CPU - Shot on Target = Goal

[aderow]

Tim Krul is the most annoying keeper ever

Its fine though. He trolled united in real life too

Personally I don't care about CCCs. I only really look at total shots, shots on target, and long shots.

I know that when I dominate matches, the opposition will sit back in order to limit the space for my players to utilise. Thus it will always be more difficult for my players to score.

I imagine that most of the chances that the opposition get will come from counter attacks. Fair enough.

I understand full well the frustration of dominating but being tied or losing by a goal to a crap opponent. In my last save, before my hard drive died, I was in the carling cup quarter final again sheffield united. Dominated the match from start to finish. Took some 30, about half on target. Match went to extra time as it was tied 0-0. I didn't score until the 115 minute. Sheffield, from the kick off, went and scored the equaliser. They had one shot in the match prior to that. I won the match on penalties but I was fuming that it took that to win.

I do agree that too many shots are taken in FM. Don't think I've ever seen barca put up 45 shots against another la liga side like I've done with them.

This game does have its, more than a fair, share of nonsensical moments. I do feel like certain aspects of football are overexaggerated a bit in the game. Shots being the first one.

[vlobben]

Why is there so much noise around something that is extremely easy to check statistically? Surely, if the computer "always" score on their first shot, someone can count the amount of times it happens, compare it to human managers, control for factors like pre-match odds, reputation and tactics, and show some convincing statistics that drives the point home.

[bullybeef]

I have found various incarnations of FM are consistently inconsistent with the goals to shots ratio stat. Obviously it attempts to replicate RL events but because we can play 3 to 4 games a day, the stats becomes hugely highlighted.

What gets my goat is how the ME in various versions inexplicably displays a missed chance by a player perfectly capable of scoring, yet a player with weaker attributes can score an outrageous chance. Personally I would prefer the ME not give me a CCC if I am going to ridiculously miss them (eg: open goals). It seems to only be shown to frustrate, whereas it should display that you are on top and you are due a goal. Creating chances should raise enthusiasm that your team is on top and your players are doing things right. But you end up feeling the pressure you are creating is for nothing, and leads you in a false sense of security.

In some occasions on FM2011, I bought keepers with average stats whom did well against me, and they're rubbish when they're in my goal.

And I have since changed my tactics completely because of this issue. I now play a more counter attacking system to try to create fewer, better quality chances, whilst at the same time, packing my area to remove CCCs my opponents need to score, because we know they don't need many chances, regardless of their attributes. I have basically tried to turn the issue on it's head.

I do have to add in does occur less for me in FM2012, but misses are still highly suspect. I recently played a difficult game vs Spurs. I hammered them on chances, missed TWO open goals and scraped a 3-1 win with two late goals. Like I said, either cut out the amount of CCC, or just give us the goal. Why is it should a big deal if a player scores a CCC? Shouldn't a team be rewarded for their attacking endeavour and their ability to carve out decent CCCs?

[BiggusD]

I have found various incarnations of FM are consistently inconsistent with the goals to shots ratio stat. Obviously it attempts to replicate RL events but because we can play 3 to 4 games a day, the stats becomes hugely highlighted.

What gets my goat is how the ME in various versions inexplicably displays a missed chance by a player perfectly capable of scoring, yet a player with weaker attributes can score an outrageous chance. Personally I would prefer the ME not give me a CCC if I am going to ridiculously miss them (eg: open goals). It seems to only be shown to frustrate, whereas it should display that you are on top and you are due a goal. Creating chances should raise enthusiasm that your team is on top and your players are doing things right. But you end up feeling the pressure you are creating is for nothing, and leads you in a false sense of security.

In some occasions on FM2011, I bought keepers with average stats whom did well against me, and they're rubbish when they're in my goal.

And I have since changed my tactics completely because of this issue. I now play a more counter attacking system to try to create fewer, better quality chances, whilst at the same time, packing my area to remove CCCs my opponents need to score, because we know they don't need many chances, regardless of their attributes. I have basically tried to turn the issue on it's head.

I do have to add in does occur less for me in FM2012, but misses are still highly suspect. I recently played a difficult game vs Spurs. I hammered them on chances, missed TWO open goals and scraped a 3-1 win with two late goals. Like I said, either cut out the amount of CCC, or just give us the goal. Why is it should a big deal if a player scores a CCC? Shouldn't a team be rewarded for their attacking endeavour and their ability to carve out decent CCCs?

The issue is that defending in FM is bad, allowing all teams to create too many big chances on each other. This has always been the case. To avoid ridiculous match scores, FM make strikers miss open chances.

