Why Even My UNBEATEN City Game Has Me Reaching For The Off Button

[RT--]

If anyone could say it, i'd think that would be Arsene Wenger, but as Arsenal tended(not so much now) to walk the ball into the back of the net AND not really had a top quality striker(since Henry) its easy to see how this has been the case.

Benitez would have a few from just this season, mind

[RT--]

[dkouv]

Such ignorance.

Don't post on an internet forum if your going to act like an idiot when somebody challenges, or even comes up with a reasoned argument against what you are saying.

Just would like to second the above so that Hammer doesn't think that his critics are few in number and simply "missing the point" or "stupid". I actually agree with most of what you say and the fact that the game is imperfect but the way that you portray your arguments and the rude/arrogant/insulting responses sort of kill off any sense of debate. Personally I enjoy the game immensly, still get frustrated with the unrealistic ME sometimes but it's way better then 2008 (which to be fair did become unplayable for me with the last patch) and actually makes for a very enjoyable game.

[djwilko6]

That Liverpool/Stoke screenshot is amazing, 76% possession and 30 shots, crazy.

[Hammer1000]

I watched the Liverpool v Stoke game on a screen right next to the one i watched West ham beat Newcastle 3-1, whilst on holiday in Bulgaria.

The Liverpool fans were screaming about all the hopeless punts(i said punts) from distance they were having and that it was no wonder they could not score.

I also watched the Liverpool v West Ham game and without being biased, i would honestly say that West Ham had the better chances, with Liverpool again(especially Gerrard) having a lot of useless punts from distance.

I'm not sure what this means in relation to my argument about the game, but at least in the two games of the four i witnessed, Liverpool did not make a hatful of CCC's nor did they hit the post half a dozen times each game.

Nice stats though RT!

[Hammer1000]

Just would like to second the above so that Hammer doesn't think that his critics are few in number and simply "missing the point" or "stupid". I actually agree with most of what you say and the fact that the game is imperfect but the way that you portray your arguments and the rude/arrogant/insulting responses sort of kill off any sense of debate. Personally I enjoy the game immensly, still get frustrated with the unrealistic ME sometimes but it's way better then 2008 (which to be fair did become unplayable for me with the last patch) and actually makes for a very enjoyable game.

I was simply frustrated that people were completely missing the point mate.

I was chatting to a mate today(ex FM'er) and he was saying to me that he did'nt think the game was believable anymore from a grown up point of view and that to anyone who really followed football, the whole match and stat process was comical.

Personally i dont think its quite that bad yet, but i dont think 1 more patch is going to make a lot of difference either?

[BlackTiger]

I was simply frustrated that people were completely missing the point mate.

I was chatting to a mate today(ex FM'er) and he was saying to me that he did'nt think the game was believable anymore from a grown up point of view and that to anyone who really followed football, the whole match and stat process was comical.

Personally i dont think its quite that bad yet, but i dont think 1 more patch is going to make a lot of difference either?

Instead of speculating in a negative manner, wouldnt it just be better to wait and see? Who knows how much work is going into this patch. At least PaulC has had the guts to come into this thread and address some of the bigger problems here so your biggest annoyances about the game might have been fixed.

[djwilko6]

Instead of speculating in a negative manner, wouldnt it just be better to wait and see? Who knows how much work is going into this patch. At least PaulC has had the guts to come into this thread and address some of the bigger problems here so your biggest annoyances about the game might have been fixed.

Whilst I agree with some of post, unless PaulC comes out and says "We've fixed this part of it for the patch" I think it's fair that examples are continuing to be posted.

Of course PaulC, or any member of SI, won't and probably can't come out and say this tho.

[Hammer1000]

Instead of speculating in a negative manner, wouldnt it just be better to wait and see? Who knows how much work is going into this patch. At least PaulC has had the guts to come into this thread and address some of the bigger problems here so your biggest annoyances about the game might have been fixed.

I've tried to be positive in the past tbh and yet i'm still waiting for many of these improvements to be made.

For an obvious example, a fix was supposed to be made to 9.02 to stop all/most of the long hoofs from GK's being misjudged by defenders and strikers running onto the ball for easy chances, yet if anything i have found it happening more and more?

Lets be honest here, however hard SI try to make the game, somebody somewhere is going to at some point through luck or judgement, find the correct notches on the sliders to make a tactic that can pretty much assure them of always having the upper hand over the AI.

This is why the ME is messed with so much, why else would SI have done away with more balanced and believable ME's in the past to give us what we have today?

Easy, because everyone would already know how to play the AI when the new version was released.

What we need is a believable and sophisticated ME that cannot simply be broken and the only way to do this is to make it in such a way that it does actually take everything into consideration(tactics, player quality, morale, weather, luck, etc, etc, etc, etc) and then actually come up with a believable Matchday Experience and the stats to go with it!

