Relegated because of an offside call...

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

All SI need to do is to code the offsides a little better.

Firstly there should be far less offsides in the game.

Secondly there should be far less goals ruled for offside. In real life, offsides are usually called a lot further up the field, in FM it seems most of the offsides get called within the final third.

Thirdly there should be less mistakes by referees. There are lots of mistakes made by refs in real life, so it needs to be in the game for realism sakes - but when ref's make mistakes in real life, they are a lot closer than we think.

I sometimes I can have 10 or 15 calls against my side over the course of a season and I try not to be biased, but it certainly costs me a huge amount of points over the course of a season and I rarely see calls that go in my favour in the same manner. This is probably a tactical thing and the AI just doesnt play silly tactics etc that leads to extra one on ones, through balls or what not.

The errors made in the game are so stupidly glaring; a lot more-so than in real life. When you see it in the game, you know they just wouldn't have got it "that wrong" in real life.

[Vic Taylor]

Exactly, so lets stop "simulating" human error. Its just ripping people off.

No, it's not. It's called realism.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

No, it's not. It's called realism.

It is realism, which is a good thing - but when realism is coded poorly, the game (and FM is a game, no matter who tries to call it a "similation") stops being fun and becomes a lot more tedious and frustrating. It gets even worse for the human player when the "positives" of managing a team, are eventually left out of the game. So why bother with realism to such an extent when simple positives are also not followed.

FM brings the user a vast a mount of hurdles, be it tactically, technically, in game media etc be it coded for realism or just coded poorly (such as these offside calls or repetitive and game breaking team talks).

We do not play FM because it is a similation that improves our football skills. We play FM for it to be fun and enjoyable.

In SI's strive to make the game realistic, they have gone and programmed nearly every single "negative" aspect to do with Football, such as player morale/happiness, bad calls, realistic database, realistic finances, media etc etc,

What is the point of outweighing all the positives with a vast barrage of negatives from the game.

Wheres the celebrations on the 2D/3D pitch after a league/cup win (the ultimate prize of playing this GAME). Where are the great player/manager bonds which happen in real life? You could manage a player for a decade and not be on his favourite personnel list, yet a rival manager gets on there after 1 or 2 media comments. Where are the great youth players coming out of great youth academies? Why are there far less world class players after 20 seasons compared to the staring database?

Why did SI brag about "polish" for this edition, then basically fall short on that promise.

After a while, you can begin to forgive the odd user getting angry at something like "Realistic offside calls" being put into a game, when SI leave out the major things we need in a game to make us want to keep playing and feel rewarded for playing.

At the end of the day, I do not feel rewarded if I see a bad call in the game. I want to feel a sense of satisfaction that comes with managing.

There is more to managing a side than being bombarded with negative things programmed due to realism.

SI seem to have emphasised on all the unsporting things that creep up into football, yet always seem to lack a creatve flair when it comes to incorporating something actually "fun".

So while my comments are a little offtopic, you can see why people emphasise on negative things in their and complain about why they are included.

Sure bad refs are included for realisms sake, when the game itself is basically disregards a whole host of realistic things like celebrations, sounds, game atmosphere, strong bonds/connections, player loyalty, better regens, realistic dispersion of talent, proper youth academies it makes you wonder, where is the beautiful side of Football???

Why do SI ultimately focus all their features on the bland, boring and the ugly.

Why cant SI program other "Realisms" into the game. I would not miss "incorrect" offside calls if they were never included, yet I do find it strange and almost "enjoyment killing" when I win the Champions League and my players just walk off the field. Yet I win a penalty shootout vs Woking, and everyone runs to hug eachother to celebrate.

SI could add proper on field celebrations, pitch invasions, musical sounds, presentation sounds, a small celebratory video etc etc to add "realism" that makes the user feel satisfied and content - instead nearly every single coded aspect of the game thats permiates realism is focusing on the ugly side of the sport.

I don't know if its just SI that thinks the game should not be fun or if its the creators of the game taking themselves and the game itself a "little too seriously".

Ultimately FM is an EXTREEMLY BORING and repetative game in which users are left spending hours trying to perfect a tactic. They have little or no direct impact on our dressing room or motivation other than ambigious and often paradoxial team talks and conferences that end up having the opposite of the intended effect.