Now it seems like this only counts for shots off target, shots on target are often not saved at all, regardless of keeper and shooter quality. This is happening both for me and against me at the moment.

[scott MUFC]

i get to 6-0 and can get no more , i have won 6-0 twice and 6-1 strikers go about missing sitters.

but in a tight game, when hernandez has the entire net and misses from 5 yardsm while some midfielder with 9-10 minisihing scores his first goal of the season from outside the area. its annoying the defending in FM isn't that bad sometimes, i get a lot of shots because i want the team to make those shots.

when you concede a random 22 shots to bolton and still win, its funny and BS at the same time especially when you create 3 on target and 3 off for the entire 90

[bullybeef]

FM make strikers miss open chances.

Great point. This is exactly how I am made to feel. Has the result been predetermined prior to the game, so no matter how many CCCs you create, only the predetermined scoreline will play out?

Also, the argument that as much as any player can score a sitter, even a world class player can miss one has been mentioned, and obviously Torres' name crops up. But we know Torres is riddled with poor form/moral and has a psychological issue with the pressure of a large transfer fee, something that cannot be written into a game.

And in my case, my players form and moral are at a decent level, so that cannot be the reason. Creating misses for the sake of reducing the scoreline doesn't aid a users learning experience as to whether their tactics are working. I have tried everything to enable a greater shot to goal ratio over the years, and the truth is, if it happens in real life, the excuse is already their to defend it occurring in a game.

But we all know if a computer generated player misses a shot, he was meant to miss, which IRL would be a cheating you out of a goal.

Like I said, improve the defending to remove the amount of CCC you create, meaning when they come, you can have a little more confidence that you will score.

[BiggusD]

Great point. This is exactly how I am made to feel. Has the result been predetermined prior to the came, so no matter how many CCCs you create, only the predetermined scoreline will play out?

Also, the argument that as much as any player can score a sitter, even a world class player can miss one has been mentioned, and obviously Torres' name crops up. But we know Torres is riddled with poor form/moral and has a psychological issue with the pressure of a large transfer fee, something that cannot be written into a game.

And in my case, my players form and moral are at a decent level, so that cannot be the reason. Creating misses for the sake of reducing the scoreline doesn't aid a users learning experience as to whether their tactics are working. I have tried everything to enable a greater shot to goal ratio over the years, and the truth is, if it happens in real life, the excuse is already their to defend it occurring in a game.

But we all know if a computer generated player misses a shot, he was meant to miss, which IRL would be a cheating you out of a goal.

Like I said, improve the defending to remove the amount of CCC you create, meaning when they come, you can have a little more confidence that you will score.

As for the bolded question, yes the match is pre-determined if neither you nor the AI makes any changes whatsoever. That rarely happens, though. When you go into the tactical interface and change something, once you go back and the changes are loaded the ME calculates something else to happen for the rest of the game based on the present factors. There are thousands of factors including random chance.

So if you recognize patterns that tells you that you will -never- score, for instance numerous woodwork hits, superkeepers, missing mind-numbing ccc's, braindead long-shots or other awful decisions etc etc, then that frustrated feeling you get should tell you that what you see is what you get; you won't actually score as long as things stay as they are. Then the solution is to make a tactical change. It doesn't matter what it is: what you're attempting is a re-load of the ME's calculations, assuming you know that the tactic you're using is working well.

As such, clicking on the counter-attack button, players swapping places, offside trap on or off, Hard tackling on or off, a substitution or even something so small as on or off tight marking on a player may have the desired effect just as much as doing major changes such as swapping tactics or adjusting mentality, width, tempo, defensive line and passing style.

[bullybeef]

Is this really the case??

[BiggusD]

Is this really the case??

What exactly?

[raaatpack]

This thread is an absolute minefield of cognitive dissonance and selection bias.

Don't read this thread if you actually know how FM works unless you're a masochist. It's painful.

[Apos]

This thread is an absolute minefield of cognitive dissonance and selection bias.

Don't read this thread if you actually know how FM works unless you're a masochist. It's painful.

Bow before the master of FM everyone!

[Guest]

Has anyone got any real life stats on someone like Messi and his conversion rate from chances where he's one on one with the keeper?

[scott MUFC]

i dunno

but united had 18 shots on target against wolves today, ands only scored 5.

9/10 for accuracy in this game

[Flohrinho]

I just finished my data analysis of last season where I played 27 games before the patch 12.2 and 29 games after the patch 12.2 and it's quite interesting that the data actually supports what some people have been saying here.

