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

[chopper99]

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.

From what I know the AI works like this:

When the matches are being calculated during the 'setting up match' bit everything is calculated (taking into account every second of the match, every attribute and the millions of other things that go into calculating a match). That means that any changes the AI make in reaction to something that happens in the match are also calculated at that point. So for example, if the game looks at everything and calculates that you will score in the 23rd minute, it also calculates the AI's reaction to that goal and any tactical changes the AI manager may make (again using millions of variables including the AI managers attributes to make these calculations).

This then changes when you make a tactical change or at half time, from that point on the rest of the match is calculated again and the results of those calculations are shown to you in the form of highlights.

So basically the changes made by the AI in reaction to things are calculated either at the start of a game or when you yourself make changes.

This may lead some people to shout 'Aha, so the matches are pre-determined'. But that's not the case, all that's happening is that every second of the match and every variable are being calculated at the beginning of the game (and after a user change). This gives the exact same result that you would get if it was calculated on the fly, second by second. However, it makes a lot more sense for all of this to be done at certain points during a match and then the results shown to the user.

The above is how I understand it to work, someone from SI is free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rupal]

I see where you are coming from Chopper99 but what I still find it hard to get my head around is how the 'setting up bit' match calculations end up with such different results when the starting point is exactly the same in these save/repeat experiments.

[chopper99]

I see where you are coming from Chopper99 but what I still find it hard to get my head around is how the 'setting up bit' match calculations end up with such different results when the starting point is exactly the same in these save/repeat experiments.

I haven't done much testing of this in FM2009 but from what I know it's down to things like luck, moral, personality etc.

As an example, in one game the luck factor may be added to to your tactics and your player attributes in such a way that your team scores in the 5th minute of a match. From then on that game is going to be different to any other repeat performance of this game. What happens after that goal depends on so many things it's unbelievable, from the attributes of the AI manager to the personality of your squad to the tactical changes you make as a manger.

So lets say you replay this game and in the second match you don't get that bit of luck in the first 5 minutes, again everything from that point on will be completely different from the first game.

That's why, in real life, if Man Utd played Chelsea 4 times in a row the score would rarely be the same in all 4 games.

It would be much more worrying for me if you replayed a game and got the same result every time.

[Rupal]

I think we're talking about degree here. I wouldn't want identical results but it seems to me that the variation range (we have had a 7 goal one quoted in another thread, so let's take that as a maximum) is excessive in the current ME. It looks as though one's initial tactical setup is somehow being overwhelmed by these other variables and thus one feels that the outcome is a lottery.

Your example of Man Utd playing Chelsea isn't strictly apposite because they wouldn't be playing 4 times on the same day in exactly the same conditions!

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

I see where you are coming from Chopper99 but what I still find it hard to get my head around is how the 'setting up bit' match calculations end up with such different results when the starting point is exactly the same in these save/repeat experiments.

Well, one possible explanation...

These such wildly differing results (e.g. the 3-0 / 0-3 reversals) from the same starting conditions can naturally arise from the "Butterfly Effect". To put it simply, the first goal will often drastically change the complexion of a game - e.g. causing the team in front to shut-up-shop, and/or the trailing team to open up and push-forward more.

Now at 0-0, all it takes is for the random-number-generator to vary, for example, whether or not that shot from a freekick in the 23rd minute goes in off the post, or hits the post and goes out for a goal-kick. From that point on, chaos theory takes over and the two realities go off in very different ways.

(Written before Chopper posted almost exactly the same thing...)

[Proteus]

I think we're talking about degree here. I wouldn't want identical results but it seems to me that the variation range (we have had a 7 goal one quoted in another thread, so let's take that as a maximum) is excessive in the current ME. It looks as though one's initial tactical setup is somehow being overwhelmed by these other variables and thus one feels that the outcome is a lottery.

Your example of Man Utd playing Chelsea isn't strictly apposite because they wouldn't be playing 4 times on the same day in exactly the same conditions!

Exactly!

Here are the results of a game I played against Man Utd during my experimentation of the ME with my Aston Villa template:

1st attempt - Defence tactics - Jasiks OIs. Result: 4-1 to Man Utd at Villa Park.

