Si making a blatant attempt to deceive us?

[HonkyDick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kris:

Car Analogys

Oh and gavnoble knows what he is talking about. He's broken down the match engine more times then I can count. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But he hasn't got the game, this match engine is different to last years.

[ajcardall]

I don't think you have to own the game to realise there is/is not a problem, depending on your point of view.

Gavnoble may have read these (countless) threads about too many shots etc etc..., seen all the statistics provided within, and decided for himself, without playing the game, that there isn't an issue.

I'm not involved in Luton Town FC, but I know they have a problem.

[HonkyDick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ajcardall:

I don't think you have to own the game to realise there is/is not a problem, depending on your point of view.

Gavnoble may have read these (countless) threads about too many shots etc etc..., seen all the statistics provided within, and decided for himself, without playing the game, that there isn't an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, now if we don't own the game we have a more informed and respected opinion on it.

[DS]

Some people seem to not understand the thread

I started this to point out the different ratings Human GK get compared to AI GK but people seem to think its about the shots to goal bug. That is related to that but there are already many threads about the shots to goal bug. I just wanted to discuss this problem with the ratings and I think you should all go look at your games and see that this does happen. It happens to me in every game. My keeper plays crap and gets good ratings, whereas the opposition goalkeepers are always "putting on a clinic" and get ratings of 8 at best, most the times its just a 7 or even a 6 for a good performance.

Please stop flaming and abusing each other because then SI will not pay attention to this thread.

[Jimbokav1971]

DS. I appreciate what you are saying about the match ratings, but in my experience, this is an issue with that match ratings in general, (and GK match rating to be specific), but not AI managed GK match ratings when compared to human managed GK match rating).

Part of the reason for this is that because you/we/me seem almost impossible to close down effectively in the opposition third of the pitch, the opposition back 3/4/5 and GK are able to pass the ball between them unchallanged for large parts of the game thatb are not considered "key highlights". As a result of this, an AI managed GK may have a number of successful passes in his stats and to my mind it is this which generates the unreastic high match rating.

I would really say that rather than the problem being AI vs Human GK match ratings, the real problem is that GK's use the same formulae to calculate match ratings that is used for outfield players. In my view, successful pass % should have far less importance when it comes to GK's and there should be a number of GK specific stats introduced.

Shots.

Shots saved.

Shots (key) saved.

I know that any shot saved will be key but saves such as penalty saves, double saves and some others should be rated higher than a normal save where the ball is almost trickling through to the GK.

Crosses.

Crosses claimed.

Crosses (key) claimed.

Key crosses coul be any croos that is claimed while the GK is under pressure.

At the moment we have the following.

Pass

Completed

Key

Tackles

Won

Key

The tackles stats could be swapped with the shots saved stats as mentioned above.

Headers

Won

Key

The headers stats could be swapped with the crossing stats as mentioned above

Int

Run

Off

Foul

Fouled

Assist

Shot

Shot on target

Until GK's are rated using a formulae specific to their role, then their match ratings will never be accurate.

This REALLY is not a human/AI issue though.

Sorry.

[nreo]

I've been reading posts in the background since my yellow card but i've decided to post again.

I think the main problem is how people defend the match engine through real life statistics. at the end of the day you're taking the AVERAGE shot/goal ratio of entire leagues through a season or a few matches and claiming that every fm08 match is realistic because they comply with those statistics.

they are stats - and when players like ourselves play matches week in week out with the same supposed 'realistic' shot/goal ratio it just isnt right. its ludicrous to claim that ac milan or man city can have 45+shots a week and still lose- and then claim that because madrid only had 2 shots against zaragoza that doncaster vs tranmere should be exactly the same. sure occasionally this happens but the point is that every match irl isn't the same, and a lot of us are experiencing this problem EVERY match despite the constant tweaking of tactics and rotation of players. if you claim we're just poor managers as an argument then you've made the game unplayable as this is a recurring problem present in countless posts.i did read somewhere that there will be match engine fixes so i'm hoping this will be looked over. - like i said, i don't mind the odd game where i miss everything and they score 2 - its frustrating yes, but not the exact same game played 56 matches in one season. the beta patch had a very decent engine and despite languishing in the bottom half of the table with derby the matches felt real

and on the point of the game's success in the market, yes, i'm sure this game has sold well, but there are plenty of new customers out there who are buying the game and don't know about the forum so they can't stress their opinions. they're probably clueless and are playing with the 8.0.0 patch... i'd be interested to see overall playing time per customer old and new.