If I got it right the major complaint is that basically the AI teams need less shots on goal to score then your own team even though your own team might be vastly superior. My Dortmund side is by some margin the best team in the world atm in my 8th season with them and has dominated the league for the last 7 years and the CL for the last 6 years with winning both unbroken in a row. So it's save to say that non of the teams I meat over the course of a season are actually better then mine when it comes to player material alone.

But let's look at the data. Before the patch I needed 7,9 shots per goal, 3,3 shots on target per goal and the ratio of CCCs to goals was 1,2 CCCs per goal. The opponent needed around 9,7 shots for one goal, 4,2 shots on target for one goal and the CCC to goal ratio was 2,1 CCCs for one goal.

Considering that my team is vastly superior to most teams I play those stats seam to reflect pretty good the better quality of my players.

Now let's take a look at the data after the patch 12.2 and what has changed in that time. After the patch I needed only 7 shots per goal, 3,1 shots on target per goal and the CCC to goal ratio was 1,1. All in all not a major change if anything I seam to need less chances now to score then I did before the patch even though it's not a large improvement.

But let's take a look at how the game changed for my opponents after the patch. With patch 12.2 my opponents needed only 5,6 shots per goal, 2,6 shots on target per goal and the CCC to goal ratio was exactly 1.

Let's put this into an overview:

Change for my Team:

12.1 - SpG: 7,9 - SotpG: 3,3 - CCCpG: 1,2

12.2 - SpG: 7,0 - SotpG: 3,1 - CCCpG: 1,1

Change for Opposition:

12.1 - SpG: 9,7 - SotpG: 4,2 - CCCpG: 2,1

12.2 - SpG: 5,6 - SotpG: 2,6 - CCCpG: 1,0

Even though the changes after the patch are quite noticeable and my opponents are far more deadly in front of goal it's not prove that the patch is actually responsible for it. Seeing that I usually lead the league by quite a large margin in the second half of the season overconfidence could be a factor in why my defense is a bit less concentrated. Also the fact that I usually meat the strongest teams in the CL in the second half of the season could be a factor for this change.

That means I have to evaluate the date of my next first season half and take only the league games to compare.

If someone wants to use my spreadsheet to do his own data collection or just want to look at my data here is the link.

P.S. I should mention that I play all games in full length and it usually takes me 2-3 weeks RL time to get through half a season so it might take a while before I have the new data.

[bullybeef]

What exactly?

The ME isn't an open free flowing environment? In other words, even if you view the full match live, the scoreline is always predetermined and consistently calculated, rather than ball and player physics being taken into account (or how would a calculation take into account something like a deflection etc)? Or is a deflection that either created a goal, or directly resulted in a goal, just a way the ME can full-fill the calculated scoreline at that time?

So the ME isn't a true representation of what would happen, it just presents what HAS to happen?

Also a team's moral isn't heightened by playing well, be it attacking (creating chances) or defending. Just because you are creating plenty of chances, your players won't be buoyed by this? Is this FMs why of simulating 'luck' no matter how ridiculous it comes across in terms of the context of a particular game. For example, opponents having few chances, that is until you score, than they go up the other end and pop one in like it was easy.

Yet when a human player is loosing, the ME doesn't give off any optimism of the chances of an equaliser.

[Blaupunkt]

The ME isn't an open free flowing environment? In other words, even if you view the full match live, the scoreline is always predetermined and consistently calculated, rather than ball and player physics being taken into account (or how would a calculation take into account something like a deflection etc)? Or is a deflection that either created a goal, or directly resulted in a goal, just a way the ME can full-fill the calculated scoreline at that time?

So the ME isn't a true representation of what would happen, it just presents what HAS to happen?

Also a team's moral isn't heightened by playing well, be it attacking (creating chances) or defending. Just because you are creating plenty of chances, your players won't be buoyed by this? Is this FMs why of simulating 'luck' no matter how ridiculous it comes across in terms of the context of a particular game. For example, opponents having few chances, that is until you score, than they go up the other end and pop one in like it was easy.

Yet when a human player is loosing, the ME doesn't give off any optimism of the chances of an equaliser.

if something is predetermined how can it be constantly calculated ?

my understanding of the ME is, if you watch the game live the outcome is not predetermined and is calculated live as you watch, if you select any of the highlight modes the ME will take every variable between the 2 games to get the result and then show it via the highlights, if you make any changes whilst watching the highlights it will recalculated the match again after they have been made and then continue with the new outcome.

as someone else posted there has been a lot of rubbish posted in this thread that has been gone over so many times over the years i cannot believe it is still being brought up.