[RT--]

While we're having a look at PKMs and defensive behaviour - I wonder if anyone could have a look at this match and explain what happens for the second goal, at about 59:00 mins. It's nothing huge, but I just thought I'd upload it while this topic is still going.

Basically, the Boro #14 (Djuric) plays a bad pass to the Boro #2 (Hoyte) who gets caught in possession by two Bolton players. Eventually, the Bolton #5 (O'Brien) stabs the ball forward (59:09). At this point, the Boro centre-back #8 (Vidal) should be favourite to get there, but he seems to freeze and allow Bolton's #9 (Elmander) a big head-start. Vidal doesn't seem to try and intercept the ball at all, and doesn't appear to start running after the attacking player properly until about 59:14, at which point he's already surrendered too much distance.

Now (to pick one relevant attribute) Vidal has Anticipation 16 against Elmander's Anticipation 13, so why does the attacking player anticipate the interception so much better, in this case? And why does it take Vidal so long (until about 59:14) to start really chasing the player down? I'll admit that, as a complication, Vidal is a DM playing at centre-back as cover, but I don't think this should affect his anticipation and recovery run as much as it does here.

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts.

PKM: Boro-Bolton

[JD nawrat]

I completely agree with everything Hammer has said.

FM can be extremely annoying.

Can anybody explain this:

My tactics are finally doing well...

They pick me up onto an 8 match winning streak.

Some of the results(in no specific order):

Chelsea 0 - 2 Man City

Man City 1 - 0 Man Utd

Man City 2 - 0 Man Utd

Man City 4 - 3 Ajax

Aston Villa 4 - 1 Man City

Right, so my tactics are obviously doing well.

I use the exact same line-up, that I beat Utd with twice. With a slight exception.

The first Utd game(league match), Petrov starts, and we won 1-0.

The 2nd(carling cup), Yeste takes the place of Petrov, but I still win 2-0, even better.

Then, I have Stoke away.

Now, I've went to the Bridge, and won 2-0. A very convincing win at that.

I dominate Stoke from start to finish. But it's still 0-0. Same tactics, same line-up as the 2nd United game.

I'm happy to take a 0-0 finish. The annoying thing? 4 minutes of added time, and Stoke break on the counter and score in the 94:30th minute.

A few problems:

a) Why didn't the ref blow the whistle as soon as my corner was a free ball? (NB: This was 4 minutes of uninterrupted injury time.

b) Why is Andy Griffin capable of sprinting from the edge of his own box, to the edge of my box, and surpass both Taiwo and Faubert? It's nonsensical.

I wouldn't have been too annoyed if I had got something out of it. But I dominated play from start to finish, and then Andy Griffin turns into Superman, and scores a goal, after the regulation AND injury time is up.

The biggest kick in the balls? United and Liverpool both lost their games, so had I even gotten 1 point, I would've went top.

Instead, I've had to settle for third at the moment.

I'm not claiming that it's 'cheating', but I don't understand how this works... We shouldn't be playing into the 95th minute of time. Nor should Andy Griffin possess the skill and speed to surpass Taiwo and Faubert, realistically.

[Smac]

Perhaps the conversation would be more productive if we just focused on the 1 or 2 problems initially presented by Hammer? Or maybe we're all done with that? Still, I think there is some disagreement about the representation of defending, and now that a few .pkm's are presented we can try and see if/when things are not working as well as they could.

[Hammer1000]

Perhaps the conversation would be more productive if we just focused on the 1 or 2 problems initially presented by Hammer? Or maybe we're all done with that? Still, I think there is some disagreement about the representation of defending, and now that a few .pkm's are presented we can try and see if/when things are not working as well as they could.

Your right, the discussion has gotten off track, by bringing up the match stats i was simply trying to show just how completely off balance the whole Matchday Experience is at this present time.

As it just happens to be the most important part of the entire game, i cannot help but think the whole thing needs extensive changes in order to make the experience of playing matches minutely believable and realistic.

At the moment, it just feels like i'm against against a computer that will make the most ridiculous things occur, just to get the final result that it has somehow concocted?

[P0nt006]

I am a player of the old Champ Man series and now play FM. I want to know if you able to win the league as say, Stoke or some other club apart from the big 4? I remember winning 5 premierships and 3 European Cups as Sheffield Wednesday on the old Championship Manager 2. Playing FM, that seems to be impossible because you can't sign any players as a minnow club. Perhaps the series has become too realistic - what happened to playing a GAME?

[BlackTiger]

I am a player of the old Champ Man series and now play FM. I want to know if you able to win the league as say, Stoke or some other club apart from the big 4? I remember winning 5 premierships and 3 European Cups as Sheffield Wednesday on the old Championship Manager 2. Playing FM, that seems to be impossible because you can't sign any players as a minnow club. Perhaps the series has become too realistic - what happened to playing a GAME?