i think one way SI can deal with the problem ( if they see US complaining as a problem) is stickying a post clarifying that its US which needs to sort out our own tactics to comply with real life averages, and that it isn't the match engine which is flawed. with that, at least state whether or not this will be fixed.... and if it won't be fixed, it will have solved this issue once and for all, instead of SI being so vague and taking real madrid vs zaragoza or some hardcore posters defending them through researching real life stats- just because they've found their way around a flawed engine in my opinion.

hoping we can hear some constructive input.

chris

[eXistenZ]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

Some people seem to not understand the thread

I started this to point out the different ratings Human GK get compared to AI GK but people seem to think its about the shots to goal bug. That is related to that but there are already many threads about the shots to goal bug. I just wanted to discuss this problem with the ratings and I think you should all go look at your games and see that this does happen. It happens to me in every game. My keeper plays crap and gets good ratings, whereas the opposition goalkeepers are always "putting on a clinic" and get ratings of 8 at best, most the times its just a 7 or even a 6 for a good performance.

Please stop flaming and abusing each other because then SI will not pay attention to this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All those bugs are related to each other. Because theri is a superGK, you need 15 shots on target to score, and it doesn't help if they keep shooting from distance even when you say they may not do that.

[gavnoble]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HonkyDick:

LOL, now if we don't own the game we have a more informed and respected opinion on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because I don't own it doesn't mean I haven't played it. I spent a long time playing the demo and have played the full and patched release at a friends house to see if the patch makes any difference to my enjoyment levels.

In the time I have played it at his house I have personally not experienced a huge problem in terms of the shots to goal issue being discussed/whinged about* (delete as applicable) in this thread.

To me, despite the changes to the match engine for this release, it still falls into the same category as previous games whereby there are games where you will dominate and lose but there are plenty of times where you get dominated and still win. If it was happening every single game where I was dominating yet still losing then I would say there was a problem but as it's not happening every game then to me - and I say to me - it's not something that overly concerns me.

Obviously, tactics, team and player instructions, quality of player and overall team strength, will all play a part in how many shots you have on target and how many goals you will concede and as FM is just a simulation using an artificially created match engine then it will not be a perfect representation of real life football, but you can look at the stats of any real life game any weekend and on the whole they will generally compare very favourably to the amounts of shots per game, shots on target and goals within the game. Obviously not exactly as simulations cannot ever truly replicate a real life activity, but FM is pretty darn close.

The one factor to perhaps include in FM is the 'supertactics' that people tend to use that do exploit flaws in the match engine, but as such they cannot be used as the standard for saying there is something wrong with the game when a fair proportion of FM players don't use supertactics - including the AI managers!

[robmontie1965]

I have enjoyed reading everyones quotes and opinions, arnt forums great.

To all I read a post not sure which topic yesterday where some one used the deitor to swap all chelsea players for millwalls players. I think this will prove beyond doubt it is the match engine and it is totally unrealistic. Chelsea stayed up and got to the champions league semi final, and Millwall struggled in division 1. I think that was the outcome. He never changed the teams leagues Chelsea were still in premiership. I am sure everyone will agree if any team had Chelseas players in division 1 they should romp home unbeaten. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt the engine is unreal. Wouldnt it be nice as everyone as requested for S.I to make a statement and an apology to everyone. I for one do enjoy FM 2008 though as the challenge is far better and if you use tactical knowledge and learn from your defeats, you can reverse the result in 2nd game against the team tht beat you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

Match Overview

Match Stats

Player Ratings My Team's Stats

Please look at those screenshots first. I am managing Canada.

I am not even going to bother with the obvious bug or cheating or whatever you want to call it where Bahamas had 3 shots on goal and scored 3 while I had 19 and scored 4. I will not complain about the fact that I was loosing 3-0 to a team who I am much better then.