[Apos]

if something is predetermined how can it be constantly calculated ?

my understanding of the ME is, if you watch the game live the outcome is not predetermined and is calculated live as you watch, if you select any of the highlight modes the ME will take every variable between the 2 games to get the result and then show it via the highlights, if you make any changes whilst watching the highlights it will recalculated the match again after they have been made and then continue with the new outcome.

as someone else posted there has been a lot of rubbish posted in this thread that has been gone over so many times over the years i cannot believe it is still being brought up.

Nope,the result is predetermined,no matter on what highlight mode you play on. Only when you change your tactics or make a substitution(also slightly with team talks) does a minor recalculation happen and the result might change.

But good thing we got you and that other guy with the 4 posts to enlighten us simpletons that post rubbish. Next time my players start playing dodgeball with the AI keeper,I'll remember you and how stupid I must be to believe it has anything to do with pre-determined results.

[BiggusD]

if something is predetermined how can it be constantly calculated ?

my understanding of the ME is, if you watch the game live the outcome is not predetermined and is calculated live as you watch, if you select any of the highlight modes the ME will take every variable between the 2 games to get the result and then show it via the highlights, if you make any changes whilst watching the highlights it will recalculated the match again after they have been made and then continue with the new outcome.

as someone else posted there has been a lot of rubbish posted in this thread that has been gone over so many times over the years i cannot believe it is still being brought up.

Full match is also highlights, in the sense that you can't change tactics while the ball is in the air so to speak.

What you see in FM isn't happening real-time. Every time the ball goes out of play, there is a chance that the ME will calculate a different course of events, but while the ball is moving the outcome of that "highlight" is already calculated. However, this is not to say that the ME starts out with the end result and then fits everything else into place. Everything that is animated happened for a reason, and that reason is either tactical, motivational, tied to player quality or just pure chance.

Nevertheless, there are limitations to the game compared to real life; there are only so many animations. Many of the frustrating elements of the game are ultimately caused by this - for instance the lack of good defending is not necessarily caused by a faulty ME but by the fact that people want to score goals and watch nice attacking play so there are quite simply less "good defending" animations than there are "good attacking" ones. Most "good defending" animations are actually those that are starting counter-attacks, in my experience. It is also a real-life fact that most goals come from defensive errors rather than fantastic attacking moves which are hard to defend against just from sheer awesomeness, and this is included in the game too. This is why I instantly think (or yell) "ohkaaaay two missed tackles in a row. Certainly a goal!" when a defensive error is made. Experience has taught me that losing two challenges in a row often means a CCC is coming up. I am rarely wrong about that, but those chances aren't always converted.

In other words, it certainly -feels- like what happens in FM is what -has- to happen for a goal to be made, but the ME doesn't work that way. It is just that some animations are far fetched to me; when an opponent player inferior in quality skips past two defenders making tackles before crossing to another low-quality player who traps the ball perfectly and blasts the ball into goal while my world-class defenders are both looking at something in the stands, completely oblivious... what is that supposed to do to suspension of disbelief?

[bullybeef]

I am very grateful for this thread. I usually view the full match to take any premeditated, predetermined decisions from being made that could easily be construed as suspect, such as being out of context with match events or player form (top striker missing sitters). Now I know it doesn't really matter. But obviously the problem with watching highlights is, goal misses will be shown in more detail, which only causes even more frustration and disillusionment. In the past, when I get frustrated with the ME, I don't watch it at all, and select commentary only.

But knowing now that if you haven't even scored in the first 15mins, especially if you're playing well, just changing something can issue a positive cause and effect. Yeah this can also have an adverse affect, but just by using this knowledge in one game, I have recorded by biggest win in a good few games. I suppose I have to change my mindset that CCC may as well be a 40 yard shot. It will only go in if it was meant to.

It is sad that this has nothing to do with tactics, it is just a simple case of seeing that the game isn't going to give you a goal unless you make a change. And I was trying to be patient!

Now for my next bug bear - out of context injuries (a playing being fouled and suffering a long-term hamstring injury - the only way to pull or tear a hamstring is by running).

[BiggusD]

I am very grateful for this thread. I usually view the full match to take any premeditated, predetermined decisions from being made that could easily be construed as suspect, such as being out of context with match events or player form (top striker missing sitters). Now I know it doesn't really matter. But obviously the problem with watching highlights is, goal misses will be shown in more detail, which only causes even more frustration and disillusionment. In the past, when I get frustrated with the ME, I don't watch it at all, and select commentary only.

But knowing now that if you haven't even scored in the first 15mins, especially if you're playing well, just changing something can issue a positive cause and effect. Yeah this can also have an adverse affect, but just by using this knowledge in one game, I have recorded by biggest win in a good few games. I suppose I have to change my mindset that CCC may as well be a 40 yard shot. It will only go in if it was meant to.