You can go on to dominate with smaller clubs, its just not as easy at it used to be. it takes good tactical knowledge, good signings, patience and a whole lot of luck.

If you get a solid tactic behind you, sign some very good youngsters and a few quality experienced players to help out, it's very possible to do well.

[Rupal]

The fact is that many people find the whole match day experience unsatisfying because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of what goes on.

Some of the things which particularly seem to annoy people seem to be:

a) the inconsistency of the ME - the way in which the same tactic and the same team talks and the same players can lead to wildly differing results in save/repeat experiments, thus showing that there are too many extraneous factors outside the player's control.

b) the far too frequent incidence of matches where your team totally dominates in terms of shots, possession, pass completion, etc, etc, in the statistics and loses because everything hits the woodwork, grazes the bar, is brilliantly saved, kicked off the line, is disallowed, etc, while the AI team scores with its one and only shot in the 4th minute of extra time..... I know this happens from time to time but not in match after match after match as seems to occur in FM too frequently.

c) the 'one on one' bug - too many one on ones generated and a ridiculous number of misses.

d) the way in which player stats such as pace do not appear to be reflected in what goes on on the pitch leading to your quick defender losing out to a relatively lumbering striker or vice versa.

e) the general lack of intelligence demonstrated by defenders.

f) the idiotic standing still by one's players which allows opponents to nick the ball even though they were twice as far away in the first place.

g) the long punt by the opposition goalkeeper which is totally misjudged by one's idiot defenders and goes through to the opposition striker who, unlike one's own players in c) above, never seems to miss. Far, far too frequent.

h) the 'built-in slump' factor which appears to affect your team after a certain period, leaving you powerless to rectify things no matter what you try tactically.

I'm sure that people could add to this list but these are things which detract from the game badly.

FM has a lot of great features. But if the matches, which are the core of the game really, aren't properly sorted then these other things don't make up for this.

[Smac]

Your right, the discussion has gotten off track, by bringing up the match stats i was simply trying to show just how completely off balance the whole Matchday Experience is at this present time.

As it just happens to be the most important part of the entire game, i cannot help but think the whole thing needs extensive changes in order to make the experience of playing matches minutely believable and realistic.

At the moment, it just feels like i'm against against a computer that will make the most ridiculous things occur, just to get the final result that it has somehow concocted?

Players + Morale + Tactics + Luck = Result, right?

The thread really focuses on two things: Defender positioning and response to threats, and pace. The main proposal is that: if these were a lot better, maybe the Matchday Experience would be more convincing too.

It looks like the defender positioning/response thing causes 2 problems for the human manager:

1. It doesn't seem believable.

2. It makes tactics difficult to adjust to compensate.

The pace issue also causes two main problems:

1. It makes player attributes seem unimportant.

2. Its hard to know what attributes then are important.

Since tactics have to correspond to observable behavior if the human manager is to be successful, both of these simulation issues, if we take them as 'real issues', interfere with this process. Either tactical adjustments of defenders have no effect or they have significantly counter-intuitive effects. IE, if you could cure the positioning issue by ticking 'tight marking' then we'd have a solution, but one that was difficult to understand or discover.

Correspondingly, pace may play an important role in determining results, or it may be overlooked by the ME entirely. If, on the one hand it is advantageous to have pacey players, but their advantage plays out only in their passing accuracy (for an outrageous example), then this will be difficult to discover except in comparing match results over time with varying players. On the other hand it seems reasonable to assume that unless pace is observable in the simulation that it isn't having any effect at all. Neither case is very good, but at least in the former instance having strong player attributes should result in more success, if for the wrong reasons.

Interestingly, these two issues seem to be issues only for some human managers. This doesn't really tell us whether or not they are real issues with the simulation, but could indicate that they are either minor issues or 'fixable' issues through the employment of different players or tactics. IE, if everyone reported: "Players shouldn't turn into giant blobs and score 50 goals in 3 seconds", then we'd at least have unanimity. Nonetheless, if the issues Hammer points out are real weaknesses of the simulation, then they are real for all players.

Personally, the pace issue bothers me more than the positioning one. If I can't see some evidence of player attributes in either the simulation or match statistics my 'suspension of disbelief' is weakened significantly. I'd like to see more 'shoulder to shoulder' 1v2s when currently 1v1s are simulated. A pacey defender might not be able to put the telling tackle in, in time, but he should more often than not be riding the attacker the whole way in, if initially beaten but not left for dead.

[Hammer1000]

Rupal and Smac - Two very good posts that sum up the games biggest issues.