2nd attempt - Standard tactic - Jasiks OIs. Result: 8-4 to Man Utd - yeah, really! - at Villa Park. Rooney ran amok!

3rd attempt - Shut up shop - Jasiks OIs. Result: 2-2. Brilliant. They dominated the game, but I had a fair amount of chances too!

Bear in mind that I'd allocated 20 to consistency, big matches and determination to every single player in my squad, as well as maxing out my players' CA - to match their PA - and healing my team before every match! And they were still wildly inconsistent.

If a team chock full of players with 20 for consistency can't play consistently then something is horrendously wrong with the ME!

Thanks

[chopper99]

Your example of Man Utd playing Chelsea isn't strictly apposite because they wouldn't be playing 4 times on the same day in exactly the same conditions!

But if they did I know for a fact that the outcome would never be the same.

But you're right, the amount of influence that these variables have on the outcome of a game is something worth investigating. I haven't looked into it much myself so I'm only commenting on how it works and why you get varied results. If people are indeed getting massively varied results then there may be a problem, but you would need quite a large test set to draw any accurate conclusions.

Is there a thread where someone is doing some proper analysis of replaying matches? If so could you link it for me.

[chopper99]

Exactly!

Here are the results of a game I played against Man Utd during my experimentation of the ME with my Aston Villa template:

Bear in mind that I'd allocated 20 to consistency, big matches and determination to every single player in my squad, as well as maxing out my players' CA - to match their PA - and healing my team before every match! And they were still wildly inconsistent.

If a team chock full of players with 20 for consistency can't play consistently then something is horrendously wrong with the ME!

Thanks

The results you list are totally pointless for what we're discussing here as you used different tactics each time. All that shows is that playing the same team with different tactics gives different results, which is what you would expect.

If you're complaining because you made your players unbeatable yet still got beaten by Man Utd then it says more about your individual tactics than the match engine tbh. I personally think the tactics are not intuative enough but Paul C has already said that this will be looked at for FM10.

[Proteus]

The results you list are totally pointless for what we're discussing here as you used different tactics each time. All that shows is that playing the same team with different tactics gives different results, which is what you would expect.

Fair enough. You're correct.

[Proteus]

The results you list are totally pointless for what we're discussing here as you used different tactics each time. All that shows is that playing the same team with different tactics gives different results, which is what you would expect.

Fair enough. You're correct.

Edit - Although I am surprised that small tweaks - the formation remains the same, namely 442 - to instructions can produce such extreme results.

Edit - The tactics I used are not my own. They are Matt's tactics, which, if you look at the tactics forum, you'll see are the most popular tactics for FM09. So...

[PaulC]

The person who mentioned "Butterfly Effect" is spot on.

Whatsmore, if you save and reload the random seed used for the match isnt going to be the same each time, so your "butterfly effect" is up and running from the first second of the match. The reason we do this is simply to stop people simulating a "Groundhog Day" equivilant of the match in question

[Rupal]

I can understand the 'butterfly effect' argument but allowing this to occur to the extent that it seems to do in FM '09, to cause such a huge difference in outcomes, makes for unsatisfying gameplay for many of us.

We are not aware of the variables, we only see the results of the calculations. Having come up with a perfectly reasonable initial setup (so reasonable that we could have won 4-0 WITH the luck) we find that the luck is against us and we are doing so badly that we are going to lose 3-0. We don't have the information which will help us remedy this situation because it's down to a factor or factors totally outside our control and the only things which we DO know for certain are what caused us to decide on our initial tactical plan.

That's what causes people to feel that there are too many variables and that the butterflies are far too heavy!

Edit: I don't think that there's been a formal set of tests anywhere (although it might be well worthwhile doing these). But these variations have been mentioned in various places so at least some people are finding that there is a problem here.

[Proteus]

Chopper99

The team, despite having those attributes, were not unbeatable. Indeed, they performed relatively poorly. And, as I said a moment ago, I implemented Matt's tactics from these forums when I was running the experiment.

If a team that only contains players with 20 for consistency, big games, and determination cannot remain consistent - despite using the most popular tactic on these forums - then something is seriously wrong with the ME, imo.

Cheers

Edit - I've played every iteration of CM/FM since 1993. I know how to play the game.

[CaptainPlanet]

The random seed or the butterfly effect shouldn't outweigh all the other factors though.