But what I have a problem with is the fact that my goalkeeper let in 3 goals and made no saves and gets a match rating of 7. That performance deserves a 2 or a 3 but how does he get a 7? The opposition goalkeeper saved 15 shots and let in 4 and gets a 6. Now that performance should have a 7 or something but maybe a 6 is also fair? But compare the opposition goalkeepers performance to my goalkeepers performance and he should have a 10. This isnt the first time I have seen this. I have seen this many times. Almost always. The human controlled team's goalkeeper always gets higher ratings to make it look like he is playing better. Why would Si do that? Because the AI keepers are always performing better and this is used to disguise that fact. Si really need to fix this blatant attempt to deceive us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jopo12]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nreo:

and on the point of the game's success in the market, yes, i'm sure this game has sold well, but there are plenty of new customers out there who are buying the game and don't know about the forum so they can't stress their opinions. they're probably clueless and are playing with the 8.0.0 patch... i'd be interested to see overall playing time per customer old and new.

i think one way SI can deal with the problem ( if they see US complaining as a problem) is stickying a post clarifying that its US which needs to sort out our own tactics to comply with real life averages, and that it isn't the match engine which is flawed. with that, at least state whether or not this will be fixed.... and if it won't be fixed, it will have solved this issue once and for all, instead of SI being so vague and taking real madrid vs zaragoza or some hardcore posters defending them through researching real life stats- just because they've found their way around a flawed engine in my opinion.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's pretty daft to drag the sales figures here to prove the game's excellence. How many you think are actually refusing to buy the game because they have heard it is flawed? I'd say it goes like everybody with a little interest buys the game (or downloads it) and THEN they notice it's not that good because they play it. And some may disagree with my view but at the same time games like Sims are on the same lists as Football Manager. I am not that fond of it but I am not everyone. How much music is sold that you think is bad and is only made to milk the money from the people? Does it tell anything about goodness if masses buy it, and many without that much idea of it actually?

I've yet to see a review about FM 2008 which mentions any of the bugs it has. Which is ridiculous because there certainly are things to be fixed as SI themselves have admitted. What does it tell, are dozens of people complaining here wrong or are the game critics simply blind and too busy or ignorant to focus that much to the game? I think it's the latter, because most people don't care that much. And good for them if they don't spot things which would annoy them but it certainly isn't a good way to tell whether there actually are any bugs and flaws.

Just a little question to the end: What is the idea of "real life stats" applied on a computer game? I do know that you got to take the point from somewhere but who actually wants FM to be reality? Why it can't be that footballish enough that people would understand it to acceptable level and get enjoyment from it? I don't necessarily see that a football management game has to follow what happens in real life to be fun. After all it's a game and we should decide what happens in it. Yet it all goes wrong when our games are nerfed to represent reality without caring that much what we are actually doing. I really don't see what was the problem with CM 01/02, and with some versions missed between I didn't see that much faults in FM 2006 either. More reality, more bugs and more hair tearing and less fun. But I guess it's then some other game if I want to have fun unrealistic way. With FM comes "reality" and on the way to it come stupid bugs and illogicalities. Maybe that's part of the reality too because life isn't that always that nice. Computer games should be for what I've comprehended.

[Jimbokav1971]

robmontie. You should read the whole of that thread and not just the opening post.

[andyinuk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robmontie1965:

I have enjoyed reading everyones quotes and opinions, arnt forums great.

To all I read a post not sure which topic yesterday where some one used the deitor to swap all chelsea players for millwalls players. I think this will prove beyond doubt it is the match engine and it is totally unrealistic. Chelsea stayed up and got to the champions league semi final, and Millwall struggled in division 1. I think that was the outcome. He never changed the teams leagues Chelsea were still in premiership. I am sure everyone will agree if any team had Chelseas players in division 1 they should romp home unbeaten. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt the engine is unreal. Wouldnt it be nice as everyone as requested for S.I to make a statement and an apology to everyone. I for one do enjoy FM 2008 though as the challenge is far better and if you use tactical knowledge and learn from your defeats, you can reverse the result in 2nd game against the team tht beat you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

Match Overview

Match Stats

Player Ratings My Team's Stats

Please look at those screenshots first. I am managing Canada.

I am not even going to bother with the obvious bug or cheating or whatever you want to call it where Bahamas had 3 shots on goal and scored 3 while I had 19 and scored 4. I will not complain about the fact that I was loosing 3-0 to a team who I am much better then.