We then finally get to the game and we see "realistic" offside calls which are unrealistically and incorrectly portrayed.

Of course, some people will come to the forum and complain and want that feature removed.

If SI's approach were from a different angle, we would get a lot less posts of people ranting about wether the AI is cheating us or not.

[Vic Taylor]

I get where you're coming from.

Personally though, I enjoy the "incorrect" decisions in the game, as I prefer greater realism. And, face it, some of the referring calls irl are absolutely shocking!

I agree that sometimes the negative features of the game can seem poorly done, but it's extremely hard to properly code a random and impartial "incorrect" decisions engine.

I also agree there should be more positive features in the game, as SI seem to have focused on the bad aspects of realism.

Why can the game not be called a simulation though?

And, tbh, almost every feature, whether good, bad, positive, negative, or totally non-existant has been complained about at one time or another.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

The game is a simulation of what it would be like to manage a club of our dreams. It is however also a game that is no more than that.

Deep down, the guts of the game is a database and lacks and has always lacked a form of ingenuity or creativity that could take it to that next step.

There is no reason why SI have to be so strict in every single aspect of the game to keep it a pure simulation of football.

This is not an educational simulator or a program used to improve our Football knowledge. What I am getting at is some people do not want the "fun things" to be added to the game because there is either no need, or its just cosmetic or it is just a gimmick and until SI realise that this is a game and the game actually needs some added element to it such as the creative and fun aspect, then this game will never market to every single type of football fan.

There will be people who wont play FM meerly because the 3D is ugly. There will be some who wont play it because they cant spend their manager wages on anything. There will be others who want to be a chairman of a club or have a personal life as a manager.

No matter what people say, these things ARE A PART OF FOOTBALL.

So why does a bad referee get priority over the actual beautiful side of football is beyond me. If FM were a true out and out educational simulation for the purpose of training - then fine there would be no need for the added gloss for it.

However this is a game and is there to be enjoyed - and we should probably begin looking outside the square and begin to treat this game as a game and not as a true football simulation which in my mind is holding back the true potential of FM.

[Vic Taylor]

I think you're going a little far with spending wages, becoming a chairman, and having a personal life (hell, I don't have one now, why would I want one in a game? ).

If anyone wants those things, then Fifa Manager is readily available.

But things like in-depth player interaction and relationships need to be added, as well as doing something about those bloody press conferences.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

I am just using it as an example.

People are so adamant that a bad referee needs to be added for realism sakes, but then there are hundreds of things that do not happen in FM that makes you wonder, why push for one idea so heavily, yet leave other things out.

Also sure FIFA Manager IS available, but its crap - the actually Footballing side of it is lacking. The same can be said for Championship Manager.

So why is it, SI cannot add similar features to other manager games (not exact of course for legal reasons) and actually soak up and dominate the market by finally breaking its shackles from the "simulation" badge. Why is it, SI really won't add some creative flair to this game? Why is it that bad press conferences and bad referees is the first thing that comes to their mind. It is to me an extreemly negative approach to coding a game and ultimately FM is pushing so heavily towards realism that it is not only diverging away from realism, but it is struggling to keep it coded correctly and at the same time its focusing too much on the negative aspect of football and forgetting that the sport itself is a beautiful thing.

Why is it, if a gamer wants an element of fun to the game, even slightly quirky, why should I be forced to abandon the decent match engine to play FIFA Manager or CM. The same can be said for FM. Why should I have to be forced into playing an extreemly boring game, just to enjoy a match engine or realism.

Why should I have to play FM for realism and FIFA or FIFA Manager to get my fix of "Childish Entertainment". Why is it classified as childish or stupid by most people anyway? Do people not attend games on the weekend? There are cheer leaders, mascots, flares, loads of colours, lush green fields, meat pies, fish and chips, beer etc....this is football...there is more to it than bad refs.

Most of the coded realism in the game seems to me that it is incorrectly potrayed from a "fans" point of view, rather than that of a real life manager.