If you've got the perfect 11 playing brilliant football with a great specific tactic, basically if you've micromanaged ever aspect of the game to the best of your ability and you can replay the same game and get massively varying results, it's just not realistic and not very fair on the gamer.

There shouldn't be as much randomness attached as there is at the moment.

[Proteus]

The random seed or the butterfly effect shouldn't outweigh all the other factors though.

If you've got the perfect 11 playing brilliant football with a great specific tactic, basically if you've micromanaged ever aspect of the game to the best of your ability and you can replay the same game and get massively varying results, it's just not realistic and not very fair on the gamer.

There shouldn't be as much randomness attached as there is at the moment.

Well put, Captain Planet. Succinct and to the point.

Thanks

[Rupal]

That's exactly my point too, Captain Planet!

[PaulC]

I really dont agree. I judge the reliability of the ME by the league tables it produces over 40 games or so. In every match played out in real life there are turning points, and none of us can say for sure what would have happened had things gone differently at that microsecond.

[Proteus]

It might be realistic, but is it much fun? And that's essentially the crux of the argument, isn't it?

Edit - What is and isn't fun is obviously subjective. The concern is that, although the game is realistic and will continue to become even more realistic, causal gamers might revert to an alternative game simply because FM becomes too tedious and random.

[chopper99]

Chopper99

The team, despite having those attributes, were not unbeatable. Indeed, they performed relatively poorly. And, as I said a moment ago, I implemented Matt's tactics from these forums when I was running the experiment.

If a team that only contains players with 20 for consistency, big games, and determination cannot remain consistent - despite using the most popular tactic on these forums - then something is seriously wrong with the ME, imo.

Cheers

Edit - I've played every iteration of CM/FM since 1993. I know how to play the game.

You may be correct, unfortunately the tests that you put forward are very limited and don't really prove anything. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the example you're using does not really show anything. Consistency means how well a player performs from game to game, it makes no difference when repeating the same game again and again. The same goes for imprtant matches, upping this attribute for the whole team should give you a greater level of success over the season, but means nothing when doing an experiment where you play the same match over and over.

So your view that is flawed in that these attributes should give the team consistancy over the season, but have little to do with the issue being discussed here.

[Rupal]

I really dont agree. I judge the reliability of the ME by the league tables it produces over 40 games or so. In every match played out in real life there are turning points, and none of us can say for sure what would have happened had things gone differently at that microsecond.

If I go down to my local club and watch them and they hit the post in the 5th minute as opposed to the ball going in off the post, I really don't think that this is going to make a difference between them winning by 3 goals and losing by 4. That's because the relative strengths of the team, the weather, the morale are all constants.

I'm not saying that it will have NO effect. But I doubt very much if it will be as extreme as that.

The league table is a result of all the individual matches. If the bricks are individually flawed, how can one have faith in the integrity of the whole building?

[HL7]

That's why, in real life, if Man Utd played Chelsea 4 times in a row the score would rarely be the same in all 4 games.

It would be much more worrying for me if you replayed a game and got the same result every time.

I think you're missing the point slightly. If Man Utd and Chelsea played 4 times in a row they would have prior experience and would adapt to try and counter either sides threat. This would lead to 4 varying results depending on the approach of each manager.

However, in a save/load experiment in FM, a player may win their match 3-0 at home. The game would then be reloaded and the result could quite easily be a 3-0 reverse. It's this range of change that is the issue.

To take a real world example, Chelsea travelled to Old Trafford at the weekend and got quite a beating. Now, if Scolari could somehow travel back in time and (bizzarely) decided to play the same tactics with the same starting lineup and gave the same team-talk before the match started, you would logically expect a similar result. Perhaps not 3-0 but a defeat nonetheless. Of course I can only speculate but I do think my reasoning is sound.

In FM this doesn't appear to happen and it leads to a loss of control feeling. I personally believe that the game is not pre-determined but it's certainly far too random.

[chopper99]

Without any real tests being done to show the actual effects of playing the same game over and over I'd have to agree with PaulC on this issue.

Going back to my earlier example, if in real life it was somehow possible for Man Utd and Chelsea to play the exact same match 5 times in a row the outcome would not always be the same, on some days it might be 0-0 and on others Man Utd may win 3-0 (quite a large variation).