But what I have a problem with is the fact that my goalkeeper let in 3 goals and made no saves and gets a match rating of 7. That performance deserves a 2 or a 3 but how does he get a 7? The opposition goalkeeper saved 15 shots and let in 4 and gets a 6. Now that performance should have a 7 or something but maybe a 6 is also fair? But compare the opposition goalkeepers performance to my goalkeepers performance and he should have a 10. This isnt the first time I have seen this. I have seen this many times. Almost always. The human controlled team's goalkeeper always gets higher ratings to make it look like he is playing better. Why would Si do that? Because the AI keepers are always performing better and this is used to disguise that fact. Si really need to fix this blatant attempt to deceive us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

regarding the thread you were referring to, you might want to go back and read the whole thread , instead of just the opening post.

In future, that might be something you want to do, before you make yourself look like an idiot

[Ackter]

This thread should have just been closed as soon as it deviated.

It's a shame, as at least DS was trying to start a discussion, but the usual crowd ruined it.

[Klimowicz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robmontie1965:

I have enjoyed reading everyones quotes and opinions, arnt forums great.

To all I read a post not sure which topic yesterday where some one used the deitor to swap all chelsea players for millwalls players. I think this will prove beyond doubt it is the match engine and it is totally unrealistic. Chelsea stayed up and got to the champions league semi final, and Millwall struggled in division 1. I think that was the outcome. He never changed the teams leagues Chelsea were still in premiership. I am sure everyone will agree if any team had Chelseas players in division 1 they should romp home unbeaten. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt the engine is unreal. Wouldnt it be nice as everyone as requested for S.I to make a statement and an apology to everyone. I for one do enjoy FM 2008 though as the challenge is far better and if you use tactical knowledge and learn from your defeats, you can reverse the result in 2nd game against the team tht beat you.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that would only shock me if chelseas training facilities were also swapped with millwall. stats go down dependong on facilities and quality of coaches. club reputation is also a factor. milwall players would have improved with chelseas top facilities, not so much chelsea (if at all). how many chelsea players wanted to move to a bigger club, and were unhappy throughout the season? how many were sold? who did millwall buy with chelseas money? i would like to read this topic if you can find it. cba to look myself

in my game liverpool won the league first season by 2 points ahead of me (arsenal), finished 7th second season and were relegated third season. they had 95% of the same players from 07/08, including gerrard, torres and reina. i honestly can't explain how this has happened. i added a manager and took them over 4th season. nearly all of their players were sold, yet i had no money to spend on rebuilding the squad. gerrard, torres and reina were still there, only reina wanted to leave. i managed to get some funds in from selling a few players, but in 4 games i've won 4. comfortably.

what is stranger, liverpool being relegated with these players who won the league, or torres and gerrard not being tempted to go to spain or italy? bearing in mind that liverpools reputation might have dropped, but they are still a big club with top facilities, meaning training is still great?

[Jimmyt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimmyt:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimmyt:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimmyt:

No.

But this happens way too often.

You have to carve out 5 or 10 chances for ewach goasl but whoever you play can score with their first chance time after time.

I don't want to win EVERY game. I want to have a fighting chance against oposition teams. And that means a modicum of reality in the chances/goals ratio on BOTH sides of the equation.

These are my last two games and both of them have the opposition scoring with their first shot (or two with their first two)

Fulham

West Ham

I could go back further for more examples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And again.

Shocker.

Three times in four games that the opposition has scored with their first shot. This time, of course, it was the ubiquitous 25 yard free-kick supergoal that it's tactically impossible to defend against. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the final score there....

ta da! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it continues with the opposition finding the back of the net with their first shot on target.

Again

And again...

And again!

And for added annoyance, this first shot on target was in the fifth minute of four minutes of injury time AND offside.

Sometimes it really feels that the opposition simply don't play to the same rules.

[Jimmyt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that would only shock me if chelseas training facilities were also swapped with millwall. stats go down dependong on facilities and quality of coaches. club reputation is also a factor. milwall players would have improved with chelseas top facilities, not so much chelsea (if at all). how many chelsea players wanted to move to a bigger club, and were unhappy throughout the season? how many were sold? who did millwall buy with chelseas money? i would like to read this topic if you can find it. cba to look myself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if it was that easy to improve players to that level, why do Chelsea spend £15m on Anelka when they could have picked up a cheapo from Millwall?

