I'm no math major but these "odds" seem fishy?

[ArseneLupin42]

You are misunderstanding the probability. If you have a one in four chance of winning a game, fairly reasonable considering what you have shown, not winning 34 games in a row is not an anomalous result. It would occur approximately 1 in 17 thousand tests for you; as I said, this forum probably has that many users playing at your ability level.

I am not going to lecture you on how to play the game better; you won't listen anyway.

i can only state again that your arrogance is utterly astounding in addition to being amusing ...

i again challenge you to take the team and circumstances i described and come up with a tactic or tactics that would be soooo much better as to take the probability from 1/4 (what you think my lowly non super magic FM tactical knowledge allows me to barely muster) to 50/50 or better .... yeah ... i didn't think you could ... because the game is not that complicated .. you are not in fact some sort of secret genius ... get over it ...

[backpackant]

The random events are part of the initial calculation... and any subsequent ones.

[Pob]

that still does not account for the results i got unless something else is at work ...

I have shown that your test is not statistically anomalous.

Your real odds (I guessed 1 in 4, I'm sorry if that offended you) take into account your tactics, players, morale, motivation, and random incidents.

Your tactics may not have been the problem, I'm just saying that overall, all your decisions added up to about a 1 in 4 chance of a win (not that long odds).

[davehanson]

Can you paragraph things please, it is quite difficult to read when it is one big long sentence.

As your new here I would still suggest you looking into the T&T forum. Just putting better players onto the pitch and putting them in the correct position and setting things to automatic etc wont make your team win.

I have already explained about your match odds and how the AI generates them. To answer your question there is nothing 'fishy' about those match odds, for a Man Utd v Spurs game, in the first season, they look correct to me.

I would still like to look at your tactics or a save game, and to be honest until you upload one or both of those, eveyone on here is going round the houses. You seem very reluctant to do either, so I don't know what more you want people to tell you.

[Zinn]

This is just going round in circles now, so will simply bow out with these words and count the minutes until this is closed.

Thanks to the OP for replying to my earlier message, but I feel you are not testing the game fairly in any way. To use the very same tactics every time is very flawed. The game simply HAS to have a limited basis for calculating match outcomes, it's not possible to programme something that is absolutely accurate to real life. I don't think anyone - fanboys included - would try to pretend FM mirrors real life exactly. It can't. Playing the same game over and over with the exact same tactics and players will always produce similar results. Look at how the ME works:

1st, the ME looks at the two lineups and tactics, and once the teams and tactics are submitted - before a ball is kicked - it makes thousands of calculations to work out what the score will be, say 2-0 to Man U, and displays these calculations in the form of pretty graphics for your viewing pleasure. Within that calculation, there will be certain variables every time, such as injuries.

2nd, whenever the human user or AI manager alters their tactics, it makes ANOTHER set of caluclations and works out what the score will be based on the new information and puts THAT on screen instead of its original calculations. If Man U (human) was having all the possession, then the AI Rednapp will make an adjustment, which may now mean that the score will end up 2-0 to Spurs. If Man U do not change anything and Spurs are winning, and don't change their tactics either, then that's how the game will play out.

So if your first game ends in a loss, it simply means that in that first game Rednapp predicted your tactics, came up with a counter-tactic, and beat you. When you replay with the exact same tactic, it is MORE likely that Spurs will win again.

If you were saying that no matter what tactics you use you can never beat them, then it may be worth carrying on with this, just to prove that "it's your tactics". Clearly this isn't your problem, but rather you seem to be of the unshakeable impression that FM should be exactly like real life and therefore something is very wrong with the game. Yes, players should have an influence, but in your example it you are replicated all the same conditions every single time - mentality, morale, determination, formation, tactics, and so on.

Okay, in summary, if the point of this thread is to say the ME is somewhat limited and relies more heavily on tactics than real life football, I tip my hat and say I agree. If you are saying this makes FM a bad game or that it's a mistake of some sort, I humbly disagree - it's a computer game, and as such it is limited by physics.

Hope you manage to enjoy FM in the future.

This. Any computer game ever made is based on maths and thus a fixed formula. Said formula may allow for some form of variety (such as changing tactics mid-match, players having an off day, injuries etc.) but will generally produce the same result if you do not change some of the factors.

OP has basically input the same formula over and over and expects wildy different results. However, the ME isn't random, so although a sudden player injury or a red card might change the match, it's unlikely for it to repeat itself. That's why people can say "it's your tactics" (as much as I hate the expression). You essentially keep putting in a losing formula and expect it to change to a win by itself, just "because". As for match odds, they are borderline useless in the game, just like they are IRL. Match odds is the equivalent of predicting the future and thus you might as well ask your granny for the match result, since she'll have as much of an idea about it as anyone else.

Depending on how the odds are derived (there is a ridiculous number of ways to do it), they can be more or less accurate. For instance, do you count the current season only (most recent results)? How about last season? How about last 10 years? Matches between the two teams over time? Injuries on both teams? Players available?

If odds actually worked or were correct most of the time, no one would ever lose on bets. The fact is that no single statistic can be used, since an untold amount of factors can change. Players switch clubs, so of what use is last years stats when a guy from the starting 11 was sold? 5 years ago there were 11 different players on the pitch, so how about those? And so on and so on for every possible thing you can imagine.

Bookmakers have some very complex formulas that take all kinds of things into account but I imagine that what they mostly look at is the general amount of points a team can expect to achieve in a season. If Man U could expect to get, say, 85 points this year, that means they are expected to lose 29 points over a season (as compared to 38 wins [114 - 85 = 29]). How Man U loses said points is anyone's guess: Is it through lost matches? Draws? Who will they lose points against?

It's more likely to lose to the other contenders among the Big Four, so odds of winning will be lower in those matches. But then we're back at the "predicting the future" bit. They already lost 3 points to Burnley this season, which I'm certain no one saw coming. Thus the entire line of odds should either change or Man U now has to win a match against a team they were mathematically supposed to lose against, assuming the 85 points will be true.

Setting the same team with the same tactics will nearly always bring a loss about, if the AI's standard reactions during the match are enough to change the predicted outcome. That's why it doesn't make sense when you argue that because the game tells you that you should win the game, provided neither the AI nor you do anything, it's wrong that lose when the AI does something. The odds are presented before the match has been calculated, just like in real life. But if you go to a betting site that has Live Odds enabled for a match, you will see the odds change all the time, due to time left, goals scored, red cards, injuries and so on. You can't see that in FM because it would be cheating (there's a reason why managers and players are banned from betting on matches). In other words, unless you explained yourself poorly, your base assumptions were incorrect.