But over the course of a real season both teams should do well as they have good managers, good players and good tactics etc etc

[Proteus]

So your view that is flawed in that these attributes should give the team consistancy over the season, but have little to do with the issue being discussed here.

What! That's crazy. So the consistency of my squad over an entire season is not contingent on attributing 20 for consistency to every player in my squad?

That's baffling. You've lost me, Chopper99.

So should I be excluded from the discussion because you feel that my views don't pertain to the topic being discussed? Does anybody else feel that I should be excluded from the ensuing discussion because my views aren't pertinent?

ps My experiment with Aston Villa extended over an entire season - not one match replayed over and over again.

[PaulC]

To take a real world example, Chelsea travelled to Old Trafford at the weekend and got quite a beating. Now, if Scolari could somehow travel back in time and (bizzarely) decided to play the same tactics with the same starting lineup and gave the same team-talk before the match started, you would logically expect a similar result. Perhaps not 3-0 but a defeat nonetheless. Of course I can only speculate but I do think my reasoning is sound.

Hang on, what if Chelsea had cleared the corner where Utd scored the first and gone in at 0-0. Are you absolutely sure it couldnt have finished 0-0 or 1-0 either way?

[chopper99]

However, in a save/load experiment in FM, a player may win their match 3-0 at home. The game would then be reloaded and the result could quite easily be a 3-0 reverse. It's this range of change that is the issue.

Is this what's happening though? I've yet to see an actual test done and proper results put forward. If that happens with a decent sized test set then there may be something to discuss, and we may find that there's a problem.

As this is not the case I can only go off my own experiences, which do not match what some people are saying in this thread (there are things I have a problem with in the game, which I've outlined earlier in this thread, but the accuracy of results in reloaded games is not one of them). I fail to believe there's a problem simply because someone says that they've seen a couple of people mention it on the forums.

So I suppose what I'm getting at is if someone is determined that there is a problem with this area they need to save a game directly before going into a match and then replay that match 20 times before posting the results. It will then be possible to get a real idea of whether there is a problem.

[Sampa]

The thing that I find ridiculous is in my game where I scored around 1 out of 13 one on one chances with Robinho.

Also, when a ball is played over the top the defenders are sprinting there straight away and the strikers just jog! It's freakin ridiculous.

The speed of players needs to be looked at and represented properly in all situations.

[chopper99]

What! That's crazy. So the consistency of my squad over an entire season is not contingent on attributing 20 for consistency to every player in my squad?

That's baffling. You've lost me, Chopper99.

So should I be excluded from the discussion because you feel that my views don't pertain to the topic being discussed? Does anybody else feel that I should be excluded from the ensuing discussion because my views aren't pertinent?

ps My experiment with Aston Villa extended over an entire season - not one match replayed over and over again.

I'm in no way saying that you should be excluded from the discussion, just that your example is not a good one.

A player with high consistancy will play consistantly from game to game, a player with low consistancy will be a bit more hit and miss. But when you're restarting the same game over and over again the players consistancy is not particularly important.

[Proteus]

Is this what's happening though? I've yet to see an actual test done and proper results put forward. If that happens with a decent sized test set then there may be something to discuss, and we may find that there's a problem.

As this is not the case I can only go off my own experiences, which do not match what some people are saying in this thread (there are things I have a problem with in the game, which I've outlined earlier in this thread, but the accuracy of results in reloaded games is not one of them). I fail to believe there's a problem simply because someone says that they've seen a couple of people mention it on the forums.

So I suppose what I'm getting at is if someone is determined that there is a problem with this area they need to save a game directly before going into a match and then replay that match 20 times before posting the results. It will then be possible to get a real idea of whether there is a problem.

But you're foisting your own experiences of the ME on others and then dismissing others' experiences of the same thing.

Show some tolerance for alternative points of view, please.

Thank you.

[Rupal]

Playability of FM as a game is the point at issue here really, as Proteus has said.

The random element, however intellectually justified, seems to me to be too great to allow a good gaming experience.

I like intellectual puzzles - I play chess and have played many computer game involving strategy and tactics. I like to be stretched and enjoy the challenge of having to solve problems. I like there to be a logical solution available to me no matter how hard it may be to find it.