[Warrenwwr]

hey everyone...lets make this thread 16+ pages long to match the other one dealing with this and other issues.

i assume SI is working feverishly at remedying the situation. i know several first time payers of fm08, and even they voice their (similar) complaints to me on occasion..and they don't even know these forums exist.

a patch in February should put these complaints to rest.

[Antonin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by andyinuk:

because it's the same crap every year from the SI-Bashing gang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, to be fair, it's the same way with people who, year after year, go into freakishly complex contortions to explain away and put down every criticism of the game.

I'm just amazed at the rationalizations I see here. When someone is having problems with the game, no matter how much analysis, no matter how many statistics that come up with to prove their points and raise valid questions, certain people will claim "it's not SI's game, it's YOU."

That's wierd.

[Ackter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">no matter how much analysis, no matter how many statistics that come up with to prove their points and raise valid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Such behaviour on here is very rare. Most are simply rants with nothing to back them up.

When the stats are brought forward, and it's usually somone refuting claims that has to do the leg work, the claims are usually shown to be wrong.

However, when the stats are brought forward by the person posting originally then the threads tend to get involvement from SI - Paul C in particular is often seen getting involved in threads that actually involve stats and proofs.

This thread contains neither.

[cafe_latte]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miles Jacobson:

To answer a couple of points on the front page, the reason we don't answer posts like this is firstly because it's a duplicate of something mentioned often, and secondly because we have answered on others on the same subject.

As for the person who mentioned last weeks FA Cup stats, I haven't seen those, so can't comment on them. However, and somewhat ironically, the game that I watched live on TV last week was the Real Madrid v Real Zaragoza game, a game where Zaragoza had 20 odd shots, and didn't score, whereas Madrid had only a few shots, and scored 2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have to remember though is that is ONE in a MILLION. I have loads of screenshots that consist of my Milan side having more shots than sense and yet failing to score more than a goal or two, or even worse, drawing nil-nil or losing.

The screenshots I have are between January 2008 up to March 2008. And for such a small period of time, I managed to gather a shed-load of evidence to suggest that the match engine is seriously flawed and is in need of a serious mend. But what I am not suggesting is that we are being 'cheated', which is more or less what this thread is all about.

Is there any place where I can upload these images to, so that SI Games can have proof of my finds??

[Ackter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This thread contains neither. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about DS here, but the users who came in and turned the thread into yet another rant.

[Ackter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cafe_latte:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miles Jacobson:

To answer a couple of points on the front page, the reason we don't answer posts like this is firstly because it's a duplicate of something mentioned often, and secondly because we have answered on others on the same subject.

As for the person who mentioned last weeks FA Cup stats, I haven't seen those, so can't comment on them. However, and somewhat ironically, the game that I watched live on TV last week was the Real Madrid v Real Zaragoza game, a game where Zaragoza had 20 odd shots, and didn't score, whereas Madrid had only a few shots, and scored 2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have to remember though is that is ONE in a MILLION. I have loads of screenshots that consist of my Milan side having more shots than sense and yet failing to score more than a goal or two, or even worse, drawing nil-nil or losing.

The screenshots I have are between January 2008 up to March 2008. And for such a small period of time, I managed to gather a shed-load of evidence to suggest that the match engine is seriously flawed and is in need of a serious mend. But what I am not suggesting is that we are being 'cheated', which is more or less what this thread is all about.

Is there any place where I can upload these images to, so that SI Games can have proof of my finds?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't think there'd be any point - there's massive thread started by Fred_the_Red somewhere about the issue and PaulC has posted extensively in there. Have a look through that thread first, if you can find it.

[Ackter]

Here it is:

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/4982071363

Is 13 pages long mind.

[cafe_latte]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:

Here it is:

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/4982071363

Is 13 pages long mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bleeding hell, its HUGE!

[something less annoying]

I've generally found that the AI goalkeepers will almost always do better than mine and there will be stupid amounts of 0-0s and 0-1s where I've destroyed the opposition, but I can't subscribe to any of these theories because I cannot for the life of me see why SI would put code into their game to stitch users up. It would make no sense.