I would just like to reiterate my own feelings on this discussion, to make it perfectly clear that i would find the game much more fun, addictive and realistic, even if i found myself in a relegation dogfight, watching believable games with believable stats rather than overperforming, but having to watch a weak ME providing awful games and stats

I would hope that that is what most people would prefer?

Take my recent Everton game for example.

3rd season finish

Away Record

From those 19 games

10 times - I massively outplayed opponents

5 times - We were clearly the better side

3 times - Stats were pretty even

1 time - We could have been considered outplayed

I cannot do much else than make my team play better than the opposition, i go into games knowing i will be the better side, yet still expect little from the games, because some other factor is at present making performances, player quality, tactics etc, etc, have very little effect on the outcome.

[Hammer1000]

This also goes for other competitions such as the Champions League.

In my previous season i went out to Chelsea, having been unfortunate to lose the first leg 2-1 at Stamford Bridge, the return leg, we completely outplayed Chelsea, but despite a high number of easy chances, it had somehow been decided that my two World Class strikers would choose this game to miss all of their easy chances.

Here are the stats from our defeat in the CL Qtr Final this year.

It just becomes farcical when its the same season after season, competition after competition, especially when the opponents winning/equalising goal usual arises due to a particular bit of ridiculous defending, a missed interception, or some other massive error, whilst the often poorer opposition defend faultlessly and even when you do get in behind them, the GK's suddenly become Superman, or your strikers suddenly become Sunday League footballers.

I just no longer see the point of continuing to play, when its quite obvious there are other factors deciding on results other than the players, tactics or even pure luck?

[Proteus]

Hammer1000.

I don't feel in control of the outcome of matches in FM09, either. The strength of your tactics and the quality of your squad should have the biggest influence on the outcome of your career, rather than extraneous variables that, although realistic, are hard to understand in the first place, and even more difficult to mitigate or influence even if you do figure them out!

I've gone back to FM08.

[Rupal]

Well it happens at a lower league level all the time too. Just played an away match - 10 shots to their 1, superior in every area of the pitch, possession 62% to their 38%, nobody rating lower than 6.7 and most over 7, hit the crossbar 4 times with headers from corners, etc, etc. Lost 1-0 to a 35 yard shot from a striker with a long shot rating of 3. I'm not bothering with a screen shot but the stats were actually more one sided in my game even than in that Everton one above.

Occasionally this will happen irl but there's quite obviously a blatant 'buggeration factor' built into this game which crops up far too frequently.

It goes a long way towards really spoiling the game. We have people on this and other threads complaining about it, leaving FM '09 for earlier versions and so on. I somehow doubt that SI will do anything about it and will likely deny that there is any problem at all. We will probably have the FM 'groupies' coming on saying that of course it's our lousy tactics which are at fault or that we messed up the team talk....

I hope that CM 09 will be better - quite frankly I doubt I'll be buying FM 2010 unless I find out that there has been a sea change in approach from SI.

[bieritarier]

I just wonder if SI have allowed too much weight to these things? Is the game now too sophisticated?

I can't help feeling that things such as the above, plus team talks, press conference reactions, etc have been given too much emphasis. Combine this with the sliders (which seem to demand very precise settings) and it often seems that the matches are something of a lottery.

I remember reading about a WW2 German aircraft which had been so 'improved' with extra armour plating and other items that it was slower and more vulnerable than the earlier, 'unimproved' version. When pilots began unofficially to have the excess baggage removed, losses plummeted.

Maybe a bit of simplification might be in order.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. After a non-perfect team talk, you players mostly turn into morons, smashing the ball against each others heads, missing easy interceptions, lose every challenge even when 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 and, in the rare case they do manage to take a shot on goal you have to thank the almighty if they didn't break the corner flag or smash a hole into ISS - even when you've dominated the first half with 10-0 or something shots and were leading 2-0 and you haven't made any changes and you got no indication that you opponent has changed anything either (no change in formation or "they now operate more offensive"). Yes, there is the (rare) occasion when a team fights back, but (without being able to back it up with stats) from my experience it is mostly the "better" team that starts playing a lot better. On the rare occasion the underdog comes back from 2 or 3 behind it's mostly lucky goals, and not the fact that they suddenly control the game and fire in shot after shot.

I don' think that's ot, because I feel as if all that bad positioning, slow running, bad anticipation is caused by the ME factoring in things like team talks or team gel with a weight that is over the top. Reducing these factors (which may not be easy) might iron out a lot of these odd mistakes.

[Proteus]

Great post Rupal. Expresses my feelings too.

As an experiment, in addition to making my players' CA match their PA, I also gave them 20 for consistency, big games, and determination. I also healed them and removed any suspensions via FMRTE before every match.

There were still wildly inconsistent and couldn't fight back from any sort of deficit. Why? Who knows. Probably something to do with the weather.

