chopper99 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 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. While I agree that the user is not in as much control as they'd like I don't think this is to do with the random seed/butterfly effect. For me it's down to the fact that the tactical interface is too unintuative, especially now that arrows have been removed, and because of that it is quite difficult to understand why something is / isn't happen in the game and even more difficult to figure out what to do to change it to get the outcome you would expect. An example from my recent game is that using one tactic I was in a terrible run of form, slipping down the league rapidly. I changed formation and tactic and my results picked up dramatiacally and I started climbing back up the league. If the random seed was as important as people are claiming this tactical change would have made no difference as it would all be random as to whether I won or lost each game. The problem for me is that the tactic was pretty much trial nd error. I have no idea why it worked better than my previous tactics and daren't change anything about the tactic for fear of ruining it and being unable to recreate the exact combination of slider settings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 You're right, it shouldn't, but it does On what basis do you say that, though? Are you talking about only games where the human player is involved, or generally? 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. Again, what evidence is there for this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 At the moment, I imagine that FM '09 will have been selling well because there isn't an alternative available. LMA manager has bitten the dust and CM isn't out yet. Let's suppose, just suppose, that CM comes up with a decent 3D ME and a database roughly comparable with FM's. Let's suppose further that it doesn't go down the 'butterfly route' but weights the variables so that the 'luck factor' is less influential than it is in FM and that it is no more bugged/flawed than FM was on release. Not a totally unrealistic scenario. Which would be more enjoyable as a GAME? Whilst FM might be philosophically more 'realistic' (though this is open to debate), would it actually be as much fun to play? From my point of view, no. I suspect I am not alone. I am looking forward to the new CM. Maybe it will have what I'm looking for, which, as it stands, FM doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proteus Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think the tactics argument is valid but limited. I don't believe it comprehensively accounts for the myriad experiences that have been reported by some in this thread. Although I'm sure it does explain why some experience inconsistency. Hence its validity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think the tactics argument is valid but limited. I don't believe it comprehensively accounts for the myriad experiences that have been reported by some in this thread. Although I'm sure it does explain why some experience inconsistency. Hence its validity. True, it's just one example of why I personally haven't seen any evidence that this 'butterfly effect' is too strong in the game. But as you say it's limited as an example. If I have time when I get home I plan to replay the same match 20 or 30 times to see what the outcome is (i'd prefer to do 100 times but won't have time). As Paul C said, I'd expect the better team to come out on top the majority of the time, if there are any large variations from this then there may indeed be a problem. I'd invite others to try the same test in various games and whoever gets the first set of results to start a new thread on the subject. The more people that do the test and the more data we have the more complete a picture we will get of what's actually happening. And if it turns out that there is too much randomness then SI are more likely to listen to facts that are presented and evidence rather than speculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 13, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 13, 2009 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. Does it? I'm all ears...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPlanet Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I did the same game 20 times, against a non-league team in a cup draw (that I was heavily favoured to win) and results varied from thumping them, through scraping a draw to being demolished. The chance of an upset should be minimal in my eyes, say 10-20%, the results from the 20 games do not reflect that. The impression I get is that the random seed and the idea that (anything could happen to change the course of the game) is too heavily weighted against the hours you put in buying the right players and fixing the right tactic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 13, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 13, 2009 if you watch closely' date=' 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..[/quote']It doesnt work like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPlanet Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 It doesnt work like that. Isn't that from a TV advert? Does it? I'm all ears...... Alright alright keep your pants on, I'll provide the evidence this evening when I'm at home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 13, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 13, 2009 I did the same game 20 times, against a non-league team in a cup draw (that I was heavily favoured to win) and results varied from thumping them, through scraping a draw to being demolished.The chance of an upset should be minimal in my eyes, say 10-20%, the results from the 20 games do not reflect that. The impression I get is that the random seed and the idea that (anything could happen to change the course of the game) is too heavily weighted against the hours you put in buying the right players and fixing the right tactic. So what were the stats? Who were the teams involved? You can even send me the pkm for that match if you like....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Alright alright keep your pants on, I'll provide the evidence this evening when I'm at home. If you fancy starting a new thread about it CP I'll also do some testing tonight and add my results. Hopefully others will do the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Presumably, the AI approaches games against other AI opponents in much the same way as it approaches games against human opponents - it starts with a tactic suitable for its chances of winning the game, then makes adjustments to it in-game, depending on various events. Assuming that's the case, then I don't see a particularly high incidence of shocks/upsets over the course of an average season to support this notion that random chance plays too high a role in the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff PaulC Posted January 13, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yes, this thread has lost its direction. Start a new one and close this one I reckon....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.