Don't get me wrong - I love FM and it is the only game I play manager wise - but I will be lying if I said I do not feel dissapointed when there is a huge come down after winning a title or a cup and I can see a huge gaping hole in the realism of winning such a great event or hosting an event (ie being a manager of a country whos hosting the cup and the game totally disregards the event.)

While personal life/chairman etc might not be the direction FM should take - it was just an example of how realism is a strange thing to the people at SI.

I can think of a mass amount of things that probably would not take that long to code and could keep me hooked for ages. Things like I have already mentioned....pitch invasions when about to win the title, better youth academies, less random talent generation, better player interactions/relationships, more contracts to join new clubs at the end of the season (allowing you to finish up at your current club/contract), better sounds, better graphics, testimonian matches with some of your old stars, savable squads that you can use to play against different generations of squads (sort of like pkms/save games) so you could play a mate's side from a different save...

A lot of people will make fun of FIFA Manager, Championship Manager, LMA Manager and all the host of failed manager games through-out the years but every game I played I found a really exciting feature than I remembered for years.

FM seems to be the only manager game that lacks an exciting feature and actually packs a lot more annoyances than all of the other games put together. At the end of the day, it's the match engine and database that keeps all of us playing FM because they have a lot less errors compared to other games out there...

...but god forbid another company finally makes a similar match engine but with an element of fun attached to it ...FM could struggle to survive...

It would be extreemly naive of all us hardcore fans and SI to think that all the fans want is a good match engine and a big database. You would be surprised at the boost in sales from a simple new feature like testimonial matches, or option to be a chairman, having celebrations for winning a cup that is not textual in nature (hell even a parade through a street), youth academies around the world, etc etc.

As stated, you would be suprised how many people (and I know a lot) who do not play FM because they find it boring, but do use manager modes on FIFA etc due to the higher levels of entertainment(on most part is isnt even to do with graphics, but to the fun element).

I should use a strange metaphor and compare FM2010 to an amusement park. (no car metaphors here :D:D)

FM has the best/scariest rides out of all the amusement parks we know, while LMA, FIFA Manager, TCM, Championship Manager's rides are quite poor and even dangerous. However a lot of people still prefer their amusement park because there is a lot of music, colour and lots of clowns, ballons and colourful entertainment.

FM however, even though they have the greatest rides ever seen to man, everything is painted brown - we all see the ride specifications next to the ride, boasting at how complex it is and there is no music, balloons or clowns (we do have a few aka forum clowns) and the people who attend this amusement park are afraid of colour (and more importantly CHANGE).

In my mind, if that amusement park had some colour, we would be looking at the best amusement park ever created.

I would like to thank everyone for probably reading the first comparison between FM and an amusement park.

[Vic Taylor]

I've seen FM compared to cars and shoes, but never an amusement park.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

Yeh, well - I tend to see both sides to a story - and I never complained about the coded bad referee calls, I think its a good thing for it to be in it.

At the same time, the whole debate about it being an intergral part of realism eludes me when a lot of the truly important parts of realism are blatantly missing from the game.

It is the year 2010, I think its about time we moved away from text and begin adding realism by the way of rewarding a manager for his/her efforts.

PS (Sorry about my bad English!)

[Vic Taylor]

I do get tired of seeing "keep the celebrations to a minimum so you can focus on future challenges". If I've just won you the CL for the first time you should be kissing my feet!

Bad English? Your English was perfect. :confused:

[Baktru]

its different in real life though. in real life such decisions are a genuine mistake. in the game, the computer and ai are just arbitrarily deciding whether you should suffer a poor decision or not. its just not right.

The computer code uses some kind of algorithm that includes a random factor to decide whether or not the referee makes a mistake? I'd say that just makes it a better simulation than if the referee were always perfect.

[Legion22]

No, it's not. It's called realism.

Refs make totally random mistakes irl? Its down to chance whether the goal is allowed or not?

Meh.

Its a game. GAME. It is supposed to be fun. Losing a game because the GAME tried to mimic real life, which it simply is not advanced enough to do, is not fun.

[Vic Taylor]

Refs make totally random mistakes irl? Its down to chance whether the goal is allowed or not?

Sometimes, yes. Do you even watch football?

Meh.