[ArseneLupin42]

I have shown that your test is not statistically anomalous. Your real odds (I guessed 1 in 4) take into account your tactics, players, morale, motivation, and random incidents. Your tactics may not have been the problem, I'm just saying that overall, all your decisions added up to a 1 in 4 chance of a win (not that long odds).

so you are going to argue ... that all of the described factors ... all of which any reasonable assessment of which according to prescribed game doctrine were actually IN MY FAVOUR (such as better players man for man, higher morale man for man, higher fitness man for man) somehow combined with the one negative factor (being on the road) and my tactics (which i think can be safely said to be at worst neutral or "slightly" negative if you really want to be unreasonable about it) and a pretty vanilla "you can win this" team talk ... some how added together to take my chances of winning from 4-7 FAV, which some gentleman bookie kindly earlier translated into, what was it 60%, lets call it only 50% assuming the bookie was wrong ... all the way down to 25%? and that makes sense to you ... from all you know of the game and football?

well it doesn't to me .... and as for your 1 out of 17,000 not being that improbable ... true it isn't impossible but it is still pretty outlandish given that 2 other highly improbable 1 out of 15 or worse results happened further into my long winning streak ...

but yes ... you are a tactical FM genius and i am obviously a dolt ... you win .. is there a shrine or temple to you near where i live that i can come pay homage to you and pay tithes to you ?

[giggs=legend]

You still on here ArseneLupin42 spouting the same s**t

[Pob]

so you are going to argue ... that all of the described factors ... all of which any reasonable assessment of which according to prescribed game doctrine were actually IN MY FAVOUR (such as better players man for man, higher morale man for man, higher fitness man for man) somehow combined with the one negative factor (being on the road) and my tactics (which i think can be safely said to be at worst neutral or "slightly" negative if you really want to be unreasonable about it) and a pretty vanilla "you can win this" team talk ... some how added together to take my chances of winning from 4-7 FAV, which some gentleman bookie kindly earlier translated into, what was it 60%, lets call it only 50% assuming the bookie was wrong ... all the way down to 25%? and that makes sense to you ... from all you know of the game and football?

Yes that makes sense to me: with Sir Alex Ferguson in charge the odds would be better than 50 %. With you in charge I see it completely reasonable that this drops to ~25%.

(If teams are evenly matched, odds of 25% Team1 win, 50% draw, 25% Team2 win seem reasonable, so effectively I am saying your managerial ability reduces your Man Utd team's playing level to Tottenham's playing level. Tottenham are not a bad team, so hopefully worded like this you will find my previous posts less insulting to your ability!)

[cruyff14]

god you're an idiot

There's one born everyday mate and they seem to reside on here an awful lot because they think the games cheating them

[matt_132]

You still on here ArseneLupin42 spouting the same s**t

my thoughts exactly

[erbgor]

OP has basically input the same formula over and over and expects wildy different results. However, the ME isn't random

What? Does this mean we can assume similar consistent results if we would test other test (reload) other matches? There is no randomization?

You people make it sound as if this was a puzzle game. You either figure out the "correct" tactics for a given match or you don't, the result is fixed. Sounds unbelievable and would hardly be realistic.

[giggs=legend]

There's one born everyday mate and they seem to reside on here an awful lot because they think the games cheating them

With the amount of s**t he's talk since this morning he might as well as brought out a book about how FM's cheatin us all

[Braundjoh]

Lol. Why did you replay the match to start with? To do the experiment, or cos you lost? Oh, and why did you stop the experiment when you won?

[TheStoneMonkey]

This thread should have its own thread. It's awesome!

[Mac_attack_daddy]

just spend 30 minutes reading this drivel - 30 minutes of my life gone. What a total bore

[TheStoneMonkey]

just spend 30 minutes reading this drivel - 30 minutes of my life gone. What a total bore

I think if you re-read the thread 35 times, it might be awesome once!

[Zinn]

What? Does this mean we can assume similar consistent results if we would test other test (reload) other matches? There is no randomization?

You people make it sound as if this was a puzzle game. You either figure out the "correct" tactics for a given match or you don't, the result is fixed. Sounds unbelievable and would hardly be realistic.

Sounds like you didn't read the post. Try again, champ. Also, the OP proves that to be true with mostly losses, as he changes nothing. Also, as has been pointed out many times, this is a game and thus not realistic. If the ME was actually random, it would mean that there would be an equal chance of you getting 5 red cards and winning 10-0, as well as a 1-0 victory with no injuries or cards, on a match-by-match basis. The chance of it happening several times in a row is low but so would two victories in a row be, given the 3 base options (win/loss/draw). If it was random. If you go to the tactics forum, you can download tactics that will nearly guarantee you a first place, provided you can buy the players for them (doesn't need to be star players either, just good for the level you're at).

Again, if you read it, you'd see that the result is pre-calculated when you start the match. However, as most managers are active, that result changes whenever you do something in-game. The OP did not and thus he kept losing.

[Pob]

what a conceited egomaniac you are ....

You are the one who insists the game is biased rather than possibly having done something wrong yourself

[Pob]

...the result is pre-calculated when you start the match. However, as most managers are active, that result changes whenever you do something in-game. The OP did not and thus he kept losing.

This isn't quite true: even if the OP had made alterations midgame to change the seed loaded, unless the changes improved his tactics or player abilty, he would have the same chance of winning from the user's perspective.

[Live Forever]

Jesus Christ.

Seriously stop with the tears.

Wah I couldn't win by following exactly what my assistant manager told me to do.

I even cheated, edited and used default tactics!

Then I eliminated injuries with an editor and maxed out my training but my kids don't turn into wonder kids overnight!

Wah! I know its true because their CA didn't reach their PA in one year when I just stuck the kids in training!

I dont want to spend any effort learning the game.

I want to win 7-0 all the time. I'm man utd for gods sake!

My assistant manager told me to play 4-4-2! Why did I lose!

I dont want to develop my youngsters and have no concept of how it works in the game or in real life, but I want to use the editor and get all the wonderkids early and cheap and have them automatically hit their potential. Theres no examples in the real world of players with great potential who dont make it why dont they automatically win me games.

SO UNFAIR!

[ArseneLupin42]

This. Any computer game ever made is based on maths and thus a fixed formula. Said formula may allow for some form of variety (such as changing tactics mid-match, players having an off day, injuries etc.) but will generally produce the same result if you do not change some of the factors.

