Do you consider using the corner cheat to be cheating?

I have two questions that I wanted to get the consensus community opinion on.

First question: Do you consider using the corner cheat to be cheating? Simply vote yes or no.

Second question: How close does a corner tactic have to be to the corner cheat to count as a corner cheat? If I play the ball to a guy at the top of the penalty area, but have some of my attackers attacking the ball from deep so the defense can sometimes intercept the corner, does this count? What if I set up like the corner cheat but set the delivery to "mixed" so the ball doesn't go to the lurking player every time?

You're calling it 'the corner cheat.' I'd think the answer would be pretty self-explanatory

In answer to your second question, it's a cheat if it exploits a weakness in the ME, which the corner cheat does. If you set up corners to only sometimes take advantage of it, you're still exploiting it.

Erm... could someone define the "corner cheat"?

Erm... could someone define the "corner cheat"?

Do a search, mate. There have been loads of threads.

You said it yourself it's a corner cheat, so why isn't it cheating? Lol

To be fair, this forum is pretty... evangelical.

I'm sure there's some "hardcore" FM fans who consider playing matches with a recognised goalkeeper in goal as cheating.

Searched it; from what I gather you somewhat crowd the 6 yard box and it always results in a goal. Bit like an exaggerated Stoke City.

Yeah, if it is scoring goals due to a gaming [rather than tactical] advantage, it's clearly cheating.

Yes! !

Yes!

Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly in denial.

Yes. Because it is, and is called such.

What about the former "corner exploits" of fm09 and early fm10? Do you all consider those tactics cheating, or is this new tactic so prolific that the previous ones are tame compared to it. (I havn't played on 10.3 yet)

What about the former "corner exploits" of fm09 and early fm10? Do you all consider those tactics cheating, or is this new tactic so prolific that the previous ones are tame compared to it. (I havn't played on 10.3 yet)

There are quite a few corner cheats on 10.3, and I consider them all to be cheating. They're exploiting a weakness in the ME, that shouldn't be there, and that is cheating.

There are quite a few corner cheats on 10.3, and I consider them all to be cheating. They're exploiting a weakness in the ME, that shouldn't be there, and that is cheating.

But what about FM09 and Fm10 10.0-.1. The one where you put one to two guys challenging keeper and others on post. Used to be able to get 2-3 goals per game from a CB with it. Was that any worse than the new one? It's not like those were leaving one guy wide open for an easy shot.

But what about FM09 and Fm10 10.0-.1. The one where you put one to two guys challenging keeper and others on post. Used to be able to get 2-3 goals per game from a CB with it. Was that any worse than the new one? It's not like those were leaving one guy wide open for an easy shot.

What makes one corner cheat worse than another?

You can still get a load of goals from the ones in 10.3, just as you could with the old versions. Just because the set-ups have changed, doesn't mean it's any less of an exploit.

The question is, where do you draw the line between exploiting and playing fair? It really isn't as black and white as some of you make it sound. What if I put my best header on the goalie and tell the corner taker to kick it at him? Is that really exploiting if it only works 25% of the time or less? It's not like the goal keeper glitches and freezes and the other 10 players are in the middle of the pitch.

The question is, where do you draw the line between exploiting and playing fair? It really isn't as black and white as some of you make it sound. What if I put my best header on the goalie and tell the corner taker to kick it at him? Is that really exploiting if it only works 25% of the time or less? It's not like the goal keeper glitches and freezes and the other 10 players are in the middle of the pitch.

But that's not a cheat, is it? It's something that would happen irl.

Let's take one example of the corner exploit. You put a guy to hover outside the area. That player will remain unmarked and, if the ball is passed to him, will score more often than not. This would never happen so often irl, as that player on the edge of the box would be marked.

My point is, the situation I listed use to be considered a major exploit by some. But now that this new exploit is available, it makes the previous one look like peanuts.

I havn't been able to play FM in about a month, so I havn't seen the new exploit, but from what I've read it does seem to really take advantage of the situation.

It's just an exploit that leads to cheap goals - nobody gets hurt.

If you feel that you are getting an unfair advantage by using this exploit then you may or may not feel you are cheating but why do you have to ask? If you think it is fair then no, you are not cheating.

It's your game and you can do whatever you like.

It's just an exploit that leads to cheap goals - nobody gets hurt.

If you feel that you are getting an unfair advantage by using this exploit then you may or may not feel you are cheating but why do you have to ask? If you think it is fair then no, you are not cheating.

It's your game and you can do whatever you like.

We're just discussing people's opinions on the matter.

I think most of the people that are really worried about this cheat are the ones playing online, against human opposition, who can, unlike the AI, use this exploit to their advantage.

We're just discussing people's opinions on the matter.