I find the random chance element in FM unacceptably high. I frequently feel that I might just as well roll a couple of dice to get the final result as to try to use my intelligence to come up with the best strategy for the matches. However 'realistic' this may be (and I think this is still very debatable), it is not what I am looking for in a game. To this extent, FM '09 is a failure for me.

[Hammer1000]

Garry,

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

No, you are right, although i know very little about car engines, but i do know if somethings wrong with it, plus i'm a great driver!

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

In my own defence, i did start off giving constructive criticism when i first joined the Forums here, but was given a massive amount of abuse from Fanboys(sorry) and Moderators, which became increasingly frustrating and i just felt at that time that i was being purposely silenced for being derogatory towards the game.

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

I can understand that attempts at both 2D and 3D animation are aimed at making the game more realistic and that this was the future of the game, but what is somewhat worrying is that the game has lost a massive amount of balance since it was introduced.

The last time i played a release in this series that saw me win a few games i should have lost and lost a few games i should have won etc, was back in CM01/02, this was also at a time when the quality of players in your side would have much more of an effect on the outcome, so that if you slowly built up a good side over a number of seasons, you would gradually improve your teams stature in the game.

I played CM01/02 long before i even knew about bugs and patches and Forums etc, yet it remains the most Balanced game the series has ever produced.

Now if FM09 had that balance added to the 2D and 3D representation, it would be by far the most amazing game ever released(even with the large amount of minor bugs it has)

Sadly though, it falls a long way short, a lot of the football is misrepresented and it is all but impossible to work out tactical weaknesses based on the match representation?

Whereas in CM01/02 i would win a few, lose a few draw a few, when outplayed or vice versa, i find that in all recent releases it is much too simple to dominate, both on the pitch and statistically, which is where a lot of the balance has been lost, even more so when it appears that almost every goal i concede is from basic error or another out of nowhere, whilst the AI continues to play near perfect football, with even the very poorest of players?

I hope you understand the context of how this post was written.

Thanks PaulC

Garry

[Proteus]

I'm in no way saying that you should be excluded from the discussion, just that your example is not a good one.

A player with high consistancy will play consistantly from game to game, a player with low consistancy will be a bit more hit and miss. But when you're restarting the same game over and over again the players consistancy is not particularly important.

Are you deliberately not taking into account what I've written in my posts, Chopper99. Look here:

I ran the experiment over the course of an entire season and my team was still inconsistent despite every player in my squad having 20 for consistency.

Please refrain from repeating that my point refers to a single match. And please acknowledge that you understand this, otherwise it appears that you're deliberately failing to acknowledge points of view that don't fit with your conception of how the ME functions.

Thank you

[footynut]

Hang on, what if Chelsea had cleared the corner where Utd scored the first and gone in at 0-0. Are you absolutely sure it couldnt have finished 0-0 or 1-0 either way?

That's true because the goal changed the game completely IMO. Firstly it was the worst time to concede a goal being right on half time as it gave United a boost and deflated Chelsea.

Also Chelsea immediately made a change for the second half with Anelka coming on for Deco which as Scolari and others have already said opened up the midfield giving United more time and space.

[chopper99]

But you're foisting your own experiences of the ME on others and then dismissing others' experiences of the same thing.

Show some tolerance for alternative points of view, please.

Thank you.

Not really, what I'm doing is saying that the way it works at the moment is correct and giving examples of why I think so.

But apart from yourself no-one else is attempting to give examples of the game not working as it should making it difficult to analyse the situation.

I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong and turn round and say 'actually it does look like there is a little too much randomeness to replayed matches'. But as of yet we've seen no evidence of this at all.

[CaptainPlanet]

Why the focus on tactics then, if ultimately the random seed is more important? It's giving people false hope that they're in control by proxi that it's a computer game and they expect to be able to "beat" it, or at most greatly mitigate the chance of losing.

You lose a lot of the fun factor if you aim for realism, if that's the route you want to go down, then fine, I'm sure everyone can come up with 100 parts of the game that aren't realistic, if you are aiming for pure realism people may as well go and do the job for real.

You can take Witton Albion to the top of the premiership within the confines of the game, but you can't make 90% sure that your Man Utd team will beat Swindon in the FA Cup.