OP has basically input the same formula over and over and expects wildy different results. However, the ME isn't random, so although a sudden player injury or a red card might change the match, it's unlikely for it to repeat itself. That's why people can say "it's your tactics" (as much as I hate the expression). You essentially keep putting in a losing formula and expect it to change to a win by itself, just "because". As for match odds, they are borderline useless in the game, just like they are IRL. Match odds is the equivalent of predicting the future and thus you might as well ask your granny for the match result, since she'll have as much of an idea about it as anyone else.

Depending on how the odds are derived (there is a ridiculous number of ways to do it), they can be more or less accurate. For instance, do you count the current season only (most recent results)? How about last season? How about last 10 years? Matches between the two teams over time? Injuries on both teams? Players available?

If odds actually worked or were correct most of the time, no one would ever lose on bets. The fact is that no single statistic can be used, since an untold amount of factors can change. Players switch clubs, so of what use is last years stats when a guy from the starting 11 was sold? 5 years ago there were 11 different players on the pitch, so how about those? And so on and so on for every possible thing you can imagine.

Bookmakers have some very complex formulas that take all kinds of things into account but I imagine that what they mostly look at is the general amount of points a team can expect to achieve in a season. If Man U could expect to get, say, 85 points this year, that means they are expected to lose 29 points over a season (as compared to 38 wins [114 - 85 = 29]). How Man U loses said points is anyone's guess: Is it through lost matches? Draws? Who will they lose points against?

It's more likely to lose to the other contenders among the Big Four, so odds of winning will be lower in those matches. But then we're back at the "predicting the future" bit. They already lost 3 points to Burnley this season, which I'm certain no one saw coming. Thus the entire line of odds should either change or Man U now has to win a match against a team they were mathematically supposed to lose against, assuming the 85 points will be true.

Setting the same team with the same tactics will nearly always bring a loss about, if the AI's standard reactions during the match are enough to change the predicted outcome. That's why it doesn't make sense when you argue that because the game tells you that you should win the game, provided neither the AI nor you do anything, it's wrong that lose when the AI does something. The odds are presented before the match has been calculated, just like in real life. But if you go to a betting site that has Live Odds enabled for a match, you will see the odds change all the time, due to time left, goals scored, red cards, injuries and so on. You can't see that in FM because it would be cheating (there's a reason why managers and players are banned from betting on matches).

look. i just fundamentally disagree. it is not that hard to programme a simulation that takes factors into account IN ADDITION to a natural factor for variety and chance and comes out with logical and sensible probability outcomes .... basically what you are saying is that simply by, say, starting some other LB instead of Patrice Evra the game formula would have been magically changed and the observed probability outcome more in line with what would logically look like 50/50 odds given all of the pertinent information instead of the 3/97 that is was? or maybe if i had ignored the games advice and played a 4-1-4-1 instead would that have made the observed probability outcome more in line with the expected 50/50?

the whole point of this .... is that there is NO SET OF CUMMULATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES that a manager can control in a game ... that should take the two teams in question ... the two sets of immutable factors in question (fitness, morale, etc) and come up with 3/97 .... that is nothing short of utterly outlandish tactics which i think you can agree i did not employ ... which means no matter what tactics i used added to the other factors which by definition in the game should "increase" my probability of winning should not reasonably result in taking at worst 50/50 starting odds down to low enough actualized probability outcomes that 1 of 35 is a reasonable and not improbable outcome .... how low would that have to be to merely make that result unusual but not highly improbable ... down to 1/5 ... 1/6 ... exactly how bad would tactics have to be .... and please describe such an example .... to take a 50/50 down to a 1/6 given that the other "factors" were supposedly increasing factors?

i dont think you can reasonably come up with a set of circumstances that do so .... not that make sense anyway ....

as for your argument about how the game engine takes the factors and produces out put it really isn't germaine to this .... obviously the game takes various factors into consideration .... both before and during the game .... resulting a probability of "winning" "losing" or "drawing" ... the prematch odds might roughly estimate this but not exactly so .... and the true probability of your chance of winning in any one match cant be determined unless you in fact run the same game ... under the same (or as close to the same circumstances) a number of times .... remember ... by the very definition altering the factors would alter the probability and so you would not be able do distinguish the probability of any one specific set of circumstances/factors .... and if the game is programmed properly you could and should be able to run a game, with static settings/factors 1000 times and get a probability ... and do the same thing again another 1000 times and maybe get a slightly different probability due to whatever "chance/variation" factor the programme is using ... but that is a separate issue from whether or not any particular set of circumstances ....like the one's i described above .... result in a "probability" when run thru a number of iterations .... it is this very result from these very circumstances that i am questioning .... the only way to test it was to hold the factors static ... the result was a probability of winning of 3% ... even if my particular 35 iterations resulted in something on the low end of the bell curve a reasonable number of standard deviations away from the true 'mean' or probability for this set of game circumstances ... lets be generous and say 30% ... i still don't see how these factors as described above or any circumstances in general (short of patently absurd tactics etc) should result in this as the probable outcome in a match (or over a set of 35 or 100 or 1000 matches) between these two teams ....

that is all i am say ... in the least succinct way possible

[Mac_attack_daddy]

can't wait for the next instalment from ArseneLupin42...........on the edge of my seat.

[Fart]

i just happend to be annoyed at the "way" i lost the first game on two completely flukey goals and so i thought "well heck i saved right before this" so i decided to play it over and get a win ... because i hate spurs and cannot tolerate losing to them even in a game ... lo and behold another loss filled with flukey goals ... another replay ... another loss ...

This pretty much sums it up.

Another sore loser, who because it took them 34 reloads to win a match decided to come on here and have a huge hissy fit over it.

Also, he doesn't seem to want to upload that particular save... which I cannot help but feel he has something to hide.

Anyway, jokes over dude... time to go home.

[ArseneLupin42]

You are the one who insists the game is biased rather than possibly having done something wrong yourself

again ... what exactly did i do that was so super wrong that these would be expected outcomes .... what exactly could i do that would reasonably result in these outcomes in a match of Man Utd v Tottenham .... or are you saying that the "basic" straight up tactics and strategies suggested in the game are so vastly inferiour to your might insights and knowledge that only thru years of training and being blessed by a holy avatar of FM game engine itself can you hope to truly achieve such lofty insights that allow you to drag the odds into your favour and give you your obvious superiority and advantage over lowly me ....

i am going to go out on a limb here and straight out say that there is not a single insight or tactic or discovery that you know about this game that i don't know ... or that almost any avid player of this game doesn't know ... you are NOT SPECIAL ... shall i send you a gold placard reminding you of this?