Its a game. GAME. It is supposed to be fun. Losing a game because the GAME tried to mimic real life' date=' which it simply is not advanced enough to do, is not fun.[/quote']

If you want fun, why don't you edit your team all into super-players and win every match? You'd like that!

[Legion22]

Sometimes, yes. Do you even watch football?

Please cite one single mistake that was random?

If you want fun, why don't you edit your team all into super-players and win every match? You'd like that!

Obviously! Winning every game would not at all be boring!

Thats one of your weakest arguments and thats impressive, given its competition.

[Vic Taylor]

Please cite one single mistake that was random?

Refs can be random. They are human, and therefore capable of human error.

Obviously! Winning every game would not at all be boring!

Thats one of your weakest arguments and thats impressive' date=' given its competition.[/quote']

*sigh*

Let me speak slowly.

I. Was. Being. Sarcastic.

You. Understand. That?

[Legion22]

Refs can be random. They are human, and therefore capable of human error.

Human error, by definition, is not random.

Let me speak slowly.

I. Was. Being. Sarcastic.

You. Understand. That?

No...Really? Wow! I guess by repeated use of exclaimation marks! In my response! Was not quite blatant enough a clue for you! To get the sarcasm of my response!!

[r0x0r]

Human error as simulated by a machine IS random. Everything calculated in the match engine has a touch of random into it, weighted by the stats, attributes and other contributing factors.

Next you'll say players shouldn't have off days, because unlike in real life, in game it's random and depends on a random number generated.

[Legion22]

Human error as simulated by a machine IS random. Everything calculated in the match engine has a touch of random into it, weighted by the stats, attributes and other contributing factors.

Which is what I said.

Next you'll say players shouldn't have off days, because unlike in real life, in game it's random and depends on a random number generated.

Creating Strawman arguments is not productive.

[Vic Taylor]

Human error, by definition, is not random.

One ref can make a mistake. For example, saying it's a throw in when it was quite obviously a corner.

But on a different day or with a different ref, that decision would have been given as a corner, and not a throw in.

By definition, that's random.

No...Really? Wow! I guess by repeated use of exclaimation marks! In my response! Was not quite blatant enough a clue for you! To get the sarcasm of my response!!

I'd love to see the exlamation mark at the end of this sentence:

Thats one of your weakest arguments and thats impressive' date=' given its competition.[/quote']

[phnompenhandy]

Is this thread still on topic? I wonder if Avram Grant will be adding a post today?

[Cikku]

Gut-wrenching; glad to see you've taken it well.

I was just reading in the guardian online yesterday how Holland's famous total football World Cup only happened because of a similar decision. In their final qualifying match for the finals they needed a draw against Belgium who were on equal points and hadn't conceded a single goal in the whole campaign. In the dying seconds with the score at 0-0 a Belgian player scored but it was disallowed for offside. There were THREE Dutch defenders between him and the goal!

Same applies for Mourinho's rise to be a Great manager. If Paul Scholes' goal against Porto in the Last 16 of the Champions League was allowed, rather than incorrectly deemed offside, than Manchester United would've most likely progressed to the Quarter Finals, and not Porto. Therefore Porto would have never won the Champions League, and Mourinho would've never risen to his current heights.

btw, I'm not saying Mourinho isn't a great manager. In fact I think he is a great manager. But I think he can thank this moment of luck greatly for becoming recognised as a great.

[TeknoFreak]

Legion22 you are making me laugh with your logic and arguments.

One thing is clear and that is that Legion22 is taking Lavezzi's bad offside call and consequent relegation worse than Lavezzi is hehe.

PC's and applications do not know right from wrong, or what is cheating and what is not cheating. FM does not calculate in the way of saying, hmm I think will cheat in this match and rule out a completely legit goal offside, hence relegating this West Ham manager to the championship MUAHAHAHA!

Computers cannot think for themselves and cannot make decisions freely like a human being can, at least not yet. Someone has already pointed out that they cannot think independently or creatively, they can only be programmed and that governs what they can do and cannot do. In this case, they can only simulate whatever has been coded in the application.

These dodgy decisions have been put in by humans from Sports Interactive, and with good reason I think, because it imitates real life.

If you're really that annoyed and have it in for AI, why don't you purchase Mass Effect 1 or 2, if you do not have it already, and just take it out on some GETH!!