I think most of the people that are really worried about this cheat are the ones playing online, against human opposition, who can, unlike the AI, use this exploit to their advantage.

Yes, I was obviously referring to offline play.

I don't think the corner exploit is such a problem in online play since everyone knows how to minimise it, and players use and abuse to the same degree.

Yes, I was obviously referring to offline play.

I don't think the corner exploit is such a problem in online play since everyone knows how to minimise it, and players use and abuse to the same degree.

I think it's more of a problem in online play. When offline, you're simply playing against the AI, who can't use the exploit. But, when online, you're against human players, who can use it against you. The problem arises when a group of players agree not to use it, and one of them does.

But I believe we've drifted a little off topic. The answer to your question on why do people ask whether it's cheating, is that they want people's opinions.

I think it's more of a problem in online play. When offline, you're simply playing against the AI, who can't use the exploit. But, when online, you're against human players, who can use it against you. The problem arises when a group of players agree not to use it, and one of them does.

But I believe we've drifted a little off topic. The answer to your question on why do people ask whether it's cheating, is that they want people's opinions.

I understood that and I already answered it in a previous post by saying no, it's not cheating in my opinion.

Of course, it can be seen as very bad etiquette in an online game, but it's not cheating.

I understood that and I already answered it in a previous post by saying no, it's not cheating in my opinion.

Of course, it can be seen as very bad etiquette in an online game, but it's not cheating.

Why not? Surely, in offline play you're cheating the AI and yourself and, in online play, you're cheating the other users. :confused:

That depends on how you define cheating.

I play many online games inlcuding fps games and cheating is a strong word which generally implies serious exploits or hacks which can get you banned. Only in the most naive and innocuous terms could this be considered 'cheating'. I really can't see how a player doing this is doing anything other than showing bad etiquette.

No, it's not cheating.

Cheating would be taking advantage of something the game doesn't and shouldn't allow for normally. (I'm reminded of that thread a while back where someone set Darron Gibson's position: MC to above 20 or some such, which glitched the game). So, a bug that allows you to buy players for free because of something weird, or that allowed you to replace red carded players (but the AI couldn't), or whatever. All of these would be cheating.

In my mind, a tactical setup really can't be cheating, because you're still playing by the same rules as the AI. In the above examples, you're really not. If this is your definition of cheating, then the corner exploit/cheat/whatever is not cheating.

A better question would be: is it unfair to use? I think it may very well be. It sort of "hides" badly developed tactics, allowing you to win games you shouldn't have by increasing your set piece rate artificially. It's cheap. I think it's fair to laugh at people who use it regularly and try to claim that they're good if they can only get results by using it. Using the lurking corner setup isn't anything to brag about.

But, you just can't really call it cheating.

edit:

That depends on how you define cheating.

I play many online games inlcuding fps games and cheating is a strong word which generally implies serious exploits or hacks which can get you banned. Only in the most naive and innocuous terms could this be considered 'cheating'. I really can't see how a player doing this is doing anything other than showing bad etiquette.

I agree with this interpretation. "Cheating" is something like wallhacks or an aimbot or what-have-you. The lurking corner setup is more like...spawn-camping or something really annoying but within the rules, I guess.

Yes of course it is. I obviously wouldn't mind people doing it on their games and leaving it as that, but if you're gonna post on forums about how you're doing in your game and use some kind of 'cheat' or 'exploit' or whatever you want to call it, then I would have no interest whatsoever. That goes for a number of other things as well, like using downloaded tactics, selling the whole team and buying a new one over the 48month scheme etc. Just boring really.

No, it's not cheating.

Cheating would be taking advantage of something the game doesn't and shouldn't allow for normally. (I'm reminded of that thread a while back where someone set Darron Gibson's position: MC to above 20 or some such, which glitched the game). So, a bug that allows you to buy players for free because of something weird, or that allowed you to replace red carded players (but the AI couldn't), or whatever. All of these would be cheating.

In my mind, a tactical setup really can't be cheating, because you're still playing by the same rules as the AI. In the above examples, you're really not. If this is your definition of cheating, then the corner exploit/cheat/whatever is not cheating.

A better question would be: is it unfair to use? I think it may very well be. It sort of "hides" badly developed tactics, allowing you to win games you shouldn't have by increasing your set piece rate artificially. It's cheap. I think it's fair to laugh at people who use it regularly and try to claim that they're good if they can only get results by using it. Using the lurking corner setup isn't anything to brag about.

But, you just can't really call it cheating.

edit:

I agree with this interpretation. "Cheating" is something like wallhacks or an aimbot or what-have-you. The lurking corner setup is more like...spawn-camping or something really annoying but within the rules, I guess.