[ArseneLupin42]

This pretty much sums it up.

Another sore loser, who because it took them 34 reloads to win a match decided to come on here and have a huge hissy fit over it.

Also, he doesn't seem to want to upload that particular save... which I cannot help but feel he has something to hide.

Anyway, jokes over dude... time to go home.

again with the upload the save ... how are you folks such condescending uber-gurus of FM when you cannot even understand basic concepts of time and space ....

when you save a game ... load it play the game and then do not save the game ... the result goes bye bye ... into the wild blue yonder ... there is no special 8th dimension of FM that keeps all of the replays even when you don't save them .... and when you stop replaying the particular game ... and save that particular result ... that is the only result that the saved game recognizes and the only data it contains ... one result ... ONLY ONE RESULT .... the LAST RESULT ... the one that you saved ... how is this not obvious to everyone even small children? so uploading my saved game were i so inclined would show you nothing except that particular result (in this case a 3 - 1 win) and the results of all of the subsequent different matches i played throughout the season ... BUT IT WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS show all 35 times i replayed that game while doing this little "experiment" .... the only way that could be done is if i saved after each result 35 different save game files ... which i did not think to do at the time ... tho had i known how obstinate, arrogant and completely moronic and impervious to reason and math some on here would be i most definitely would have ....

good day to you sir ... i said good day

[TheStoneMonkey]

This is gold, Jerry, GOLD!

[cruyff14]

So is his gripe that the games cheating him or he cant beat man utd with tottenham cause frankly i cant be arsed reading his essays? Anyway the game is a based on realism and last time i checked in real life tottenham have beaten united often in the last 10 years so i'd say the games quite realistic there then!

I think they also create a new topic board in the forums for all these winging gimps that accuse the game of cheating and it be called "The it's your tactics" thread so we don't have to keep seeing these annoying threads pop up every other day !

[Lower Leagues Rule]

Well you could've done the smart thing and used 'Save As' naming them Match 1 through infinity, then you could've saved all the results...but seems like you don't understand that concept either and would rather abuse a whole bunch of people.

By the way everytime someone has come in here and moaned like this and then posted a save game the other users have completely smashed any "OMG its Cheating" by pure numbers, a different tactic and someone else could get 30 wins 4 draws 1 loss in your game. If you do not change any of the factors, the result will be the same...give or take a little bit of luck, eg the aforementioned red cards, injuries or whatever.

Nice to see you, to see you NICE!

[Zinn]

look. i just fundamentally disagree. it is not that hard to programme a simulation that takes factors into account IN ADDITION to a natural factor for variety and chance and comes out with logical and sensible probability outcomes .... basically what you are saying is that simply by, say, starting some other LB instead of Patrice Evra the game formula would have been magically changed and the observed probability outcome more in line with what would logically look like 50/50 odds given all of the pertinent information instead of the 3/97 that is was? or maybe if i had ignored the games advice and played a 4-1-4-1 instead would that have made the observed probability outcome more in line with the expected 50/50?

the whole point of this .... is that there is NO SET OF CUMMULATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES that a manager can control in a game ... that should take the two teams in question ... the two sets of immutable factors in question (fitness, morale, etc) and come up with 3/97 .... that is nothing short of utterly outlandish tactics which i think you can agree i did not employ ... which means no matter what tactics i used added to the other factors which by definition in the game should "increase" my probability of winning should not reasonably result in taking at worst 50/50 starting odds down to low enough actualized probability outcomes that 1 of 35 is a reasonable and not improbable outcome .... how low would that have to be to merely make that result unusual but not highly improbable ... down to 1/5 ... 1/6 ... exactly how bad would tactics have to be .... and please describe such an example .... to take a 50/50 down to a 1/6 given that the other "factors" were supposedly increasing factors?

i dont think you can reasonably come up with a set of circumstances that do so .... not that make sense anyway ....

as for your argument about how the game engine takes the factors and produces out put it really isn't germaine to this .... obviously the game takes various factors into consideration .... both before and during the game .... resulting a probability of "winning" "losing" or "drawing" ... the prematch odds might roughly estimate this but not exactly so .... and the true probability of your chance of winning in any one match cant be determined unless you in fact run the same game ... under the same (or as close to the same circumstances) a number of times .... remember ... by the very definition altering the factors would alter the probability and so you would not be able do distinguish the probability of any one specific set of circumstances/factors .... and if the game is programmed properly you could and should be able to run a game, with static settings/factors 1000 times and get a probability ... and do the same thing again another 1000 times and maybe get a slightly different probability due to whatever "chance/variation" factor the programme is using ... but that is a separate issue from whether or not any particular set of circumstances ....like the one's i described above .... result in a "probability" when run thru a number of iterations .... it is this very result from these very circumstances that i am questioning .... the only way to test it was to hold the factors static ... the result was a probability of winning of 3% ... even if my particular 35 iterations resulted in something on the low end of the bell curve a reasonable number of standard deviations away from the true 'mean' or probability for this set of game circumstances ... lets be generous and say 30% ... i still don't see how these factors as described above or any circumstances in general (short of patently absurd tactics etc) should result in this as the probable outcome in a match (or over a set of 35 or 100 or 1000 matches) between these two teams ....

that is all i am say ... in the least succinct way possible

The problem is that you're not actually reading the arguments posted against your method. The argument is that the odds you see are 110% useless and do not reflect in-game performance, thus you should not use said odds as a basis for your assumption (ie. "If I run the same match X times, do I get result Y?"). There's also the inherent flaw in reloading the game that means that whatever you achieved in the game you played vs Spurs is erased and reset to where you began. This means that if you have some sort of flaw in your base tactics that the AI can exploit, the AI will exploit it over and over and over. A losing rate such as yours points in a clear direction of a tactics issue.

And yes, switching a single player can actually make a big difference on the result, even if you do nothing else. I've tried it myself

I fully agree that if it wasn't a game, then the results would be different. However, it is a game and thus you will get punished for not taking an active part in it (ie. if you keep losing and losing, switch players, formations, philosophy etc.). You would not be complaining if you were playing an RTS and you parked your superior army in the middle of the field, doing virtually nothing, and lost to an inferior army that outmanouvered you and used hit and run tactics, would you?

Also.. why. must..... you write.... like.... this .. .. .. ...... so ... no one... can .. read it .... properly?

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

again with the upload the save ... how are you folks such condescending uber-gurus of FM when you cannot even understand basic concepts of time and space ....

when you save a game ... load it play the game and then do not save the game ... the result goes bye bye ... into the wild blue yonder ...

