and reporting back then maybe we'll have enough to be statistical basis to make you happy.

Keep the personal comments to yourselves please guys.

There is only roughly a 7.7% differance, and the other example has been over 16 games. Who is to say that after 16 games in you save things may have changed?

And I see you waited around for someone who shared your viewpoint rather than answering poeple that don't? What is it, it's only right if it back you up?

For what it's worth I don't necessarily share his viewpoint. I was just posting some real life statistics for comparison, and you cannot call real life statistics a viewpoint. What followed after the statistics was just me venting about what I dislike about the match engine, which you can legitimately call a viewpoint. But I'm an expert in football so my viewpoint holds far more weight than yours, especially given the fact you are probably 12 years old and only ever watch MOTD highlights.

That last bit was sarcasm based on the general behaviour on these forums recently

There's two key questions about your Chelsea experiment that relate to in game mechanics and need to be answered

Mechanic 1

Attributes are related to CA. If you drop their jumping attribute and hit the holiday button then unless you also adjusted their CA, their jumping attribute (alongside others) will realign to match CA. So the questions are did you do this, and also did you reduce the entire squads CA values to try to ensure that the 'crap' players were first team regulars and picked by the AI consistently

Mechanic 2

AI teams set up strategically based on match odds which in of themselves are influenced by home or away/form and more importantly at the beginning of a season reputation. So a simple leap of logic that holds up in my experience is that teams facing Chelsea will not recognise they have crap players if the reputation remains high, hence they will not be as aggressive and will not attack as much as if they felt they could get something from a match against Chelsea. The logical knocf on from this, which again holds up in my experience, is that they will not have as many attacks/shots/goals against them.

This is not me making excuses for what happened in this Chelsea experiment, just highlighting why the results/conclusions might be flawed. But again in order to prove this requires in depth analysis which from your previous posting you have neither the time nor inclination to do. You are on the official forums so the burden of proof is on you, regardless of how unfair you believe this to be.

I AM FANBOY #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (smiley face => joke, so need to descend into argumentative chaos)

Point 1- The increase in attributes is only 1/2 so at best they had 7 by mid point of season.

(I suspected that there is a cap on increasing of attributes as I don't recall youngsters ever having an attribute increase by 2. They still picked the same players...who as i said kept getting 0/1 header out of 7 or so won per game.

point 2- the AI not recognising that there is a huge weakness in the opposing team that they should try to exploit is something I hope is not the case in FM.

point 1- the increase in attributes is only 1/2 so at best they had 7 by mid point of season.

(i suspected that there is a cap on increasing of attributes as i don't recall youngsters ever having an attribute increase by 2. They still picked the same players...who as i said kept getting 0/1 header out of 7 or so won per game.

fair enough.

point 2- the ai not recognising that there is a huge weakness in the opposing team that they should try to exploit is something i hope is not the case in fm.

i might be wrong as i base it on observation and zero knowledge of the code, but i really don't think the ai sees you have two midgets at centre back and starts bombing long balls/crosses into the area. It goes into a match with expectations of a result and a strategy to match which might get tweaked late into the match but at the very beginning the majority of ai sides will play cautiously against chelsea.

1010101010

1010101010

Even if they don't change the way they play the normal amount of long balls and crosses should be giving Chelsea a lot of problems. Yet the five or so goals that i watched all came from through balls.

There is only roughly a 7.7% differance

Erm, no there's not. If these figures were definitive (which they're clearly not considering the tiny sample size) the difference would be around 77%.

There are a couple of threads around where they mention testing. The simple answer is that not all flaws are fixable in the timeframe. The corner exploit was found but given lower priority than other issues because fixing that meant other things got a lot worse. I've not seen crosses mentioned, but I imagine it was the same issue. Either the testers didn't have this problem or it was discussed and decided that the knock-on effects would be far worse than sticking with the minor issue as it is.

I've played as Man City and Leeds on 10.3 and *I* certainly don't have much of an issue with it. I've found it similar to the so-called "superkeeper" bug, where the overall number of one-v-ones scored was actually pretty realistic, yet the ratio of chances-to-goals was way out. Attempts at headed goals are very high, with the ratio scored quite low. But the overall number of headed goals is about right. For me around 1 every 3-4 games in League One, mainly Mantorrass (heading 15, jumping 13-14, sorry can't remember exactly) but also Beckford getting a couple, which is about right for Leeds.

There's always a difference of opinion on these issues. Some people have the problem, others don't. So, to those asking why SI can't get something as "simple" or "obvious" as this correct, there's your answer. It's not an exact science. And programming a game like this is VERY complicated.

There are still flaws, but this is, overall, a really excellent game.

to respond to someone who disagreed with me. Firstly both Leeds and Man City are very good teams compared to the average team in the league. Secondly i did say that there appeared to be less of a problem in the lower leagues (from an even tinier sample size of goals).

Number of flaws is low but extent of flaws in my opinion is quite major.

How come no one has commented on my Chelsea experiment? All defenders with 5 for jumping yet they only conceed 10 goals in 20 games? I keenly await the justification for that scenario.

Haven't really read all the thread but this stood out.

I don't know what but giving a 6ft+ defender a jumping attribute of 5 I imagine will have a strange effect on the match engine as his height alone would give him a higher figure.

Also worth pointing out it takes more than jumping to win headers as has been proven in the past.

Haven't really read all the thread but this stood out.

I don't know what but giving a 6ft+ defender a jumping attribute of 5 I imagine will have a strange effect on the match engine as his height alone would give him a higher figure.

Also worth pointing out it takes more than jumping to win headers as has been proven in the past.

But the match engine itself doesn't consider height in its calculations. Jumping of 5 should really make it extremely hard for a player to win a header against anyone, regardless of their supporting attributes. That said there are definitely other factors that need to be taken into consideration as isuckatfm has pointed out.

But the match engine itself doesn't consider height in its calculations. Jumping of 5 should really make it extremely hard for a player to win a header against anyone, regardless of their supporting attributes. That said there are definitely other factors that need to be taken into consideration as isuckatfm has pointed out.

It does.

a) Height is used as part of calculating the jumping attribute.

b) Height is used within the ME to decide if the player needs to jump for the ball.

Si will continue selling games BUT I find it a joke that games are released with bugs and even after patches the leftover bugs are ignored and a new version released. Its like the customer is a guinea pig who simply undertakes testing on a product.