Lavezzi, I feel for you ya dude but it happens and it is hard to swallow. Good to see you're taking it well, better than others.

[Legion22]

One ref can make a mistake. For example, saying it's a throw in when it was quite obviously a corner.

But on a different day or with a different ref, that decision would have been given as a corner, and not a throw in.

By definition, that's random.

No. Every bad call has a a definite and logical reason. Therefore it is not random, by definition.

I'd love to see the exlamation mark at the end of this sentence:

Fair point, your "you cant code a better AI" was a much weaker argument. My apologies for the oversight.

Legion22 you are making me laugh with your logic and arguments.

One thing is clear and that is that Legion22 is taking Lavezzi's bad offside call and consequent relegation worse than Lavezzi is hehe.

PC's and applications do not know right from wrong, or what is cheating and what is not cheating. FM does not calculate in the way of saying, hmm I think will cheat in this match and rule out a completely legit goal offside, hence relegating this West Ham manager to the championship MUAHAHAHA!

Computers cannot think for themselves and cannot make decisions freely like a human being can, at least not yet. Someone has already pointed out that they cannot think independently or creatively, they can only be programmed and that governs what they can do and cannot do. In this case, they can only simulate whatever has been coded in the application.

Very good, now read what I actually said.

Lavezzi, I feel for you ya dude but it happens and it is hard to swallow. Good to see you're taking it well, better than others

*yawns*

[bones2]

Just like real life there are errors made by the officals in game. Legion22 do you not think that to have no errors would be unrealistic?

The logic that "the game CHOOSES to make a wrong call" could be applied to the whole game - it chooses if you score or miss a chance, if a pass is sucessful or not, but to look at it like that takes away the fun

In my opinion this is one of the times when being realistic isn't best.

As we all know referees make mistakes in real life, but it would be desirable if they were perfect in their decisions.

Very occasionaly hoolaginism raises its ugly head but you quite rightly do not put that in the game as it would be better if it never happened.

Although totally different from referee mistakes, referee mistakes and hooliganism are both undesirable.

Therefore, neither should be in the game.

[TeknoFreak]

Very good, now read what I actually said.

I did read what you said, and in response to a question on page one of this thread you said that you would like for the AI to stop cheating. I could go back and find the quote for you if you like?

You cannot stop the AI cheating as its not possible because it doesn't know if it is cheating or not. Why don't you type the following comment in the search facility of FM - 'Please stop cheating' and see if the AI CHOOSES to give you a response that you want, since it has a capable mind of independent and creative thinking, and has a sense of cheating and right and wrong. Who knows, it might even respond in remorse?

If you don't like it how applications and games are programmed then have you thought about stopping playing games or using computers, because no doubt you will feel 'cheated' by the AI many a time, and just be banging your head against a wall?

Just give it up Legion22 and have a coke and a smile.

[Vic Taylor]

No. Every bad call has a a definite and logical reason. Therefore it is not random, by definition.

No, it doesn't. If, for example, a ref doesn't see something and has to make the decision himself on which team to give the decision to, that's random.

Fair point' date=' your "you cant code a better AI" was a much weaker argument. My apologies for the oversight.[/quote']

So you're saying you could code a better AI?

Don't make me laugh.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

Well that offside call got me relegated, I never got THAT upset...but I have since won the EPL with the same side - so it's okay.

I think the posts that I have made already contain the answers to every single debate and every single post made from both parties on both sides of the fence.

The AI does not cheat - but SI also need to ensure that the coding of the game should be spot on if it has to really want FM to be realistic.

In real life referees do make mistakes, but the margin of error is much smaller in real life and the actual error in itself is extreemly close when witnessed live and with the naked eye. Sometimes we cry at a referee decision in real life with the wonderful aid of instant replays and the calls are extreemly marginal most of the time.

In FM, the "coded errors" of a referee are not marginal calls. Some offside calls are so blatantly incorrect that you know it would not happen in real life.

I have seen a goal scored against me where I had a player standing just inside his own half near the centre circle, and the opposing team launched a through-ball to Gerrard of all people who was in between the circle and the penalty area, at least 25 yards offside. Not only was the offside not called, Gerrard controlled, turned and launched a 30 yard strike into the top corner.