No, I think you misunderstand. People want you to upload the save that you were repeatedly reloading, as you had it - i.e. before the match - not after the match. This is so they can try to win the game for themselves / repeat your experiments etc. They don't want to see your results, just whether or not they have the same trouble winning the same game given your starting conditions.

good day to you sir ... i said good day

Topshop!

It's a pity the 2nd post in this thread didn't just say something like. "Oh dear, that's either very unlucky or maybe there's possibly a little bug somewhere - you might have hit an edge-case that wasn't caught in testing etc... Perhaps you should post in the bugs forum and upload your saved game if possible. Have a nice day."

Unfortunately it just turned into the usual name-calling, pushing and shoving, and "zomg lol it's ur tactics". I'm a little disappointed that I haven't seen a "lol go play FIFA" post though.

[ArseneLupin42]

Jesus Christ.

Seriously stop with the tears.

Wah I couldn't win by following exactly what my assistant manager told me to do.

I even cheated, edited and used default tactics!

Then I eliminated injuries with an editor and maxed out my training but my kids don't turn into wonder kids overnight!

Wah! I know its true because their CA didn't reach their PA in one year when I just stuck the kids in training!

I dont want to spend any effort learning the game.

I want to win 7-0 all the time. I'm man utd for gods sake!

My assistant manager told me to play 4-4-2! Why did I lose!

I dont want to develop my youngsters and have no concept of how it works in the game or in real life, but I want to use the editor and get all the wonderkids early and cheap and have them automatically hit their potential. Theres no examples in the real world of players with great potential who dont make it why dont they automatically win me games.

SO UNFAIR!

actually your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired ...

A. i did not follow what my asst manager advised i merely noted that my particular formation of choice, in this instance, just happened to be the one described by the game (via the asst manager mechanism) to be the most effective against this particular opponent and thus would by any reasonable estimation be a factor in favour of increasing the probability of my winning in this particular match

B. are you saying that using 'default' tactics is cheating? i already stated that is was only out of frustration that i replayed the game the first time and next two times ... which in no way invalidates the data ... nor the curiosity that was subsequently sparked after 5 "annoyance" and "cheat" replays which then led to an actually purposeful investigation of the probability of the outcome of this particular match given these particular set of controlled inputs into the game engine ...

C. there is, as far as i know ... no real time editor for the DEMO of FM 2010 as of yet since ... you know like the game isn't actually out yet ... and that particular tangent was an aside from the main point and referred to FM 09

D. please quote where i stated i wished for my youngsters to turn into "wonderkids overnight" ... oh, that's right i didn't say that ... i simply stated a fact that looking at the internal data thru the real time editor .. and playing thru a number of medium and long seasons i noticed that regens with high potential (PA) start with such a large gap between their starting CA and their PA that under no reasonable set of combination of training and loan and playing time do they reach or advance to near their PA ... not only one of them but none of them .... i know this again is hard for you to believe given that you are such a genius and all but it is not that hard to figure out things like ... hiring good coaches and getting high star ratings ... setting up training that focus on what a particular player/position needs to focus on ... wow ... a winger might need to work on speed and stamina and crossing (aerobics, strength, set pieces) and maybe dribbling (ball control) and not defence ... wow ... soooooo hard to figure out .... and i never stated they should fully develop in one year .... starting at 16 i would imagine that it would take until 22-24 to reach their full potential ... maybe sooner in rare instances .... and i also, amazingly enough ... understand that it is first team playing time that causes a players CA number to rise towards the PA number and those points are then distributed in some mystical and not entirely readily clear raising of "stats" ... supposedly based on ratio of your training categories ... of course that wouldn't explain all of my offensive players i have with low defensive training that somehow always manage to get little green arrows by tackling and marking (from 5 to 6) instead of in other useful categories their training is focused on but i have not done an exhaustive data analysis so i cannot make an definitive statements only anecdotal observations ...

E. not learned the game? i would be willing to bet you a sizeable amount of money that i know as much of not far more than you about 'the game' .... if for no other reason than my obsessive use of the RTE and trying to figure out the mathematical formulae that are used in the whole PA/CA translated to Potential and Current Ability % translated into actual distribution of attribute points ... oh, wait ... i am sorry ... so you have a spreadsheet tracking your youngsters internal numbers and how CA/PA translate into increased stats comparing people in the same training regime vs those on loan etc etc ... oh, wait ... no ... that would be me ... so maybe you should STFU!!!

[cruyff14]

actually your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired ...

A. i did not follow what my asst manager advised i merely noted that my particular formation of choice, in this instance, just happened to be the one described by the game (via the asst manager mechanism) to be the most effective against this particular opponent and thus would by any reasonable estimation be a factor in favour of increasing the probability of my winning in this particular match

B. are you saying that using 'default' tactics is cheating? i already stated that is was only out of frustration that i replayed the game the first time and next two times ... which in no way invalidates the data ... nor the curiosity that was subsequently sparked after 5 "annoyance" and "cheat" replays which then led to an actually purposeful investigation of the probability of the outcome of this particular match given these particular set of controlled inputs into the game engine ...

C. there is, as far as i know ... no real time editor for the DEMO of FM 2010 as of yet since ... you know like the game isn't actually out yet ... and that particular tangent was an aside from the main point and referred to FM 09

D. please quote where i stated i wished for my youngsters to turn into "wonderkids overnight" ... oh, that's right i didn't say that ... i simply stated a fact that looking at the internal data thru the real time editor .. and playing thru a number of medium and long seasons i noticed that regens with high potential (PA) start with such a large gap between their starting CA and their PA that under no reasonable set of combination of training and loan and playing time do they reach or advance to near their PA ... not only one of them but none of them .... i know this again is hard for you to believe given that you are such a genius and all but it is not that hard to figure out things like ... hiring good coaches and getting high star ratings ... setting up training that focus on what a particular player/position needs to focus on ... wow ... a winger might need to work on speed and stamina and crossing (aerobics, strength, set pieces) and maybe dribbling (ball control) and not defence ... wow ... soooooo hard to figure out .... and i never stated they should fully develop in one year .... starting at 16 i would imagine that it would take until 22-24 to reach their full potential ... maybe sooner in rare instances .... and i also, amazingly enough ... understand that it is first team playing time that causes a players CA number to rise towards the PA number and those points are then distributed in some mystical and not entirely readily clear raising of "stats" ... supposedly based on ratio of your training categories ... of course that wouldn't explain all of my offensive players i have with low defensive training that somehow always manage to get little green arrows by tackling and marking (from 5 to 6) instead of in other useful categories their training is focused on but i have not done an exhaustive data analysis so i cannot make an definitive statements only anecdotal observations ...