I was Aston Villa and, with a few additional purchases, my squad was chock full of quality players. I also used the most popular tactic - Matt's v4.2 - from these forums.

The weather, match odds, etc shouldn't determine the outcome of my matches - the quality of my squad and tactics should.

Cheers

Typical line-up

--------Carew-----Agbonlahor

Young--Tymoshcuk--Arteta---Tuncay

Barry---Laursen----Zapata----Cuellar

------------Friedel--------------

Even got beat 8-4 - yeah, 8-blinking-4 - by Man Utd at Villa Park! Reloaded and went to Shut Up Shop and managed to squeeze out a 2-2 draw. Just daft, imo.

pps I converted Barry's position via FMRTE to accommodate the best players (highest PA) from my squad in my starting eleven.

[Rupal]

I could understand it if (say) your team had a lot of nippy, smallish players and it was a very rainy matchday - rain = mud = slowing down effect = players with more strength will have an advantage but there doesn't seem to be anything like that going on. There's no logic to what happens as far as I can see.

This is purely subjective, but I gain the impression that when one of these infuriating matches where nothing you seem to do makes any difference is happening the opposition does far more changes of style (defensive/attacking) than is the norm. At times they seem to switch style as soon as you try to tweak things, almost with an instant response. As I said, it's only an impression, I can't back it up with any statistics, but it would be interesting to find out if anyone else has the same feeling.

[kennec]

me playing with genoa, mid table team in italy. already given up on this save couse lost way to many games. i EXPECTED to loose againt the big teams, but at least i had hope to win againt the smaller teams a few times. but no. the tactic i used is a wellproven 4-4-1-1 tactic i have won scudetto with lazio a few times with average team.

this got something to do with teams talks/ranking/ai cheating not with tactics

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2392/genoavchievolg2.png

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4108/leccevgenoa3dq7.png

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3441/regginavgenoagu1.png

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1030/torinovgenoata5.png

computer teams make 10 shots on goals and score with 7 of them making ratio 70% goals of shots on goal, several of them are longshots up in the corner of net or increadible goals.

have in mind my team is better or much better then these small teams and my goalkeeper got superb morale and are not bad in anyway

meanswhile i got 17 shots on goal and scored 5, making my % to 29%. my attackers have alot more composure and finishing and are supported by better passers then the smaller clubs then i couldnt win over. all my 1v1 chances was missed and i mostly scored on crossings into box.

[Proteus]

Cheers Rupal.

The baffling thing for me is that I was still very inconsistent despite making my players' consistency 20, Big Matches 20, and Determination 20 via FMRTE - oh, and making them play at the peak of their abilities. That is, making their CA match their PA. So, for example, say Ashley Young's PA is 170 - I'd modify his CA to 170, thus making him play at the peak of his career.

If a team full of players with 20 for consistency - and I assigned 20 to every squad member - can't play consistently using a top-class formation (Matt's v4.2 from these very forums) then something is drastically wrong with the ME.

Am I wrong?

[Rupal]

Am I wrong?

NO you most certainly aren't!

[djwilko6]

this got something to do with teams talks/ranking/ai cheating not with tactics

I have to say this, but the AI doesn't and can't cheat.

[Rupal]

I have to say this, but the AI doesn't and can't cheat.

I think that by the AI 'cheating' most of us mean that the result seems to be 'fixed'. It's exactly this feeling one gets when the sorts of games that people have been mentioning on this thread happen.

When you are faced with a situation where every match stat shows a huge superiority in your favour and yet you simply CANNOT win and when this happens (as has been mentioned here) time and time again then it does, indeed, feel very much as though the AI has been 'cheating'.

[Hammer1000]

Can i ask that we stay away from the word cheat in this thread please?

If this thread turns into a cheat debate it may as well be closed, as it will not be taken at all seriously.

Lets concentrate on what we know is wrong and surmise that bad coding and a weak ME is the main factor for what appears to be cheating in the game.

[Rupal]

Oh yes, it's not a real cheat - obviously it's a coding matter.

The ME has all sorts of visual glitches - eg when your midfielder, who is close to the ball makes an initial movement AWAY from it thus being beaten to it by the opposition. Personally, I can live with this sort of thing - it's unsatisfying visually but presumably the ME has decided that the opposition will win the ball and it's just been portrayed rather badly.

The real point which a lot of us seem to have is this feeling that there are factors totally outside our control as players which affect the results of matches to an unacceptable degree. No matter how hard one tries to fine tune one's tactics, no matter how careful one is in handling the squad, trying to give the correct team talk, etc, etc, these outside factors outweigh one's best efforts leaving a feeling of frustration. That's not what I'm looking for in a computer game.

[nymanr]

Well yes the ME can't cheat. That's obvious.