I've said before that the game feels like you're trying to appease both sets of fans, you want it to be a game but you want it to be realistic. The balance is what a lot of people are disagreeing with because it doesn't feel right.

[chopper99]

Are you deliberately not taking into account what I've written in my posts, Chopper99. Look here:

I ran the experiment over the course of an entire season and my team was still inconsistent despite every player in my squad having 20 for consistency.

Please refrain from repeating that my point refers to a single match. And please acknowledge that you understand this, otherwise it appears that you're deliberately failing to acknowledge points of view that don't fit with your conception of how the ME functions.

Thank you

The example you gave was of a single match played three times over.

Just giving your players 20 for consistancy and then expecting them to be consistant is not a particularly good experiment. Moral, team talks, media interaction, and many many other things come into play.

The point people are trying to make, and that I'm arguing against, is that there is too much of a random element in the game. The only way to properly test this is to replay the same match over and over again with exactly the same tactics, team talks etc etc. There are so many things to take into consideration over the course of a season that one person saying that there team was not consistant over the course of that season is not a valid test.

[Rupal]

Chopper99, this is the sort of thing that people are saying. I haven't searched through every post (!!) but I'm sure this isn't unique.

Re: The right difficulty balance this time around?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I agree with the OP. It's a long post T4rg4 has written, and I could pinpoint some of the complaints and agree with them, but rather than doing so I will just add something that has made it hard for me to enjoy the game.

I had a match coming up, that I decided to play 12 times in a row (playing, realoading, playing, reloading). I won it 7 times, lost it 4 times and drew once. The most terrifying fact is that I beat the opposition 4-0 in one game and lost another one 3-0. The stats weren't consistent at all; sometimes I would outplay them and sometimes they kicked my behind.

Do I need to mention that in every game I used the same tactics to 100% and that I team talked my men in the exact same way?

As I said, I agree with the op, and this little experiment of mine has made me even more blunt to the whole experience.

And just to finish this one off, I wanna add that I actually am doing good in the game. So please, spare me from any "if-the-game's-too-hard-for-you-yadda-yadda-yadda". Thanks!

That was from a thread called 'The right difficulty balance this time round'.

[chopper99]

Thanks Rupal, that's the kind of thing I've been looking for. Could you link me to the thread that's from please.

One person replaying the same game 12 times indicates that there may be an issue, but it's still a very small test set and without more people doing similar tests doesn't yet prove that there is a problem.

[Proteus]

Not really, what I'm doing is saying that the way it works at the moment is correct and giving examples of why I think so.

But apart from yourself no-one else is attempting to give examples of the game not working as it should making it difficult to analyse the situation.

I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong and turn round and say 'actually it does look like there is a little too much randomeness to replayed matches'. But as of yet we've seen no evidence of this at all.

But everyone's experience of the ME is subjective. So what is correct for you isn't necessarily correct for me or anyone else.

Without proof you appear unwilling to accept the experiences others have had with FM09s ME. Yet you want us to accept that the ME is correct and that our experiences and observations of the ME are false/misguided/inaccurate/etc simply because you're are telling us that they are based on your experiences.

That's arrogant and insulting.

[HL7]

I haven't done much testing of this in FM2009 but from what I know it's down to things like luck, moral, personality etc.

As an example, in one game the luck factor may be added to to your tactics and your player attributes in such a way that your team scores in the 5th minute of a match. From then on that game is going to be different to any other repeat performance of this game. What happens after that goal depends on so many things it's unbelievable, from the attributes of the AI manager to the personality of your squad to the tactical changes you make as a manger.

So lets say you replay this game and in the second match you don't get that bit of luck in the first 5 minutes, again everything from that point on will be completely different from the first game.

That's why, in real life, if Man Utd played Chelsea 4 times in a row the score would rarely be the same in all 4 games.

It would be much more worrying for me if you replayed a game and got the same result every time.

Hang on, what if Chelsea had cleared the corner where Utd scored the first and gone in at 0-0. Are you absolutely sure it couldnt have finished 0-0 or 1-0 either way?

