Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?)

[Hammer1000]

It was just because you said that 90% of games had results like you mentioned in the first post, and then you said you over-achieve...it is a little contradictory. I will give you a straight answer just give me the instructions you are using and I will do some testing and see what is going on. But everytime some one has asked you for this or a PKM you always refuse, so you have put yourself in a never-ending cycle. Asking for help and then not letting anyone do so...

I explained in another thread about PKM's and then actually uploaded 1 or 2.

People will watch the game and say things like "oh i can see your problem immediately, your defensive instructions are shocking" then i show them that the 5 games previous and five games after i kept a clean sheet in each one and then it continues to go wrong from there.

If you want to look at the tactic, by all means, but maybe i should upload the 8 or 9 tactics and sets i've used and overachieved with and still regularly have games like this that i lose, even though each one has completely different settings and instructions???

[chopper99]

This has happened enough times for me to realise that it is'nt tactical, at least not in the way you are selling it, but i remain open to suggestions about how to reduce the number of times this occurs?(without having to sabotage my own tactic to do so)

If that is true then you can end this whole argument by uploading your save game for people to have a look at.

If you upload a save before one of these so called 'unwinnable' matches occurs and people manage to win it would you accept that they've done so because they've simply done something different to you tactically?

[Rupal]

You can't make assumptions about how a human manager has given his tactical instructions by looking at the match stats either, nymanr.

On a number of occasions I have won matches with my side set to defend deep and counter attack. I have found that I have dominated possession, had more shots and CCCs and so on. Most of the time my players were camped in the opposition half.

The result was pleasing but the pattern of play and the stats bore very little relationship to how I had set the team to play.

[Hammer1000]

There is a simple fact that unfortunately undermines the game in its current format and that is that the Match Engine still cannot cope with many user designed tactics.

wwfan who had a hand in developing the current engine admitted that the problems on FM 08 where caused by the fact that the match engine could not counter the "crazy arrow" tactics that were very popular, and as a result you would regularly see games where you had 20 plus shots to the computers 1 and still lose. Despite the removal of the ability to create crazy arrow tactics it would seem that we are still very much in the same boat.

I would guess that if you played a season with a default tactic, you would obtain less points over the course of a season than with a well constructed user tactic, but that you would feel that the outcomes of the individual matches were fairer.

If you play with a user designed tactic the computer teams are not capable of preventing you from creating a plethora of chances, so you will see the type of game that this thread is concerned with.

Away from tactics I am not at all happy with the effect team talks have on matches, I don't think these reflect real life at all and to have to take into account factors like how many times in a row you have used the same talk etc is just plain daft. I don't think team talks should ever have been introduced into the game to be honest as there is no way to make them realistic.

Great post swash, good to hear from you and appreciate your input!

COYI

[RT--]

There's no such thing as a 'good tactic' across the board, though, is there?

A good tactic is one which suits your players, and also suits the situation itself - so it depends on the way the opposition is set up, their players, the condition and size of the pitch, the morale and condition of your players and the oppositions, etc....

So a tactic that works well against a team that sets up with a balanced formation won't necessarily work well against a team that sits very deep and tries to hit you with counter-attacks.

I'd suggest that Hammer has never won a game where he's had significantly fewer shots than the opponent because it's unlikely that he sets up his tactics to achieve this kind of result - a very defensive set-up with the odd counter-attack or a last-5-minutes assault on the opposition goal, or whatever.

From the screenshots he's been posting, it looks like his tactics are generally quite successful, but he has problems winning some specific games where he dominates the possession and shots. A few people have suggested tactical tweaks to try and solve this - I'm sure he'd get more if he posted this in the Tactics forum, and provided more detail on his tactics or a few PKMs.

As it is, he (and a couple of others) seem convinced there's some strange calculations going on here which bias the game towards teams who have only a couple of shots, and are dismissive of people who try and argue that it's not. It's not a coincidence that these threads rarely end with much productive discussion.