The main problem as i see it is the lack of consistency, and because of that the resulting difficulty in choosing the "right" tactic.

At the moment you can pick a team & tactic and team talk and get result A. Reload the game and get result B that is totally different in terms of who dominates the game and what the end result is using the same tactics players and team talks.

Where not talking about winning 1-0 to then losing 0-1 but more the lines of 3-0 to 0-3. This makes it impossible to understand what is going on there as you have the same tactics and players in both cases. You can dominate teams to the ground creating chance after chance but still lose the games and the other way around.

The tactic side of the game is difficult enough to get right to get something that you want without the game throwing in the element of random events to mix things up.

Throw in unrealistic representation of what is going on and you are totally clueless to what you should do.

How is it possible that you play 18 games in a season where you dominate all games and get good results but come january you suddenly go from 60% possession in games to 30% possession in games with a team like Man Utd? Yes teams adapt to your tactics but to that extent?

[djwilko6]

I think that by the AI 'cheating' most of us mean that the result seems to be 'fixed'. It's exactly this feeling one gets when the sorts of games that people have been mentioning on this thread happen.

Then the word cheat shouldn't be used.

The result is "fixed" before the match, but anything that happens during the match will effect the result from the moment such and event happens, for example changing tactics, making substitutions.

[Rupal]

Quite frankly, the sort of spread which nymanr is talking about - which certainly happens - means that, if you are paranoid like me, suspicion grows that the results are randomly predetermined and have nothing to do with what tactics you are employing at all! If you're going to lose 3-0 you are going to lose 3-0 and you could have every slider to the extreme right or the extreme left and it wouldn't make any difference..... What you do during the match has no effect either....If you load it again, a different preset result comes out...

As I said, I tend towards being paranoid. I can't be right.....can I?

[kopsy101]

i dont feel there is very many problems. problems are created by people reading opinions, being close minded and following the crowd. there is no fixing either. i have quite a few times been at 60minuted 1-0 down without any real shots on goal and then changed tactics and went on to win 2-1. ok only 3-4 time so far (not played over 2 seasons yet) and had no problems.

hammer - what is with the everton against werder bremen SS's. you were clearly tactically outclassed considering you have better players. from the ammount of shots and possesion you had in the first leg you obviously shot long a few times but they hit on the break. 2-2 is fine considering the clear cut chances. for the second leg it looked pretty defensive with a couple of brilliant solo goals. shots or possesion does not determine who is the better team if thats what you think should happen. matches are not fixed or else there is no point in the game. its all about luck and stuff.

[Proteus]

i dont feel there is very many problems. problems are created by people reading opinions, being close minded and following the crowd. there is no fixing either. i have quite a few times been at 60minuted 1-0 down without any real shots on goal and then changed tactics and went on to win 2-1. ok only 3-4 time so far (not played over 2 seasons yet) and had no problems.

hammer - what is with the everton against werder bremen SS's. you were clearly tactically outclassed considering you have better players. from the ammount of shots and possesion you had in the first leg you obviously shot long a few times but they hit on the break. 2-2 is fine considering the clear cut chances. for the second leg it looked pretty defensive with a couple of brilliant solo goals. shots or possesion does not determine who is the better team if thats what you think should happen. matches are not fixed or else there is no point in the game. its all about luck and stuff.

The feelings I have about FM09 are not informed by opinions, nor are they the result of close-mindedness or ignorance. They are the result of observation.

I've been playing FM/CM since 1993. I've played every iteration of the series. I know what's fun and what isn't. And FM09 is, for me at least, mightily frustrating and pretty much devoid of fun.

That's why I've reverted to FM08. I'm in control in that game. And it's fun, too!

Thanks

[Rupal]

If everything is fine, kopsy101, how come there is such a wide variation of results when you repeat a match without changing anything? Do you think a 7 goal spread is acceptable?

If you can have a 7 goal difference as a result of things which aren't to do with your tactics, how does the idea of being tactically outclassed make any sense at all?

[Sethivict]

1) I agree with your post.

2) I disagree with people thinking your posts are rude/arrogant. SI created a game that is an INSULT to customers intelligence.

3) Had it been a medical product, this product would have been withdrawn from market.

Perhaps some things SI should think of before planning 2010...if they get that far.

I am sure the sales for 2009 are not as high as 2006, and I am sure it will be worse with 2010.

[Hammer1000]

i dont feel there is very many problems. problems are created by people reading opinions, being close minded and following the crowd. there is no fixing either. i have quite a few times been at 60minuted 1-0 down without any real shots on goal and then changed tactics and went on to win 2-1. ok only 3-4 time so far (not played over 2 seasons yet) and had no problems.

hammer - what is with the everton against werder bremen SS's. you were clearly tactically outclassed considering you have better players. from the ammount of shots and possesion you had in the first leg you obviously shot long a few times but they hit on the break. 2-2 is fine considering the clear cut chances. for the second leg it looked pretty defensive with a couple of brilliant solo goals. shots or possesion does not determine who is the better team if thats what you think should happen. matches are not fixed or else there is no point in the game. its all about luck and stuff.