As I said I can only speculate (much like anyone else) but the fact is despite all the little things that could have been different, Chelsea lacked the desire and belief that Man Utd had. I believe that the game could be played several times with exactly the same initial variables and ended with similar results (ie, a Chelsea defeat). Obviously in a world where random things can happen it wouldn't be guarenteed, but very likely imo. This is where FM falls down for me. The random possibility seems to hold more power than the more probably and likely result.

[CaptainPlanet]

Oh I have some great stats, complete with screenshots and saves across a variety of top and lower league clubs with some interesting results.

The problem here is that if they don't think it's a problem, it's pointless posting any stats/evidence.

[djwilko6]

But everyone's experience of the ME is subjective. So what is correct for you isn't necessarily correct for me or anyone else.

Without proof you appear unwilling to accept the experiences others have had with FM09s ME. Yet you want us to accept that the ME is correct and that our experiences and observations of the ME are false/misguided/inaccurate/etc simply because you're are telling us that they are based on your experiences.

That's arrogant and insulting.

The exact same could be said for you tho, it works both ways.

I don't see the big deal about asking for proof either, but then maybe you could ask him for his own proof

[djwilko6]

Oh I have some great stats, complete with screenshots and saves across a variety of top and lower league clubs with some interesting results.

The problem here is that if they don't think it's a problem, it's pointless posting any stats/evidence.

If you're giving evidence then it doesn't matter if they THINK it's not a problem, you have PROOF that there is.

I'm enjoying this discussion and would love to have some tangible proof (eg with screenshots) rather than people just saying it.

[PaulC]

Why the focus on tactics then, if ultimately the random seed is more important? It's giving people false hope that they're in control by proxi that it's a computer game and they expect to be able to "beat" it, or at most greatly mitigate the chance of losing.

Sorry, but I dont understand how you deduce that the random seed is more important? If you play match A 100 times, with a different random seed each time, then that shouldnt stop a superior team ( on the day ) from winning an expected share of the matches.

You lose a lot of the fun factor if you aim for realism, if that's the route you want to go down, then fine, I'm sure everyone can come up with 100 parts of the game that aren't realistic, if you are aiming for pure realism people may as well go and do the job for real.

That is totally a matter of opinion.

You can take Witton Albion to the top of the premiership within the confines of the game, but you can't make 90% sure that your Man Utd team will beat Swindon in the FA Cup.

Thats a poor comparison because one is done over 10-20 seasons and the other over 90 minutes.

I've said before that the game feels like you're trying to appease both sets of fans, you want it to be a game but you want it to be realistic. The balance is what a lot of people are disagreeing with because it doesn't feel right.

The balance is something we will always be working towards. On these forums and beyond, you folks buying the game will make your own opinions and presumably act accordingly whenever a new title is available to buy, based on the demo, your experience of last year's game, these forums etc etc. If we made a product as bad as some of the people in this thread allude to then I doubt we would be selling the sort of numbers that we do. But that doesnt mean we at SI are ever 100% happy with the state of the game - we are always looking to improve it if we can.

[Proteus]

The example you gave was of a single match played three times over.

Just giving your players 20 for consistancy and then expecting them to be consistant is not a particularly good experiment. Moral, team talks, media interaction, and many many other things come into play.

I didn't just give them 20 for consistency and then expect to be consistent throughout the season. I gave them the following:

Consistency - 20

Big Matches - 20

Determination - 20

Every personality trait except Controversy - 20

Dirtiness - 1

CA - Maxed out to match a player's PA

Morale - I used FMRTE to make my players' morale superb before every game.

Team Talks - I made my Ass Man the best in the game by making his CA 200, his motivation 20, his tactical knowledge 20, etc, etc.

I succeeded in FM06, 07, and 08 despite allowing my Ass Man to make the team-talks. Why should it be different in FM09?

Media Interaction - Again, I allowed my Ass Man to do this. In previous versions of FM I ignored media questions and nothing detrimental happened to my results.

And please understand this, Chopper99 -

I have bought and played EVERY iteration of CM/FM since 1993. I'm 28 and I know how to play the game. Please do not condescend me by suggesting that I don't know how to prepare my squad for victory

Thank you.

[Rupal]

Thanks Rupal, that's the kind of thing I've been looking for. Could you link me to the thread that's from please.

One person replaying the same game 12 times indicates that there may be an issue, but it's still a very small test set and without more people doing similar tests doesn't yet prove that there is a problem.