[Ackter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by something less annoying:

I've generally found that the AI goalkeepers will almost always do better than mine and there will be stupid amounts of 0-0s and 0-1s where I've destroyed the opposition, but I can't subscribe to any of these theories because I cannot for the life of me see why SI would put code into their game to stitch users up. It would make no sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's probably code in there that can cause this to happen, but it's certainly not intentional. Its just that humans tend to play in a way that can cause some unrealistic things to happen in the match engine. Certain tactical combinations can really make this problem stand out.

Other tactical combinations and you'll rarely see it.

[Klimowicz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimmyt:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that would only shock me if chelseas training facilities were also swapped with millwall. stats go down dependong on facilities and quality of coaches. club reputation is also a factor. milwall players would have improved with chelseas top facilities, not so much chelsea (if at all). how many chelsea players wanted to move to a bigger club, and were unhappy throughout the season? how many were sold? who did millwall buy with chelseas money? i would like to read this topic if you can find it. cba to look myself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if it was that easy to improve players to that level, why do Chelsea spend £15m on Anelka when they could have picked up a cheapo from Millwall? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

let's all remind ourselves that we are debating an issue in a game. a simulation is not real, but an immitation of a reality. my post was purely from an in-game perspective, your answer was comparative to real life...

training in this game is not a perfect representation of real life, and most of the posts in this forum suggest that the game on the whole isn't either. players don't have stats that they need to improve apart from goals/clean sheets etc, do they? they are taught by real people and have to have the mental capabilities to adapt their skills. you just can't do that in a game. they are rated by humans in the papers out of 10. are they bothered with their average rating? they know that if they don't play well, the whole team may suffer as a result.

and why on earth would chelsea want to buy a millwall player instead of anelka? to save money? do they need a cultured striker who already has a goalscoring reputation to bolster their attack while drogba's away, or do they have the time to train a player with average skills for his age to world class abilities before the end of this season?

but if chelsea did sign a millwall player, he would improve, maybe not to premiership/world class standard, but an improvement none the less. if you're 24+ in FM, you can't learn anything from anyone. 24 irl is not too late to learn anything new.

you are supposed to compare this game with real life, but there are so many football & non football aspects missing that it wouldn't be worth a comparason. treat it as a game ffs.

[DS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

DS. I appreciate what you are saying about the match ratings, but in my experience, this is an issue with that match ratings in general, (and GK match rating to be specific), but not AI managed GK match ratings when compared to human managed GK match rating).

Part of the reason for this is that because you/we/me seem almost impossible to close down effectively in the opposition third of the pitch, the opposition back 3/4/5 and GK are able to pass the ball between them unchallanged for large parts of the game thatb are not considered "key highlights". As a result of this, an AI managed GK may have a number of successful passes in his stats and to my mind it is this which generates the unreastic high match rating.

I would really say that rather than the problem being AI vs Human GK match ratings, the real problem is that GK's use the same formulae to calculate match ratings that is used for outfield players. In my view, successful pass % should have far less importance when it comes to GK's and there should be a number of GK specific stats introduced.

Shots.

Shots saved.

Shots (key) saved.

I know that any shot saved will be key but saves such as penalty saves, double saves and some others should be rated higher than a normal save where the ball is almost trickling through to the GK.

Crosses.

Crosses claimed.

Crosses (key) claimed.

Key crosses coul be any croos that is claimed while the GK is under pressure.

At the moment we have the following.

Pass

Completed

Key

Tackles

Won

Key

The tackles stats could be swapped with the shots saved stats as mentioned above.

Headers

Won

Key

The headers stats could be swapped with the crossing stats as mentioned above

Int

Run

Off

Foul

Fouled

Assist

Shot

Shot on target

Until GK's are rated using a formulae specific to their role, then their match ratings will never be accurate.

This REALLY is not a human/AI issue though.

Sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jimbo I think you may be onto something but I said the Human GK gets to high ratings compared to AI GK and you were telling me why the AI GK would get high ratings because of the passing they are allowed to do due to my team not closing down.