How do you manage to completely miss the point time and time again???

May i ask your age?

[-vitalic-]

I gave up with FM09 a couple of months ago. I actually thought there were some improvements over 08, and I like the work the guys at FMB did to improve the tactical side but unfortunately it wasn't enough to save the game.

It's quite simple, SI need to go back to basics. Forget press conferences, start really thinking about how the ME is represented and how the game can re-establish that sense of immersion that previous versions had in abundance.

[Smac]

1. Where not talking about winning 1-0 to then losing 0-1 but more the lines of 3-0 to 0-3. This makes it impossible to understand what is going on there as you have the same tactics and players in both cases. You can dominate teams to the ground creating chance after chance but still lose the games and the other way around.

2. Throw in unrealistic representation of what is going on and you are totally clueless to what you should do.

(my numbers)

1. This is why its probably best to keep the thread focused on small but tangible evidence as provided in the OP: Because winning 3-0 once and losing 0-3 the next time may well be a tactical problem. By diverting the discussion to the general tactical frustration with the game we open the criticism up to "Its your tactics", and fairly (though harshly) so. Some wide-open tactics will produce erratic results. In theory at least, a more controlled tactic will produce less erratic results. Considering just how difficult it would be to demonstrate either case in that argument via text, and about the FM09 Match Engine, simply asserting one side of the argument is fairly met by another non-empirical assertion such as "No its not".

Likewise, though I too am often mystified about games I draw or lose when dominating, I think its a mistake to bring that up as "Yet another example of why FM09 is frustrating/bad/evil/unfun, etc.." unless prepared to accept the counter-argument: "Seems fair to me. Its your tactics", which is perfectly valid considering the limited data presented.

Both of these arguments divert us from finding and 'proving' one small thing (defender positioning and pace) by attempting to address the whole kit-and-kaboodle without any real possibility of reaching a decisive conclusion. Certainly the money will 'prove the point' about the game's un-funness if fans walk away from FM after this year, but this is incidental (again) to whether or not there is an actual problem in the game that is clearly identifiable.

Hope that makes sense. But carry on. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't say I appreciated a thorough slagging off when the game frustrates me. But it could be in its own thread....

2. This is important I think. The simulation isn't just for giggles, but to help the manager adjust his team and tactics and play the game. Considering the tenuous grasp of the tactical side of things felt by many fans, any weakening of the simulation side of things can well be the straw that breaks the manager's back.

[-vitalic-]

Well said, unfortunately people that are unable to control their emotions in both camps tend to ruin these threads which could potentially be key to improving the game.

To add fuel to the fire, do assistant manager comments really help guage what factors are impacting on performance in any given game? In my experiences it seemed like a completely superfluous addition that served no purpose other than to add an extra facet of mystification.

The very fact this needed to be added in the first place suggests a lack of clarity in the way the game represents many situations.

[Rupal]

I really don't see why 'wide open' tactics should produce more erratic results than any others in any individual match where all the observable variables are identical (which is the case in the 'save and repeat' scenario). It may be the case that such tactics will produce a series of results in a succession of matches which will be something of a roller coaster depending on the styles adopted by different AI managers. But that isn't the issue here. The result (assuming that it isn't entirely predetermined randomly) in any one game will be a consequence of the 'relationship' (for want of a better word) between the AI and the human manager's input. As the input from the human manager is identical, there must be a difference in the way in which the AI behaves after each reload.

This seems to me to be a fundamental issue for the entire game. Whilst I appreciate that defender positioning and space are portrayed thoroughly unsatisfactorily in the match simulations, I have less difficulty in accepting this. It's visually unsatisfying but is at least a consistent factor in the matches and doesn't, as such, affect the actual results to my mind. I can live with it.

I think it's clear that the variations in results which do occur in these save/reload experiments are as a result of some factor/factors which are hidden from the human manager. They can't be down to weather, or club reputation or press relationships or any of the other 'extraneous' things which people have mentioned, as these are also identical in the saved scenario. It seems to me that there are 3 possibilities:

1) The matches are entirely predetermined and tactics and all the other factors have no effect whatsoever on the results, which are generated randomly or

2) There is/are an extra factor(s) which affect results which operate(s) on a random basis or

3) The weights given to all the individual factors which make for the result are randomly altered.