It is sad that this has nothing to do with tactics, it is just a simple case of seeing that the game isn't going to give you a goal unless you make a change. And I was trying to be patient!

Now for my next bug bear - out of context injuries (a playing being fouled and suffering a long-term hamstring injury - the only way to pull or tear a hamstring is by running).

It -might- have something to do with tactics. It is only when you know confidently that your tactic is good and should give you goals (or defend well, for that matter) that the observation that you're missing clear chances or multiple woodwork hits should lead to the decision to make a change... -any- change. If your Classic tactic isn't consistently making a clear difference compared to the AI or your TC+Shout tactical decisions weren't giving you that expected edge, changing a random minor factor may not help at all.

[bullybeef]

I decided to replay the same game again as a test, beginning with my starting tactic. At the same point, I made the same slight tactical change, and low a behold, the first goal was scored. I then decided to view the game in highlight mode, and although I didn't win by the same scoreline (3-0), the same players scored, the second goal was a penalty scored by my central defender (his goal in the first game was from a FK)! What are the chances? It must have been destiny!

Incidentally, in the first game, I had 3 CCC and scored 3. This time I had no CCC and score 2. The truth is, the shots to goals ratio is a fallacy, it means nothing.

My frustration has now changed to humour at the fact the ME is really a gimmick, and due to so many possible outcomes, we have little idea of what we are doing is really making a difference. Is it 'luck' or good management? We'll never really know. I think I'll play the game again without making any changes.

[BiggusD]

I decided to replay the same game again as a test, beginning with my starting tactic. At the same point, I made the same slight tactical change, and low a behold, the first goal was scored. I then decided to view the game in highlight mode, and although I didn't win by the same scoreline (3-0), the same players scored, the second goal was a penalty scored by my central defender (his goal in the first game was from a FK)! What are the chances? It must have been destiny!

Incidentally, in the first game, I had 3 CCC and scored 3. This time I had no CCC and score 2. The truth is, the shots to goals ratio is a fallacy, it means nothing.

My frustration has now changed to humour at the fact the ME is really a gimmick, and due to so many possible outcomes, we have little idea of what we are doing is really making a difference. Is it 'luck' or good management? We'll never really know. I think I'll play the game again without making any changes.

Replaying games is a fallacy too, but once I couldn't believe my eyes when for some reason I don't remember I replayed a game. The same animations occured in the same minutes they did in the last run, and in the same order with exactly the same outcome. It was astonishing! It really was a rerun! Knowing the outcome of the match, I changed some tactical stuff and from then on the match differed from the previous one. I have never seen anything like it before or after...

[marty78]

I think your taking peoples opinions as fact far too readily. Tactics do matter and not scoring in the first 15 minutes does NOT mean you always have to make a change to get a goal. Replaying one match where certain factors are already set in place will prove nothing. If the same players scored perhaps this is more to do with motivation than pre-determined results.

I was under the impression that the ME plays out the first half which generates a result and then shows you the highlights. If you make changes then it re-calculates and generates new highlights. Obviously at this stage the second half is yet to be played out as the decisions required are yet to be set in place.

I may be wrong as this is just something I've heard elsewhere but your assertion that the ME is just a gimmick is wrong IMO.

[Ackter]

If you're seeing this happen in-game more often than you would in real life it's for one very simple reason.

Real life managers change things up when it isn't working. Hell, they change things up when it is working, too.

[BiggusD]

If you're seeing this happen in-game more often than you would in real life it's for one very simple reason.

Real life managers change things up when it isn't working. Hell, they change things up when it is working, too.

How could "the opponent created one chance all match" mean that "things aren't working"?

[Ackter]

Because you didn't win.

[Apos]

Because you didn't win.

How are we supposed to predict the 1 shot goal from god knows where in the 90+ minute? Especially when they haven't shown any evidence of being able to beat the defence...

[Blaupunkt]

Full match is also highlights, in the sense that you can't change tactics while the ball is in the air so to speak.

What you see in FM isn't happening real-time. Every time the ball goes out of play, there is a chance that the ME will calculate a different course of events, but while the ball is moving the outcome of that "highlight" is already calculated. However, this is not to say that the ME starts out with the end result and then fits everything else into place. Everything that is animated happened for a reason, and that reason is either tactical, motivational, tied to player quality or just pure chance.