But it's a flaw in the ME programming that allows us to take advantage of this cheat. It shouldn't be there, so shouldn't be allowed normally.

It depends if you actively look for it. If you don't read the forums thne you probably think you are the set piece don if you happent to stumble upon the correct setup to exploit the corner bug. But then if you don't know it's there, how can it be cheating?

With that in mind I'd say that if you actuvely look for it, then it is cheating. If you don't change anything and it just happens then it isn't.

Fence-sitting, it's the best

I've been doing some tactical experiments recently, using the tactics creator and the exploit is automatically set in almost every strategy. It can be hard to avoid because i've noticed too many goals from far post and near post, it's not just an exploit it's a bug.

Searched it; from what I gather you somewhat crowd the 6 yard box and it always results in a goal. Bit like an exaggerated Stoke City.

Yeah, if it is scoring goals due to a gaming [rather than tactical] advantage, it's clearly cheating.

I get that, and I'm 90% in agreement.

But is it an exploit if it doesn't always work, and if the AI does it itself?

I actually found it because I was trying to figure out why EVERY time Arsenal had a corner, they cut it to the front corner of the box and scored.

I found the description here and had a play around with it for a while.

For me, it worked about as often as having Michalick attack the back post did.

But one seems 'fair' and the other not.

Searched it; from what I gather you somewhat crowd the 6 yard box and it always results in a goal. Bit like an exaggerated Stoke City.

Yeah, if it is scoring goals due to a gaming [rather than tactical] advantage, it's clearly cheating.

But it's a flaw in the ME programming that allows us to take advantage of this cheat. It shouldn't be there, so shouldn't be allowed normally.

Aren't you taking advantage of the programming every time you play it?

Aren't you taking advantage of the programming every time you play it?

No... why would you think that? :confused:

It's the old thing of "we're not trying to beat the ME, we're trying to beat the opposition".

Any time you use a flaw in the ME to undo the reality of the simulation you are effectively cheating in my opinion, but hey it is your game, so if you want to use it use it, if you don't then don't.

No... why would you think that? :confused:

It's the old thing of "we're not trying to beat the ME, we're trying to beat the opposition".

Nonsense, the opposition are governed by the ME, to a certain extent, so you're playing an opposition representation. Programming dictates the oppositions corner set up, if you take advantage of it then you are taking advantage of the programming, it's just that the opps are poorly programmed.

Nonsense, the opposition are governed by the ME, to a certain extent, so you're playing an opposition representation. Programming dictates the oppositions corner set up, if you take advantage of it then you are taking advantage of the programming, it's just that the opps are poorly programmed.

I didn't explain that well. Let me try again.

If you try to beat the ME, you are exploiting weaknesses in it that shouldn't be there, to your unfair advantage. This, imo, is cheating.

If you try to beat the opposition, you are attempting to beat their tactics with your tactics. This is football, and therefore not cheating.

The ME and the opposition are not the same thing. Nor do they share the same coding.

No, but they are intrinsically linked and opposition behaviour is governed by ME coding. However, I don't see your point. The original comment that you quoted was re programming, which I assume referred to tactical programming, which has everything to do with how team sets up when deefending a corner. You turned that into a comment about the ME, which is utter nonsense, nobody mentioned the ME until I did when I pointed out how wrong you were about the link between the opposition and the ME.

You do realise that there is programming in everything, not just the ME, right?

No, but they are intrinsically linked and opposition behaviour is governed by ME coding. However, I don't see your point. The original comment that you quoted was re programming, which I assume referred to tactical programming, which has everything to do with how team sets up when deefending a corner. You turned that into a comment about the ME, which is utter nonsense, nobody mentioned the ME until I did when I pointed out how wrong you were about the link between the opposition and the ME.

You do realise that there is programming in everything, not just the ME, right?

You posed a flippant question, asking if we're aren't "taking advantage of the programming every time you play it?".

To which I replied no.

The link between the ME and the corner bug is obvious. The corner bug is there because of a bug in the ME. The link I made between the ME and the opposition was stating that they are two different things.

I really don't get what you don't understand about this.

I guess I don't understand because you've changed your tune to suit my arguments and there's absolutely no consistency in your arguments, I mean seriously, you haven't even managed to get who posed the initial question right.....

I guess I don't understand because you've changed your tune to suit my arguments and there's absolutely no consistency in your arguments, I mean seriously, you haven't even managed to get who posed the initial question right.....

If you can't continue the discussion without screaming the "you changed your argument" tune, then this isn't going to last for very long.

I have made one mistake (on who asked a question) and you prefer to bring that up, rather than meet my argument with counter points.

Same old same old, what is it with you people that you can't have a discussion without getting into personal backbiting?

Anyway this particular bone has been picked clean in other threads, so closed.