Also in this thread I read someone said that my GK may have a high rating because he intercepted many crosses but if you look at the screen shot in the 1st post he only got 3 intercepts. Unless there are some things which arent shown on the stats that would lead to my GK getting such a high rating despite letting in 3 goals and not saving any I really dont know whats going on. Also the 3 goals he let in werent that difficult to save. It could be due to the wet weather making it harder to save but the opposition GK had the same conditions and relative to my GK he still had a worse rating despite playing better.

Its not just this one match, it happens every match. Just look over your matches and the stats. Human GK gets high ratings much easier then an AI GK.

[TFS]

I think a cause for the problem is Researchers giving Keepers too good reflexes/handling and too low concentration. Year 2011 in my save, highest concentration of any keeper is 14, number of keepers with 20/20 handling & reflexes? >25, ridiculous.

However I don't notice it as much of a problem now as I did when I first started playing, tactics makes a huge differance. Look at Liverpool vs ManU a few weeks back, you look at the stats and it appears as though Liverpool dominated with more possesion and many more shots - in reality they were poor and never looked like coming close to winning the encounter.

[DS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TFS:

I think a cause for the problem is Researchers giving Keepers too good reflexes/handling and too low concentration. Year 2011 in my save, highest concentration of any keeper is 14, number of keepers with 20/20 handling & reflexes? >25, ridiculous.

However I don't notice it as much of a problem now as I did when I first started playing, tactics makes a huge differance. Look at Liverpool vs ManU a few weeks back, you look at the stats and it appears as though Liverpool dominated with more possesion and many more shots - in reality they were poor and never looked like coming close to winning the encounter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with tactics playing a huge part. I know its realistic after seeing how Hiddink changed Australia from playing disgracefully to playing good enough to have won the 2006 World Cup and then once he left we started playing disgracefully again.

However I do have a problem with team talks being so important. It seems results are dependent on team talks alone in FM08. It is ridiculous.

[Jimbokav1971]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its not just this one match, it happens every match. Just look over your matches and the stats. Human GK gets high ratings much easier then an AI GK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hard for me to check this because my GK has scored loads of goals and a few assists which skew his average ratings considerably.

In addition to that, it appears that he's one of my best players even without his goal-scoring ability and has kept 87 clean sheets in 6 seasons. In a recent game he made 17 saves, (despite conceding loads of goals). I've never seen an AI GK make 17 saves in a match.

[Jimbokav1971]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">playing good enough to have won the 2006 World Cup </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rofl .

[Elohir]

The game has done this in its many iterations since the dawn of time. It's not going to change, no matter how much people complain. Live with it or play Eidos CM. (lol)

[Jimmyt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klimowicz:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimmyt:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that would only shock me if chelseas training facilities were also swapped with millwall. stats go down dependong on facilities and quality of coaches. club reputation is also a factor. milwall players would have improved with chelseas top facilities, not so much chelsea (if at all). how many chelsea players wanted to move to a bigger club, and were unhappy throughout the season? how many were sold? who did millwall buy with chelseas money? i would like to read this topic if you can find it. cba to look myself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if it was that easy to improve players to that level, why do Chelsea spend £15m on Anelka when they could have picked up a cheapo from Millwall? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

let's all remind ourselves that we are debating an issue in a game. a simulation is not real, but an immitation of a reality. my post was purely from an in-game perspective, your answer was comparative to real life...

training in this game is not a perfect representation of real life, and most of the posts in this forum suggest that the game on the whole isn't either. players don't have stats that they need to improve apart from goals/clean sheets etc, do they? they are taught by real people and have to have the mental capabilities to adapt their skills. you just can't do that in a game. they are rated by humans in the papers out of 10. are they bothered with their average rating? they know that if they don't play well, the whole team may suffer as a result.

and why on earth would chelsea want to buy a millwall player instead of anelka? to save money? do they need a cultured striker who already has a goalscoring reputation to bolster their attack while drogba's away, or do they have the time to train a player with average skills for his age to world class abilities before the end of this season?

but if chelsea did sign a millwall player, he would improve, maybe not to premiership/world class standard, but an improvement none the less. if you're 24+ in FM, you can't learn anything from anyone. 24 irl is not too late to learn anything new.

you are supposed to compare this game with real life, but there are so many football & non football aspects missing that it wouldn't be worth a comparason. treat it as a game ffs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do treat it as a game, but most of the time when someone complains about anything to do with it, people will cite 'realism' as why it's harder or whatever.

the fact is that there are so many areas that are not realistic (probably becaus eit would be almost impossible to get them to be) that anyone claiming that other areas have 'realism' are probably wrong.