Nevertheless, there are limitations to the game compared to real life; there are only so many animations. Many of the frustrating elements of the game are ultimately caused by this - for instance the lack of good defending is not necessarily caused by a faulty ME but by the fact that people want to score goals and watch nice attacking play so there are quite simply less "good defending" animations than there are "good attacking" ones. Most "good defending" animations are actually those that are starting counter-attacks, in my experience. It is also a real-life fact that most goals come from defensive errors rather than fantastic attacking moves which are hard to defend against just from sheer awesomeness, and this is included in the game too. This is why I instantly think (or yell) "ohkaaaay two missed tackles in a row. Certainly a goal!" when a defensive error is made. Experience has taught me that losing two challenges in a row often means a CCC is coming up. I am rarely wrong about that, but those chances aren't always converted.

In other words, it certainly -feels- like what happens in FM is what -has- to happen for a goal to be made, but the ME doesn't work that way. It is just that some animations are far fetched to me; when an opponent player inferior in quality skips past two defenders making tackles before crossing to another low-quality player who traps the ball perfectly and blasts the ball into goal while my world-class defenders are both looking at something in the stands, completely oblivious... what is that supposed to do to suspension of disbelief?

so as i said its calculated as you watch, in 1 of my saves my team (Newcastle UTD) are more than capable of defending very well, very rarely do i ever dominate teams who are on paper better than me, they are usually in total control for passes, possession, shots, etc and often i manage a 1-0 win or a 1-1 draw, teams that are the same level or worse i can usually beat and to some extent dominate.

one of the problems a lot of people have with the amount of chances that are created is the fact it is hard and in some cases impossible to tell how good the actual chance is, if might look like a great chance when you watch the 3D highlights but the reality is that a lot of the chances created are at best only a half chance and often worse, if you create 30 chances in total than you can have a guess that at least 20 of those chances are very difficult to convert, of the other 10 some you will score with some will be missed because its only a half chance or just because the player in question messed up for any number of reasons.

@ Apos as as PaulC onces said many months (years) ago on these very forums,

No score is predetermined before playing a match through. The playthrough creates the result. Yes, we play through once before showing highlights in order to create the highlights.

im sure you will not believe me either as apparently i don't know what im talking about seeing as i don't have a HUGE post count, because that means everything doesn't it! >CLICK ME< and read post number 10.

i am quite sure the ME still works in the same way seeing as i have not read anything so say other wise.

[Ackter]

How are we supposed to predict the 1 shot goal from god knows where in the 90+ minute? Especially when they haven't shown any evidence of being able to beat the defence...

A one-off is just that. A regular occurrence means something is wrong.

The only thing stopping it from changing is the manager's stubbornness.

[Ackter]

i am quite sure the ME still works in the same way seeing as i have not read anything so say other wise.

Yes, it still works in the same way.

[Apos]

@ Apos as as PaulC onces said many months (years) ago on these very forums,

im sure you will not believe me either as apparently i don't know what im talking about seeing as i don't have a HUGE post count, because that means everything doesn't it! >CLICK ME< and read post number 10.

i am quite sure the ME still works in the same way seeing as i have not read anything so say other wise.

Well,so that means that if you don't change anything,then the score is predetermined (since it's already played before to create the highlights) and that it has internals where recalculations happen.(aka when tactic changes,team talks,shouts,etc happen) Not really different from what I said really? Maybe a little? Or maybe you just misunterstood me.

And about the post count,I don't know why you brought that up, but that someone who I mentioned having 4 posts since half a year ago,which pretty much means that he has been inactive since ever,so the chances of him seeing old posts that actually discuss about the matter are beyond slim. I don't get why you yourself took it personal though. :confused:

[scott MUFC]

key rule.

cant win anywhere + oppositon morale destroyed = you will lose 1-0

[bullybeef]

This is a fascinating discussion and proof that the fundamental and vital part of the whole game is how the ME translates the match calculations into visible animations. Of course, unless the FM ME was a playable environment, like pro evo, were game physics would create a more realistic result based upon player abilities and management tactical knowledge (simply put, having a player physically in the way of an attacking player would prevent a goal, be it defender or goalkeeper), opinions and consensus will forever be debated. Many of us have played FM for dozens of years, decades, and we're still none the wiser.

But even if the FM ME was a playable, physical environment, the result would still be has erratic as it is now, because variables now including human error could be definitively blamed for a poor result. But I like this would be more acceptable than not knowing why something went wrong. The question I say every time a result goes against me is, If we don't know what we have done wrong, how do we learn from it?