Now we know in real life, no one on Earth could make a bad decision THAT bad, and nor would a player turn and shoot a wonder goal from 30 yards out, with the goalie firmly on his line with no one around him for 30 or so yards in either direction.

So here we have a game, trying to mimmick real life, and it has been coded to occur randomly (which is fine). The AI is not cheating, but it randomly in conjunction with referee attributes to call a percentage of offside calls incorrectly. The issue however is that some of these calls are well outside the general scope of trying to simulate natural human error and are landing into the realm of poorly programmed code.

As stated, SI strive to include all the realism of Football into their game and while I agree with it, they need to make sure it's done right and to limit people moaning - they should also include far more positives to their game because people are being bombarded with constant negative factors of realism that their frustrations leak out to these forums.

[FM06Matt]

Did nobody see Defoe score yesterday against Wigan? Miles offside was giving the goal thease things happen and FM has just added this in for realism its horrible when it happens to your team especially Lavenzzi's situation but just got to click continue and forget about it

[Legion22]

No, it doesn't. If, for example, a ref doesn't see something and has to make the decision himself on which team to give the decision to, that's random.

If a ref does not see anything, he does not make a call. Any ref will say, if they don`t see the incident, they can`t give a descision.

So you're saying you could code a better AI?

No *sigh* I`m saying me not being able to code an AI, does not mean that anyone who can will automatically make a good one.

Thats why "You can`t do better" is only an argument an idiot would make.

If you don't like it how applications and games are programmed then have you thought about stopping playing games or using computers, because no doubt you will feel 'cheated' by the AI many a time, and just be banging your head against a wall?

You already said that. Do you wish to contribute anything of substance?

[Legion22]

In my opinion this is one of the times when being realistic isn't best.

I wonder, Bones, how people arguing for "realism" react to losing a game as the PC cheated?

I bet they think "Wow! I`m glad that I lost that game due to programmed human error, even though the games knows the goals were offside. I just love the realism!"

If they were honest, they would admit they get as annoyed as anyone else. They are unlikely to admit it though...........

[Serpico]

Can you lot not play nicely? There are way too many posts causing me to have to read reported posts in Mods. Keep it friendly and respectful, OR ELSE.

[Vic Taylor]

If a ref does not see anything, he does not make a call. Any ref will say, if they don`t see the incident, they can`t give a descision.

I believe I used an example (whether in this thread or another one) of the ball going out behind the goal. In this case, the ref has to make a decision on whether it's a throw in or a corner. What if he doesn't see it?

I wonder' date=' Bones, how people arguing for "realism" react to losing a game as the PC cheated?

I bet they think "Wow! I`m glad that I lost that game due to programmed human error, even though the games knows the goals were offside. I just love the realism!"

If they were honest, they would admit they get as annoyed as anyone else. They are unlikely to admit it though...........[/quote']

Of course everyone gets annoyed when they lose a game. There's a general consensus that the game focuses more on the bad aspects of realism than the good ones, but that doesn't change the fact that realism is indeed in the best interests of the game, and the players.

[Legion22]

I believe I used an example (whether in this thread or another one) of the ball going out behind the goal. In this case, the ref has to make a decision on whether it's a throw in or a corner. What if he doesn't see it?

Then the call is made by the linesman.

[Vic Taylor]

Then the call is made by the linesman.

I also said earlier in this thread that the ref has to make the decision.

[Legion22]

Yes. The ref will consult the linesman. No referee will just guess whether it was a corner of throw in. Thats what the other officials are for.

[Taytaz]

I find this happening a lot which is realistic. Refs don't always make a good call. But realistically the players should protest.

Another thing I question. The ref gave the other team a free-kick just outside the penalty area due to an obstruction. This is an indirect free-kick. The player scored a fabulous goal - directly from 25 yards. Since this was an indirect free-kick the goal shouldn't be allowed but the ref called it good. And again; no player protested. How realistic is it that both ref and all players are disillusioned at the same time

sorry if this has been discussed by obstruction, now called impedement, is rewarded with a Direct Free Kick as contact has been made

[Vic Taylor]

Yes. The ref will consult the linesman. No referee will just guess whether it was a corner of throw in. Thats what the other officials are for.