E. not learned the game? i would be willing to bet you a sizeable amount of money that i know as much of not far more than you about 'the game' .... if for no other reason than my obsessive use of the RTE and trying to figure out the mathematical formulae that are used in the whole PA/CA translated to Potential and Current Ability % translated into actual distribution of attribute points ... oh, wait ... i am sorry ... so you have a spreadsheet tracking your youngsters internal numbers and how CA/PA translate into increased stats comparing people in the same training regime vs those on loan etc etc ... oh, wait ... no ... that would be me ... so maybe you should STFU!!!

Have you ever thought about a career helping insomniacs cause just reading your drivel bores us all so either A. play the game and just accept the facts that you suck at the game or B don't play the game either way you STFU

And can a mod please close this guys depressing thread

[dsch]

I think if you re-read the thread 35 times, it might be awesome once!

It's not the thread, it's your thread-reading tactics!

Back to topic. Lupin:

1. How about you go back and upload a pkm of the one match you won? Or screenshots of the stats?

2. I'm surprised that with your expertise in statistics, you don't know how to convert odds into percentages.

3. Also about statistics, the chances you are complaining about are not really the odds of you winning the match. Since you saved and moved on, you made the number of trials dependent on your success rate, and you're actually talking about the number of times you need to play before you win once. Would it have made you happier to have won after ten times? You'd still come up with only 10% chance of winning.

4. You seem to have avoided making any points about why this is happening except for "it's all terrible." Do you suggest, as some have, that the game is trying to keep the winning streaks down?

5. On another thread, I remember someone who knows what he's talking about (can't remember who, might be wwfan) stating that, no the match engine does not throw all the numbers into a pot, crunch out a scoreline, then make up some pretty passing to agree with it. The match engine actually simulates every kick.

I think you have managed to insult or condescend almost everyone who replied. I thought it was the heat of the moment, but it's been going on for hours now. We really don't know what you are trying to accomplish with this discussion, as you don't seem interested in finding out either if the match engine really is biased, or if there's a flaw in your preparations.

In short, cut out the sarcasm, decide what you want to discuss, and we'll try to help.

[giggs=legend]

Right ArseneLupin42 you've been on here posting essays since 5 o'clock this morning and still no1 agrees with you so why not SHUT UP now and jump ship to fifa manager or sumot am sick of all ur BS

[cruyff14]

Right ArseneLupin42 you've been on here posting essays since 5 o'clock this morning and still no1 agrees with you so why not SHUT UP now and jump ship to fifa manager or sumot am sick of all ur BS

I concur. ArseneLupin42 you are a complete and utter tool

[giggs=legend]

I concur. ArseneLupin42 you are a complete and utter tool

And so say all of us!!!!!!!!!

[ArseneLupin42]

No, I think you misunderstand. People want you to upload the save that you were repeatedly reloading, as you had it - i.e. before the match - not after the match. This is so they can try to win the game for themselves / repeat your experiments etc. They don't want to see your results, just whether or not they have the same trouble winning the same game given your starting conditions.

Topshop!

It's a pity the 2nd post in this thread didn't just say something like. "Oh dear, that's either very unlucky or maybe there's possibly a little bug somewhere - you might have hit an edge-case that wasn't caught in testing etc... Perhaps you should post in the bugs forum and upload your saved game if possible. Have a nice day."

Unfortunately it just turned into the usual name-calling, pushing and shoving, and "zomg lol it's ur tactics". I'm a little disappointed that I haven't seen a "lol go play FIFA" post though.

look. i am perfectly willing to not only admit but probably assume that if i made a large or even small change to the "tactics" the game would turn out differently ... and given the saved game i reloaded that 35 times might not have been won more quickly ... i think people are missing the point entirely ... the fact is i already played the game 35 times ... i used the same set of tactics first out of frustration then out of curiosity and scientific integrity ... and these were in fact the results ... what i am saying is that given the controllable factors as they were (and described earlier in this post) and the tactics i had chosen ... i think it is unreasonable ... and faulty probability ... to have had it taken 35 times to get one win under those particular conditions ... i wasn't trying to see "how quickly" i could win the game .. i was seeing why these particular conditions which i thought to be favourable (by the very definition of the game itself) and tactics which i thought to be reasonably sound (i am still waiting for all of these "it is your poor game knowledge and tactics" folks to take exactly what tactics i was using and find fault with them based on reason and logic both game internal and real life external) it took ... as it happened to turn out ... 35 times to produce a win ... i simply think that given the facts and the tactics employed (and held consistent over the course of the experiment) that result is unreasonable bordering on absurdly and improbably so ... and i think it is completely arrogant and imbecilic to think that either A. my particular tactics, which i have described and cannot be construed as anything other than "fairly straight forward and basic" at worst are somehow magically bad and super duper sucky because i am just not FM genius enough and rightfully caused this observed outcome ... or that B. it is not that they were bad tactics just not the superhuman godly tactics of those specially chosen ones who understand the FM game with such a keen insight and intellect that none of us can hope to imagine much less achieve ...

i simply thought i was an intriguing set of data ... and was wanting to ponder the implications of such .... but as it turns out it was simple ... it was all my tactics .. because as you might well imagine i am a neophyte in the eyes of the chose ones ... does that GK next to edwin van der saar's name mean i put him on the field near the opponent's goal so he can keep scoring goals for me? i mean ... really, the whole thing is laughable ... any fairly intelligent person with a knowledge of football can play the game for a few hours a day for a week and have a pretty thorough understanding of all the possible 'tactics' and 'inner workings' variations in the game ... i mean who do these "it's your tactics experts think they are .... ugh ... just fascinating, amusing and sickening all at the same time

[03bault]

Firstly, ignore the fan boys - you clearly have a point here.

Your experiment obviously highlights a serious flaw if its true. That the game has already predetermined that you are going to lose, United should surely win more than once out of 35 attempts that is undeniable.

If your on a long winning/unbeaten streak perhaps the game has had enough - thus making this game very difficult to win. I don't want to take the **** but perhaps your just not good enough to beat the system this time, you can't win every game and tbh it is a computer game, as realistic as it is, there has to be a certain amount of predetermination otherwise it would become ridiculously easy to in games.

In real life, winning a football match comes down to so many different factors relating to chance. Computers cannot recreate the endless possibilities of real football, i.e. beach ball goals. Thus if the game doesnt predetermine a few results then as Utd you would win every game, because they arguably have the best team in the league so without predtermining the odd result you would win every game because statistically you have the best team so why would you ever lose?

