Help me understand what is going on, please.

[skaz_]

Alright, so, I manage IFK Norrköping in the Swedish Premier Division. No biggie about the team, I've bought players, am playing in Europe and having a reasonable amount of success with varying tactics. I like to think that I have a decent grasp of tactics in general and the FM games in particular, but something has really boggled my mind:

After facing the same team (a Polish team of some sort of kidney, can't quite remember) twice in the EURO Cup qualifications, I beat them 3-0 at home and then eked out a nail-biting 1-1 draw away. This lead me to thinking about variations of results in general, so I decided to set up a little test with my team; this is from a save that I started during the beta, and have now continued into the full version.

I set up my team in a 4-4-2, very basic with FB-R(S), CD(D), CD(D), FB-L(S), WM-R(A), DLP(S), CM(D), WM-L(A), AF(A), P(A). No shouts, no OI, some basic stuff like the wingers running forward, etc. The tactic isn't really what is important; the consistency is.

Because I ran this tactical set-up against a fairly evenly matched team (IFK Göteborg, also in the Swedish Premier Division) at home and won 2-0. Then I reloaded the game and ran the match again. And lost 0-4.

Something didn't feel right. So I ran a whole slew of games, reloading and running the match again. These were the results:

2-0, 0-4, 3-1, 3-0, 1-1, 0-2, 0-1, 1-4, 2-3, 3-0, 3-1, 0-2, 5-4 (!), 1-0, 0-0 and finally 1-2.

Same venue, same teams (yes, I checked the opposing team's players and formation every game), same OI, same tactic, same weather, same referee, same team-talk (i.e. none), every condition the very same. The very definition of insanity is repeating the same pattern over and over again, expecting different results; well, here you are then, FM2013 is insane, because it is not consistent in the simulation of the data it is supposed to simulate.

Given X variables, I should expect result Y, possibly with some variation, like Y+1, Y+2, Y-1, Y-2 or even in extreme cases Y+3 and Y-3 (but these would be fringe cases and hardly reliable). Now, I realize my sample pool doesn't consist of millions of games and that it is quite possible that the statistics even out over larger quantities of games, but since this is both a simulation and a game, where perception is reality, I would just like to ask if anyone else is experiencing the same issues, or if it's my save that is weird (for whatever reason), or if this is a known issue (or even a bug)?

I've so far gone through two seasons and I'll keep going, but I feel rather disheartened when it feels like I'm just putting a random team with some weighting done on stats into a RNG and let the wheels spin. That's not a simulation, that's a lottery.

Please, anyone, offer some insight!

[wwfan]

I've written about this before. It's all about the fine margins in football.

Let's assume that your tactic gives you a 47% chance of scoring first, IFK Göteborg a 47% chance of scoring first and a 6% chance of nobody scoring. However, whoever scores first then has an 80% chance of winning. If you score first, IFK Göteborg have to push out, opening up the game, meaning the final score is likely to be high. If they score first, you continue to do the same thing, while they sit back more. Your chance of scoring actually reduces, wheres they remain a danger on the counter, especially as your team gets frustrated. Every subsequent goal then further changes the outcome of the match as IFK Göteborg further change their approach.

Your pattern is exactly what I'd expect to see if two fairly equal teams played each other and the user never changed his tactical instructions in any match.

[skaz_]

I just find the variations to be extremely peripheral, when the scores fluctuate so wildly in the individual instances, though. It feels (yes, about as subjective as I can be, sorry) like there is very little I can do when the variation is so large; if it's all about who scores first, then why do I keep losing away games against slightly better to evenly matched teams, even if I score twice in the first 20 minutes?

I do realize, with your clarification, that the results are (while random, in the computer-game sense) rational, and I'm perhaps not thinking entirely straight (what with the late hour), but I would just like to note something that Sid Meier said about player perception, odds and games (and I'm paraphrasing):

"Players expect to win battles, where they have a 75% chance of winning, 100% of the time."

Just a wink and a nudge, s'all.

Thanks for your response, though. Clearly then, according to the probability principles (if the Monty Hall problem is familiar?), it would always serve the team best to change the tactics after going down a goal, given that you understand what the options to choose from were?

[wwfan]

Do you ever change things to see out a lead? If not, then holding on in away games is going to be difficult.

Basically, the more good decisions you make, the more chance you'll give yourself of winning.

I'd also question the fundamental structure of your tactic. Playing with two wide players and two forwards on Attack duties will make it difficult for your deeper MCs and FBs to pick them out. I'd suggest playing one forward and one wide midfielder in a support duty and have the FB behind that midfielder overlap by giving him an Attack duty (possibly as wing back). That should open up more passing angles and fill some defensive holes.

[skaz_]

Oh, absolutely, the tactics I used to test was just something I threw together randomly (so perhaps the team gel-factor and tactical knowledge also played in, I s'pose).

I usually play with two WBs on support duty and either two full-D CDs or one D and one Covering, depending on who I play on the position, my MR as a winger or WM, depending on the opposition (and playmaker duty, kind of like Cantona, only slightly less offensive (in every sense of the word ), my ML usally goes as a supportive winger though, to create space for my left WB to hit some passes, while my CMs are usually invertedly defensive and offensive to the wingers. I find that the wingers and central midfielders can provide coverage defensively, while utilizing their offensive capabilities with support from their respective wing.

My two forwards are usually some combination of CF(S) and P(A), DLF(S) and AF(A)/P(A) or (at home, against leaky defences, where through-balls seem to find their mark very often) AF(A) and P(A). I've been thinking about the Trequartista role, but there is usually very little space between the midfield and defence in the Swedish Premier Division.

I prefer a wide, slow and methodical playstyle, so I encourage short passes (but wingers are on mixed/direct) and lots of through-balls and movement. I prefer to play into space, rather than to feet. I have had some fair amount of success, it's just that sometimes the result can feel really damn random, when I beat the hell out of evenly matched teams one day and then get rolfstomped into the mud by a relatively equal (or worse) team three days later. Way to curbstomp my form-curve

[Rashidi]

Running a test like what you've done isn't really accurate. The challenge in this game is adapting. Everyone needs a system now, the AI isn't using a tactic it's using a system. The tactic is its base the shouts and what it does is dependabt on its system. If a goal is conceded by the AI its system may include changing its passing style to get the goal back. If it goes a goal up it could change to tempo.As a manager you need to develop your system. When you have a consistent system then in more cases you will win.

The modern football game wont see teams stick to one tactic, their play style is dictated by a system, on the pitch now more is done via roles and responsibilities. So running one tactic won't be accurate you need to run a whole system.