I recall a player management game going back over 20 years ago called Kick Off - Player Manager. The ME was taken from a pro evo like football sim, which added management. In the first instance you arrived at the club as an ageing legend, able to control your player amongst AI players in your team, that is until you eventually decide to retire. Then the game becomes the first and best football management game I have ever played. Why? For the reasons I have given. Knowing the ME environment is played in real time, and game physics cannot predetermined an event based upon a tactical adjustment (if I recall correctly, you could only change formation and substitutions), so it was simply down to how well your players played and your starting tactical set up. Yeah, it was very basic, but there is something more acceptable about loosing knowing there was either nothing you could do, or it WAS your mistake.

More often on FM, I don't feel the game is honest and like many of the reasons mentioned above, I understand sometimes the game cannot translate the desired animation to physically show a calculated outcome. I feel because the ME calculates events before the fact, the game itself is deceiving the player into either believing you are playing well, creating chances, and there's no need for changes. Then when you take a lead and you make a change to tightening things up at the back, or maybe instruct a player to run less with the ball to conserve energy, an equaliser, or winning goal against you comes along making little sense why changing something that wasn't detrimental to defending, caused or effected you teams ability to keep a clean sheet.

Incidentally, upon replaying the same game as I mention above for a third time, without making any in game changes this time, my opponents took the lead for the first time; central defender Wes Brown score a 30 yard screamer! And this tiny incident, in a meaningless test game, is exactly why we feel deceived at times. There are so many reasons why Wes Brown hasn't and will never score a 30 screamer, yet in FM, in this game, at that moment, my opponents were meant to score, regardless of whom it was or what his attributes state. I am not a betting man, and I would be very confident to go and put a bet on that Wes Brown would not score a 30 yarder for the rest of his career. The test game finished 1-1 this time.

Surely, if the ME was so smart, if my opponents HAD to score against me, and the most plausibly calculation was a 30 years screamer, than at least let a player whom has good long shots rating take that opportunity. It is the silliest thing I have ever seen and a shocking embarrassment to a game that we all take very seriously! Me included.

[milnerpoint]

When people start to understand that a player with 1 for long shots is capable of scoring from 30 yards, they will start to understand the ME better, until then you have no chance.

[scott MUFC]

he is, but he should not be doing it when someone with a long shot of 15 has missed 5

[milnerpoint]

Again, that shows you do not understand how the ME works.

[BiggusD]

so as i said its calculated as you watch, in 1 of my saves my team (Newcastle UTD) are more than capable of defending very well, very rarely do i ever dominate teams who are on paper better than me, they are usually in total control for passes, possession, shots, etc and often i manage a 1-0 win or a 1-1 draw, teams that are the same level or worse i can usually beat and to some extent dominate.

one of the problems a lot of people have with the amount of chances that are created is the fact it is hard and in some cases impossible to tell how good the actual chance is, if might look like a great chance when you watch the 3D highlights but the reality is that a lot of the chances created are at best only a half chance and often worse, if you create 30 chances in total than you can have a guess that at least 20 of those chances are very difficult to convert, of the other 10 some you will score with some will be missed because its only a half chance or just because the player in question messed up for any number of reasons.

@ Apos as as PaulC onces said many months (years) ago on these very forums,

im sure you will not believe me either as apparently i don't know what im talking about seeing as i don't have a HUGE post count, because that means everything doesn't it! >CLICK ME< and read post number 10.

i am quite sure the ME still works in the same way seeing as i have not read anything so say other wise.

So where exactly am I contradicting what PaulC said?

And Ackter... seriously? That's your answer? Take a look at post #42 and try to answer again, more intelligently this time.

[milnerpoint]

He is right, if things were working, you wouldnt have lost.

[BiggusD]

He is right, if things were working, you wouldnt have lost.[/quote

What makes you think I have lost? :confused:

[Ackter]

What I said still applies to post #42.

This is a game, doing certain things to the engine can cause it to throw out weird things. If you keep doing them, weird keeps happening.

[milnerpoint]

He is right, if things were working, you wouldnt have lost.

What makes you think I have lost? :confused:

Sorry, lost a goal, missed part of that

Using your tactics to see if the ME is solid or not is to be avoided, as we have discussed at lengths your tactics are not based on football, they are based on beating the ME, when you go down that route expect things to go wrong.

[bullybeef]

I understand that any player, no matter what league they play in can score a goal from anywhere IRL, regardless of their stats. But if we are so driven to identify specify attributes for potential signings in FM, why do we bother if a player with one can score a wonder-goal. Although, you can bet that same player wouldn't do that in your team.

FM strives to be like real life, but we know it is impossible. I think we get bogged down in using the "IRL" acronym too much. A computer game isn't real life. A computer game has to have a learning curve, a sense of achievement that you learn to understand what works and doesn't work.