[giggs=legend]

look. I am perfectly willing to not only admit but probably assume that if i made a large or even small change to the "tactics" the game would turn out differently ... And given the saved game i reloaded that 35 times might not have been won more quickly ... I think people are missing the point entirely ... The fact is i already played the game 35 times ... I used the same set of tactics first out of frustration then out of curiosity and scientific integrity ... And these were in fact the results ... What i am saying is that given the controllable factors as they were (and described earlier in this post) and the tactics i had chosen ... I think it is unreasonable ... And faulty probability ... To have had it taken 35 times to get one win under those particular conditions ... I wasn't trying to see "how quickly" i could win the game .. I was seeing why these particular conditions which i thought to be favourable (by the very definition of the game itself) and tactics which i thought to be reasonably sound (i am still waiting for all of these "it is your poor game knowledge and tactics" folks to take exactly what tactics i was using and find fault with them based on reason and logic both game internal and real life external) it took ... As it happened to turn out ... 35 times to produce a win ... I simply think that given the facts and the tactics employed (and held consistent over the course of the experiment) that result is unreasonable bordering on absurdly and improbably so ... And i think it is completely arrogant and imbecilic to think that either a. My particular tactics, which i have described and cannot be construed as anything other than "fairly straight forward and basic" at worst are somehow magically bad and super duper sucky because i am just not fm genius enough and rightfully caused this observed outcome ... Or that b. It is not that they were bad tactics just not the superhuman godly tactics of those specially chosen ones who understand the fm game with such a keen insight and intellect that none of us can hope to imagine much less achieve ...

I simply thought i was an intriguing set of data ... And was wanting to ponder the implications of such .... But as it turns out it was simple ... It was all my tactics .. Because as you might well imagine i am a neophyte in the eyes of the chose ones ... Does that gk next to edwin van der saar's name mean i put him on the field near the opponent's goal so he can keep scoring goals for me? I mean ... Really, the whole thing is laughable ... Any fairly intelligent person with a knowledge of football can play the game for a few hours a day for a week and have a pretty thorough understanding of all the possible 'tactics' and 'inner workings' variations in the game ... I mean who do these "it's your tactics experts think they are .... Ugh ... Just fascinating, amusing and sickening all at the same time

you talk total bollocks

[uistbhoy]

Right ArseneLupin42 you've been on here posting essays since 5 o'clock this morning and still no1 agrees with you so why not SHUT UP now and jump ship to fifa manager or sumot am sick of all ur BS

bwahahahahaha

[TheStoneMonkey]

It's your tactics

[cruyff14]

Right dickhead for the last 6 versions of this game i have beaten Aston Villa 14 times over the last six versions of this game every year i have a style of football i always play and despite often having a vastly superior team than them i still fail to win i don't reload the game i just accept they beat me regardless of how much better my side is. Similar things occur in real life take Chelsea who before the Abramovich era and Vialli buying lots of good players they always beat Tottenham even when they were the weaker team it's called a bogey team ! So please just accept you got beat and move on

[ArseneLupin42]

Firstly, ignore the fan boys - you clearly have a point here.

Your experiment obviously highlights a serious flaw if its true. That the game has already predetermined that you are going to lose, United should surely win more than once out of 35 attempts that is undeniable.

If your on a long winning/unbeaten streak perhaps the game has had enough - thus making this game very difficult to win. I don't want to take the **** but perhaps your just not good enough to beat the system this time, you can't win every game and tbh it is a computer game, as realistic as it is, there has to be a certain amount of predetermination otherwise it would become ridiculously easy to in games.

In real life, winning a football match comes down to so many different factors relating to chance. Computers cannot recreate the endless possibilities of real football, i.e. beach ball goals. Thus if the game doesnt predetermine a few results then as Utd you would win every game, because they arguably have the best team in the league so without predtermining the odd result you would win every game because statistically you have the best team so why would you ever lose?

i dont know what it is .... i just found it odd is all ... and i find the "it is your tactics" explanation ... aside from being mind bogglingly arrogant ... and rationally absurd ... pretty hollow ... i am thoroughly fascinated by the inner workings of the game and the probabilities (and also the attribute points and how they are distributed and how that relates to CA and PA ... i cannot find the logical framework but i digress) and i was just curious if others had come across the same thing and what some ... reasonable, insightful and intelligent theories might be ...

and i am not particularly bothered by losing or not winning any particular match and it was only an odd confluence of circumstances and annoyance that even led me to go as far as i did in doing this little experiment ...

and as somebody rightfully pointed out above it is not strictly scientifically accurate or statistically valid ... it is possible ... however improbable that a further 65 iterations would have brought the winning probability back in line somewhere to the reasonable 40 - 60 percent range (dependent of course on whatever various factors went into coming up with the particular outcome or set of outcomes) ... but then again i wasn't suggesting this be published in Scientific American ... it was just an interesting set of data I though I might share ...

now if somebody, as finally noted above ... actually knows that the game engine is more than a big probability calculation and the a subsequent 'visual display' of a particular out come but rather an "organic" real time simulation ... well that makes this outcome an even deeper layer of interesting IMHO .. but i know better than to discuss that on here i guess

[giggs=legend]

Right dickhead for the last 6 versions of this game i have beaten Aston Villa 14 times over the last six versions of this game every year i have a style of football i always play and despite often having a vastly superior team than them i still fail to win i don't reload the game i just accept they beat me regardless of how much better my side is. Similar things occur in real life take Chelsea who before the Abramovich era and Vialli buying lots of good players they always beat Tottenham even when they were the weaker team it's called a bogey team ! So please just accept you got beat and move on

I agree completely cruyffy

[giggs=legend]

i dont know what it is .... i just found it odd is all ... and i find the "it is your tactics" explanation ... aside from being mind bogglingly arrogant ... and rationally absurd ... pretty hollow ... i am thoroughly fascinated by the inner workings of the game and the probabilities (and also the attribute points and how they are distributed and how that relates to CA and PA ... i cannot find the logical framework but i digress) and i was just curious if others had come across the same thing and what some ... reasonable, insightful and intelligent theories might be ...

and i am not particularly bothered by losing or not winning any particular match and it was only an odd confluence of circumstances and annoyance that even led me to go as far as i did in doing this little experiment ...

and as somebody rightfully pointed out above it is not strictly scientifically accurate or statistically valid ... it is possible ... however improbable that a further 65 iterations would have brought the winning probability back in line somewhere to the reasonable 40 - 60 percent range (dependent of course on whatever various factors went into coming up with the particular outcome or set of outcomes) ... but then again i wasn't suggesting this be published in Scientific American ... it was just an interesting set of data I though I might share ...