You're not understanding me.

I'm saying that if neither the linesman or the ref saw, then the ref will have to guess or make a completely random judgement call.

[Legion22]

So the ball is played towards the corner flag and not a single one of the officials was looking at the ball at the time?

You think this a realistic proposition?

[Vic Taylor]

So the ball is played towards the corner flag and not a single one of the officials was looking at the ball at the time?

You think this a realistic proposition?

*smiles* Yes, mate.

You may remember a Man Utd match not so long ago (can't for the life of me remember who it was against :o) when the ball was played by a defender between the corner flag and the goal. It was 100% a corner, but the ref gave a throw in.

[Legion22]

So the ref thought it was a corner.

What exactly is the point of this? Unless you can show that in that particular instance, or indeed any instance, a decision has been given where none of the officials saw it so they just made it up, your point is redundant.

[Vic Taylor]

So the ref thought it was a corner.

I'd be interested how you thought I said that, seeing as I said this:

It was 100% a corner' date=' but the ref gave a throw in.[/quote']

What exactly is the point of this? Unless you can show that in that particular instance, or indeed any instance, a decision has been given where none of the officials saw it so they just made it up, your point is redundant.

I believe I just gave you an example. Neither the ref or the linesman saw it (though how, we'll never know) and the ref picked one of the two options available to him randomly, which was the wrong one.

[Ifa]

Has anyone ever wondered that perhaps the game engine sees something diffrent than what it is showing in the 3D? I have often found some inconsistencies between 3D and text. Small things, ie in the text a winger dirbbles past a defender, but in 3D they are a several meters away from eachother, with the winger running a straing line and then crossing. Not the best example, but that's what came in mind first

[Vic Taylor]

Has anyone ever wondered that perhaps the game engine sees something diffrent than what it is showing in the 3D? I have often found some inconsistencies between 3D and text. Small things, ie in the text a winger dirbbles past a defender, but in 3D they are a several meters away from eachother, with the winger running a straing line and then crossing. Not the best example, but that's what came in mind first

I believe there was a bug in 10.0 where the 3D would show what looked like a goal, but not give it, as it was a messed up view, and the ball didn't actually go into the net at all...

[Legion22]

I believe I just gave you an example. Neither the ref or the linesman saw it (though how, we'll never know) and the ref picked one of the two options available to him randomly, which was the wrong one.

No you didn`t. What you have done is given a faulty decision then claimed it is because nobody was watching.

Thats a logical failure.

[hetho]

legion22 if you are that worked up over the AI "cheating you" then have you thought of not playing? and if you want to continue playing then how about you stop complaining about how the game has been created. if you still want to complain about insignificant things then i suggest you create your own football managing game the way you want it.

[Legion22]

and if you want to continue playing then how about you stop complaining about how the game has been created.

How about you stop complaining about people complaining.

if you still want to complain about insignificant things then i suggest you create your own football managing game the way you want it.

What a great argument! Lets apply that to the real world shall we? I don`t like the fact that an Aston Martin costs £100,000 so I`ll make my own! I don`t like the travesty that was Terminator Salvation, so I`ll make my own $200m film!

Great argument.

I don`t think the game should try to simulate human error, because the engine is simply not advanced enough to do so. If you have a counter argument, I suggest you present it, otherwise I would appreciate you keeping your personal attacks to yourself.

[Vic Taylor]

No you didn`t. What you have done is given a faulty decision then claimed it is because nobody was watching.

Thats a logical failure.

It was because no one was watching. Give me another reason for it.

[Vic Taylor]

I don`t think the game should try to simulate human error, because the engine is simply not advanced enough to do so. If you have a counter argument, I suggest you present it.

The fact the ME does simulate it quite sucessfully is probably going to be ignored here, correct?

[Legion22]

It doesn`t. I`ve already explained why and you are yet to refute it.

[Legion22]

It was because no one was watching. Give me another reason for it.

No, thats not how it works. YOU made the assumption that nobody was watching it. YOU now need to prove that assertion. Even if I CAN`T offer an explaination, that does not make your explaination right.