But I wouldn't instruct a player with 1 for long shots to take long shots, because the player attributes tell me there's little chance of it occurring. So to contradict that by defending the AI when does it occurs against you hypocritical. I understand now, that was just a calculated goal, it just happen to be Wes Brown whom scored it.

I have learned over the years not to spend huge money on a player with world class attributes, because in FM it means little.

I read a tactics thread a while back from FM2011 that using the analysis page is vital to understand whether you are creating good quality chances. But if the game calculates that you aren't going to score in a particular game unless you alter something, it doesn't matter how many good quality chances you actually create. That's deception and contradiction. You are being told you are doing something right when you aren't. And your opponents aren't being punished for poor defending, they're just getting away with it. My perception that I was playing well, and patience was the key, is now being accused as stubbornness.

And please don't tell me this is just 'luck'. Luck isn't tangible, it can't be written into a game. If a force outside of your own control is causing you own players to miss, I am afraid that is a cheat, there's no other word for it. If I am playing well, and my tactics are creating good quality CCC, why is it such I big deal that I score them. Whom is it going to hurt? Like I said earlier up, remove the amount of CCC for both teams, so when they come along, you know you are going to score. I couldn't care less now if I have a CCC, and I rarely celebrate a goal any more, because I don't know if the goal came along because I did something right, or if the ME calculation gave me it.

Incidentally, what I have forgot to mention, because I play defensively, I don't tend to conceded many goals anyway, which is why I hate it when it occurs, but when I do, it is usually a mistake be my own player. Rarely do I see an AI defensive mistake, even when I do score.

But like we have been saying, if the calculation before the fact says there will be a goal, there will be one, regardless whom scores it. Football isn't about calculations; it isn't math. I was incredibly wrong to assume viewing the full match gave a fairer result.

[Ackter]

Viewing the full match only gives a better result if you're actually reacting to what you're seeing.

You're completely misunderstanding how the match engine works.

[milnerpoint]

Yeah your really not understanding the ME at all here.

[bullybeef]

I just wanted to add, the CCC issue is similar to injuries. Why would a fully fit player be injured? Yes it does occur in RL, but how is it calculated in a game? In a game there should be a calculated risk for the human player to be aware one of his players may pick up an injury before the event. And yet, if a player picks up a knock, he rarely has to come off, and rarely is he out of months.

But a lengthy injury seem to always occur in big game and when you are comfortably winning? It feels like you are punished for doing well.

Sorry to change topic, but it came up in a game recently.

[Ackter]

Selective memory is a wonderful thing.

[BiggusD]

Sorry, lost a goal, missed part of that

Using your tactics to see if the ME is solid or not is to be avoided, as we have discussed at lengths your tactics are not based on football, they are based on beating the ME, when you go down that route expect things to go wrong.

If you download my tactic and take a look at the instructions you'll see that there is very little exploitative to it. If all it takes to "beat the ME" is to take a 4-2-4 tactic, move the two MC's to DMC position and tell the entire team to be suitably aggressive, then SI has a problem...

My teams always play very nice football, so saying that the tactic is not based on football is a bit off target. Besides, I play as Arsenal in that savegame. Chelsea is controlled by a friend who downloaded Mr. Hough's tactics. As I have said a couple of times, I don't experience the same with my teams - rather, I score on my first shot at goal quite often... So sure it can and probably is a tactical issue.

But then again, how could it possibly be a tactical problem to restrict the opposition to one, none or very few shots per match? That is, for me, the real issue here. Whether or not the tactic is "gamey" or "exploit" is not very interesting in this case, since the variety of opponents, playing conditions and other factors should virtually guarantee that the hyperefficiency in question is not caused by the same achilles heel of Mr.Hough's tactical instructions. If anything, it's the AI that uses an exploit against my friend, not the other way around!

[Ackter]

In real football, restricting the opponents to 0 shots is obviously ideal. At the same time, restricting the opponents to a few shots has proven costly in real football time and time again (Arsenal from around 4 or 5 maybe years ago being the best example, where 18 of their matches involved the opposition having 5 or less shots and Arsenal either losing or drawing the game).

[bullybeef]

Confused isn't the word. I think we need a bit more than we don't understand the ME, I mean, I only bought the game. Of course we don't understand it, that's why we're here. Please, explain it to us. Are events premeditated and calculated, and is it a fact we are missing CCC a sign for us to make changes? All these opinions are really confusing.

[bullybeef]

Selective memory is a wonderful thing.

You're pretty rude, aren't you. And you're a mod here? So much for support.