It is a game, but that doesn't mean that a team of Millwall players would be competitive in the Premiership just because they happened to play for Chelsea.

[Jimmyt]

This is a classic example of the 'goals/shots ratio that really FEELS as if the AI work to different rules.

This game had six goals. There's 35 yard shots, There's offside goals. There's everything.

0-1

First goal... No shots! 35 seconds!

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

Full Time.

[Klimowicz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimmyt:

It is a game, but that doesn't mean that a team of Millwall players would be competitive in the Premiership just because they happened to play for Chelsea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree, i just didn't make that clear enough

tbh, if they swapped with newcastle, pompey, or any (established) premiership team, they would have better facilities and coaches. chelsea was an extreme example.

if this was done in the game, you would see a change in stats for millwall players. but when players need that much improvement, it'll take time. chelsea struggling on the other hand would be a suprise.

if you check my post on page 1, my liverpool team is doing fine in the championship so far, even with a massive reduction in playing talent. everyone is on green arrows for improvement.

[DS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">playing good enough to have won the 2006 World Cup </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rofl . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you laughing about? They dominated Italy and world have won but Grosso dived and got a penalty and they won and then they went on to win world cup. Seems to me they played good enough to win it. Anyway I am over that since it has been a year and a half.

[tgarve999]

well i have to say in recent weeks i have had a ressurgance in my playing time on fm08. Rather than moaning about these supposed 'bugs' i have tried to work my tactics in a more efficient way and used players with the relevent stats to implement these tactics and it has worked.

Im getting sick of people moaning about this, they are obviously the type who expect there to be one tactic to rule them all, when there isnt and this shows the match engine is much more detailed and is affected by far more different events than previous ones.

People need to play this (and do remember it is a game, not an actual life simulator) SI is not god and cant get everything right. Their responces on this topic repeatedly explain to these people with grumbles why this might be happening with referance to in game ****ions but people just moan on and dont listen!

I am startin to only respect opinions on these forums of SI/Sega staff moderators and highly ranked posters because of the constant critisism, destructive argument and bullying of these doom mongers. I am sorry to say this aswell because everyone is entitled to their opinion. People need to be reprimanded for this constant negative angry, bullying attitude because its becoming an unneccessary epidemic.

SI make this great game and dont need people to basically just cowardly bully them. Start to support them or they might loose the strenght to answer to this anger. I hope the message gets through to people and constructive ideas on development and enhancement of FM can be created which will only improve and enhance the game.

Thanks for the cooperation and interaction boys involved in the game- keep it up!

[tgarve999]

^ the staring there was the word solutions but the 'o' was missing! damn editing!

[CowRonaldo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">playing good enough to have won the 2006 World Cup </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rofl . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you laughing about? They dominated Italy and world have won but Grosso dived and got a penalty and they won and then they went on to win world cup. Seems to me they played good enough to win it. Anyway I am over that since it has been a year and a half. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying to win it is going a little overboard.

Would they be able to face teams like Germany, Portugal, Brazil, or France in the next round?

And even if Italy did not get a pen, doesn't mean Australia would have won. They'd have to beat Italy on penalty kicks so things might not have changed at all.

[DS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CowRonaldo:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">playing good enough to have won the 2006 World Cup </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rofl . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you laughing about? They dominated Italy and world have won but Grosso dived and got a penalty and they won and then they went on to win world cup. Seems to me they played good enough to win it. Anyway I am over that since it has been a year and a half. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying to win it is going a little overboard.

Would they be able to face teams like Germany, Portugal, Brazil, or France in the next round?

And even if Italy did not get a pen, doesn't mean Australia would have won. They'd have to beat Italy on penalty kicks so things might not have changed at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Italy had 10 men and Australia was dominating IIRC (I might be wrong since it has been a while) and we deserved to win. Anyway I didnt say we would win, I said we were playing good enough to win it and I believe thats true. Anyway its off topic from this thread and like I said I am over it, things like that happen in football.