I'm hopeless at links and things.

However, if you go back 3 pages in the General Discussion forum (this one) you will find it.

[Proteus]

The exact same could be said for you tho, it works both ways.

I don't see the big deal about asking for proof either, but then maybe you could ask him for his own proof

Fair enough. That's a good point, djwilko.

I have no problem with proof, either. Indeed, I'd like to see some regardless of which side of the argument it supports. And furthermore, if it supports the side of the argument that suggests that the ME is fine and the observations others have made are erroneous or due to poor management of their squads then I'll embrace it.

I apologise for calling you arrogant, Chopper99.

Thanks

[chopper99]

But everyone's experience of the ME is subjective. So what is correct for you isn't necessarily correct for me or anyone else.

Without proof you appear unwilling to accept the experiences others have had with FM09s ME. Yet you want us to accept that the ME is correct and that our experiences and observations of the ME are false/misguided/inaccurate/etc simply because you're are telling us that they are based on your experiences.

That's arrogant and insulting.

Hold on, you started out by saying the following:

If a team chock full of players with 20 for consistency can't play consistently then something is horrendously wrong with the ME!

And since have been just as guilty as myself of being unwilling to accept that the test that you've done may not prove what you've claimed all that well. I actually stated in a previous post that I'm quite happy to accept that I may be wrong.

And can I just point out that at no point have I said anything about the state of the FM match engine. All I'm debating is the effect of the random seed (or luck, or whatever you want to call it) on the outcome of a match.

EDIT: I've just seen your last post. I apologise also if I've seemed arrogant in any way as this was not my intent. Perhaps we shall agree to disagree?

[CaptainPlanet]

Sorry, but I dont understand how you deduce that the random seed is more important? If you play match A 100 times, with a different random seed each time, then that shouldnt stop a superior team ( on the day ) from winning an expected share of the matches.

You're right, it shouldn't, but it does - that's the point that I (and others) are trying to make. We're not in as much control as we want.

I'm sure you're relatively happy with the product and sales figures most likely reflect that, and I comend you for not being complacent, but peoples concerns aren't unfounded.

It's clearly visable that the random seed/butterfly effect whatever you want to call it, has a bigger impact in FM09 than in previous versions. Like I said, if that's the route you want to go down, then fine, but it's not for me.

[Wayne\'o]

if you watch closely, these mistakes are prefabricated, before a ball is kicked, the computer has already calculated what is going to happen in the next 5 moves ahead etc.. so knowing this, it makes your defender look stupid so it can give a striker a goal scoring opening, it's the same when a goal keeper collects a shot. the ball at the last minute jets up into the goal keepers arms after rolling slower than a snail along the ground..

Anoter instance is players making tackles and winning the ball when they arnt even close to the player they are tackling.. the calculations of results and match instances are *******.

it's like a trick trying to decieve the eye, it doesnt work after a while.

the other is, your 3-0 up playing superb, suddenly the Ai makes a change in tactics and suddenly, your defender or player's in general dont know how to play a game of football or how to run, tackle or any thing... because they already know the out come 5 moves later, it makes your players do stupid thing's to make it look like your player made a mistake..

in 9 months time there will be another game released, and the problems from this game will still be here, and next year and the year after, why make a new game when you havn't even fixed problems from previous version's..

i think you have to blame the people to test the game's not make them, what on earth do they do when they test it? drink tea and put a blind fold on?

joe public can buy the game and with in 5 minutes list tons of bugs? why did testers never pick these up?

[Proteus]

No, you're correct to point out my own stubbornness and inflexibility concerning your own experience of the ME. Your experience is just as valid as my own, after all.

I'm just a little concerned that my Aston Villa team was quite inconsistent throughout the season despite the modifications I made to them.

As you can see from the post above, the modifications were comprehensive and should have - imo - resulted in a level of consistency greater than the one I observed.

Being unable to maintain consistency throughout an entire season with a team that only contains players who have been heavily modified to remain consistent has made me exceedingly frustrated with FM09.

Thanks

Edit - And I'll say it again for emphasis: I'm not coming to FM09 with no experience of the series. Indeed, I have played every version of FM/CM since 1993 and I've enjoyed phenomenal success with my team's in every version of the game. I do know how to win in FM. Honest!