I hope that 1) can be discounted, because, if not, the whole game is down entirely to luck and we are all wasting our time trying to improve our tactics at all. This leads me to a position where I am saying that adjustments are needed in order to reduce the 'randomness factor', whether caused by 2) or 3), to more reasonable proportions in order to make the game less seemingly arbitrary and, as has been said by Proteus, to make the player feel that he/she has some control again.

[PaulC]

For the hundredth time, the AI doesnt "cheat" and the result isnt fixed before the game is played out.

A complete waste of what was a useful thread. Any more of this nonsense and I will close it.

[Hammer1000]

For the hundredth time, the AI doesnt "cheat" and the result isnt fixed before the game is played out.

A complete waste of what was a useful thread. Any more of this nonsense and I will close it.

Paul - With all due respect, i started this thread and i can catagorically state that i am NOT claiming cheat.

I will suggest though that because of many ME weaknesses and the failure to often combine believable stats and a believable match experience, that the game can often APPEAR as if it is cheating, even though as you say(and i believe) it does not.

I can only imagine just how difficult it must be to put together a credible ME?, but as is the nature of the game, this is the task you have taken on and in doing so, must be expected to produce something worthy of your own and the games good name, something that you just do not have at the moment.

It is obvious that reading these boards that there are plenty of people satisfied with the game, but i would gladly stake my mortgage on the fact that these people are made up entirely of those who do not posses a sufficient grasp of the complexities of football to have a educated opinion, no disrespect to anyone(10 or 15 years ago, i would have added myself to this group)

I suppose the Million Dollar Question is, who are you aiming at in terms of sales? the box says for ages 3+, so are you looking at the younger audience that will largely not understand many of the games basic errors? or to true football officianado's who should know enough at the game to cope with the complex tactical set up?

The ME in FM09 would suggest the former, whilst the tactical side of the game suggests the latter, personally i feel that as a Company you may soon very well need to make a choice between the two.

[PaulC]

Garry,

I dont think you can imagine how difficult it is, actually.

You are trying to be more constructive that in the past, I can see, so fair play.

Who is the game aimed at? Football fans. Its in our interest to make the engine as realistic as possible, given that people have to watch it. That is an ongoing project. The tactical interface has been discussed at length both on these forums and internally and we intend to make it more accessible to all in future releases.

Cheers,

Paul

[Proteus]

Great post Rupal.

I see what you're saying about the hidden factors influencing the outcome of a particular game. And, given those observations, you would have to discount the influence the weather, the match odds, your media interactions, etc, have on the outcome of a match.

1) The matches are entirely predetermined and tactics and all the other factors have no effect whatsoever on the results, which are generated randomly or

2) There is/are an extra factor(s) which affect results which operate(s) on a random basis or

3) The weights given to all the individual factors which make for the result are randomly altered.

Number one is just downright unnerving. And number two and three are unsatisfactory.

I appreciate the effort the programming gurus make to create a ME that reflects reality. It must be mind-boggling work. Think about how complex all the interactions between the variables must be!

And, although I've abandoned FM09 9.2.0, I'll still continue to buy every subsequent iteration of FM. Certain things have been improved in FM09. My overall experience of FM09 9.2.0., however, is one of frustration and aggravation.

However, it's the evolution of the ME that's important to me - not a single version of it on one iteration of a series of versions of FM.

Cheers

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

For the hundredth time, the AI doesnt "cheat" and the result isnt fixed before the game is played out.

A complete waste of what was a useful thread. Any more of this nonsense and I will close it.

Paul, I dont think I have ever yet accused the FM09 AI of "cheating", even after a particularly annoying result (and as in real life managers blame just about everything they can). I have to ask though, respectfully, how does the Manager AI work?. The AI is computer generated, so the computer knows every tactical change I make - how & when does the AI manager realise & react?, whereas when the AI makes changes I have to work that out by using by skill (!) & judgement, and that takes vital in matrch time.

To be fair, I have never understood how PC random number generators work either!, but if an answer could be forthcoming that doesnt infringe SI's technical secrets, I would be very interested.

[Rupal]

I'm also sure that the AI doesn't intentionally 'cheat'. And, indeed, it must be mind blowingly hard to try to come up with a realistic ME which reflects all the variables properly. Having said that, though, the end result sometimes SEEMS to be random and, as tigerhgrrrrr says, it would be really interesting to have some insight into the workings of the AI, in simple layman's terms, so that one had some inkling of what was going on and why things happen as they do.

[PaulC]

Without wanting to go into detail you have to realise that the "AI" isnt some sort of all knowing entity ;-)

The AI manager is a separate entity to each AI player, and the overall match "object" itself. It doesnt automatically know all your tactical settings, it simply tries to simulate a way of setting up its own tactics using its database values, and some basics such as your own formation etc as well as the way the game is going.

I personally dont think its clever enough, but that's another story

Paul