now if somebody, as finally noted above ... actually knows that the game engine is more than a big probability calculation and the a subsequent 'visual display' of a particular out come but rather an "organic" real time simulation ... well that makes this outcome an even deeper layer of interesting IMHO .. but i know better than to discuss that on here i guess

Stop ur preaching ArseneLupin42 its getting BORING

[ArseneLupin42]

Right dickhead for the last 6 versions of this game i have beaten Aston Villa 14 times over the last six versions of this game every year i have a style of football i always play and despite often having a vastly superior team than them i still fail to win i don't reload the game i just accept they beat me regardless of how much better my side is. Similar things occur in real life take Chelsea who before the Abramovich era and Vialli buying lots of good players they always beat Tottenham even when they were the weaker team it's called a bogey team ! So please just accept you got beat and move on

how do i explain curiosity to you ... it isn't about losing one game ... no matter how good the odds were in my favour any team could lose to any other team in real life and rightfully the same is true in this game ... that is entirely not the point of any of this post or discussion ...

the fact i replayed the game the first time and the next 4 times was a simple confluence of annoyance and particular hatred of tottenham and boredom on the day ... on another day i might have just moved on ... but on this day i did not ... and i discovered ... at first by accident and then by curiosity and design something i found interesting and inexplicable ... you do not find it so ... fine ... don't respond to the post ... "its is your tactics" is just about the least useful and pretty much hilarious comment a person could make ... as i have pointed out and will refrain from doing so again ... oh, well heck why not ... the game is not that complicated ... you do not have some special insight or genius into the game ... the controllable tactics are fairly straight forward ... what is actually interesting ... is the mathematics behind how the game engine works ... how the regen engine works ... how the player development engine works ... etc

so you play the game ... you tweak your LB's status from automatic to attack to defend 4 times a game ... you can think you are a genius of unparalleled acclaim ... and i will be fascinated and keep trying to understand the inner workings of the game and its programming and mathematics and we will just have to agree that we are two entirely different types of people ... fair enough ... (and of course by you i do not mean you in particular only "you" as a generic euphemism for all of the "its is your tactics and i am a supra-genius that understands this super complicated game better than you" types ... if this is not YOU in particular than i apologize in advance)

[cruyff14]

i dont know what it is .... i just found it odd is all ... and i find the "it is your tactics" explanation ... aside from being mind bogglingly arrogant ... and rationally absurd ... pretty hollow ... i am thoroughly fascinated by the inner workings of the game and the probabilities (and also the attribute points and how they are distributed and how that relates to CA and PA ... i cannot find the logical framework but i digress) and i was just curious if others had come across the same thing and what some ... reasonable, insightful and intelligent theories might be ...

and i am not particularly bothered by losing or not winning any particular match and it was only an odd confluence of circumstances and annoyance that even led me to go as far as i did in doing this little experiment ...

and as somebody rightfully pointed out above it is not strictly scientifically accurate or statistically valid ... it is possible ... however improbable that a further 65 iterations would have brought the winning probability back in line somewhere to the reasonable 40 - 60 percent range (dependent of course on whatever various factors went into coming up with the particular outcome or set of outcomes) ... but then again i wasn't suggesting this be published in Scientific American ... it was just an interesting set of data I though I might share ...

now if somebody, as finally noted above ... actually knows that the game engine is more than a big probability calculation and the a subsequent 'visual display' of a particular out come but rather an "organic" real time simulation ... well that makes this outcome an even deeper layer of interesting IMHO .. but i know better than to discuss that on here i guess

Do you have any friends, do you just sit at home all day doing your gimpy maths thinking one day i'll find some real friends? Cause mate you really are as dull as **** and boring with it !!

[dsch]

now if somebody, as finally noted above ... actually knows that the game engine is more than a big probability calculation and the a subsequent 'visual display' of a particular out come but rather an "organic" real time simulation ... well that makes this outcome an even deeper layer of interesting IMHO .. but i know better than to discuss that on here i guess

That theory has been proposed before. I thought that myself at one point, but I now consider it quite unlikely given official statements to the contrary. Take a look at the changelists for patches, and they'll say things like "improved defenders closing down" or "changed attacking runs." It's too much of a conspiracy to think SI are making all that up.

Also, there is a large and dedicated community on FMLive. The match engine there is updated more frequently, and it would take an even bigger conspiracy to fool all those players every time match engine improvements are released.

[cruyff14]

how do i explain curiosity to you ... it isn't about losing one game ... no matter how good the odds were in my favour any team could lose to any other team in real life and rightfully the same is true in this game ... that is entirely not the point of any of this post or discussion ...

the fact i replayed the game the first time and the next 4 times was a simple confluence of annoyance and particular hatred of tottenham and boredom on the day ... on another day i might have just moved on ... but on this day i did not ... and i discovered ... at first by accident and then by curiosity and design something i found interesting and inexplicable ... you do not find it so ... fine ... don't respond to the post ... "its is your tactics" is just about the least useful and pretty much hilarious comment a person could make ... as i have pointed out and will refrain from doing so again ... oh, well heck why not ... the game is not that complicated ... you do not have some special insight or genius into the game ... the controllable tactics are fairly straight forward ... what is actually interesting ... is the mathematics behind how the game engine works ... how the regen engine works ... how the player development engine works ... etc

so you play the game ... you tweak your LB's status from automatic to attack to defend 4 times a game ... you can think you are a genius of unparalleled acclaim ... and i will be fascinated and keep trying to understand the inner workings of the game and its programming and mathematics and we will just have to agree that we are two entirely different types of people ... fair enough ... (and of course by you i do not mean you in particular only "you" as a generic euphemism for all of the "its is your tactics and i am a supra-genius that understands this super complicated game better than you" types ... if this is not YOU in particular than i apologize in advance)

You never done it as an experiment at least tell us all the truth that you got beat through your dummy out the pram and reloaded !

And honestly don't get pedantic with me you pathetic little man

[TheStoneMonkey]

i just happend to be annoyed at the "way" i lost the first game on two completely flukey goals and so i thought "well heck i saved right before this" so i decided to play it over and get a win ... because i hate spurs and cannot tolerate losing to them even in a game ...

.

and i am not particularly bothered by losing or not winning any particular match and it was only an odd confluence of circumstances and annoyance that even led me to go as far as i did in doing this little experiment ...

ROFL. You were saying?