[Rupal]

In most cases (including this one in my opinion) that difference will be tactical.

Precisely, in your opinion.

Unfortunately, your opinion is just that - you have no evidence to justify it.

[Hammer1000]

If that is true then you can end this whole argument by uploading your save game for people to have a look at.

If you upload a save before one of these so called 'unwinnable' matches occurs and people manage to win it would you accept that they've done so because they've simply done something different to you tactically?

Chopper, if i'd saved beforehand and simply reuploaded it after the loss, i'd bet i'd win the game too, but i'd suffer from it in future results for doing so.

I NEVER said it was unwinnable.

[Loversleaper]

There's no such thing as a 'good tactic' across the board, though, is there?

A good tactic is one which suits your players, and also suits the situation itself - so it depends on the way the opposition is set up, their players, the condition and size of the pitch, the morale and condition of your players and the oppositions, etc....

So a tactic that works well against a team that sets up with a balanced formation won't necessarily work well against a team that sits very deep and tries to hit you with counter-attacks.

I'd suggest that Hammer has never won a game where he's had significantly fewer shots than the opponent because it's unlikely that he sets up his tactics to achieve this kind of result - a very defensive set-up with the odd counter-attack or a last-5-minutes assault on the opposition goal, or whatever.

From the screenshots he's been posting, it looks like his tactics are generally quite successful, but he has problems winning some specific games where he dominates the possession and shots. A few people have suggested tactical tweaks to try and solve this - I'm sure he'd get more if he posted this in the Tactics forum, and provided more detail on his tactics or a few PKMs.

As it is, he (and a couple of others) seem convinced there's some strange calculations going on here which bias the game towards teams who have only a couple of shots, and are dismissive of people who try and argue that it's not. It's not a coincidence that these threads rarely end with much productive discussion.

A very accurate insight...

[Rupal]

If that is true then you can end this whole argument by uploading your save game for people to have a look at.

If you upload a save before one of these so called 'unwinnable' matches occurs and people manage to win it would you accept that they've done so because they've simply done something different to you tactically?

That would not be a valid experiment as I am sure you must be aware.

There has been enough discussion in other threads about the 'butterfly effect' of chaos theory to make it clear enough that you can't even guarantee a similar result with the same tactics. If the same tactics can produce different results because of the various other factors then it would not be surprising if different tactics produced different ones as well.

[RT--]

Precisely, in your opinion.

Unfortunately, your opinion is just that - you have no evidence to justify it.

To be fair - if you're going to suggest that the match engine is in some way biased towards teams who have fewer shots, or towards the AI, or anything along those lines, then the onus is on you to provide evidence to justify it. Because that's a far bolder claim than someone saying that a particular tactical setup might lead to certain results.

I haven't seen anything particularly convincing, yet.

[chopper99]

Precisely, in your opinion.

Unfortunately, your opinion is just that - you have no evidence to justify it.

That's the whole trouble with these type of arguments though. You don't have any evidence to justify your opinion that it is not tactical.

So we either debate what we believe is happening or, because neither if us has any hard evidence, we just say nothing.

[Hammer1000]

There's no such thing as a 'good tactic' across the board, though, is there?

A good tactic is one which suits your players, and also suits the situation itself - so it depends on the way the opposition is set up, their players, the condition and size of the pitch, the morale and condition of your players and the oppositions, etc....

So a tactic that works well against a team that sets up with a balanced formation won't necessarily work well against a team that sits very deep and tries to hit you with counter-attacks.

I'd suggest that Hammer has never won a game where he's had significantly fewer shots than the opponent because it's unlikely that he sets up his tactics to achieve this kind of result - a very defensive set-up with the odd counter-attack or a last-5-minutes assault on the opposition goal, or whatever.

From the screenshots he's been posting, it looks like his tactics are generally quite successful, but he has problems winning some specific games where he dominates the possession and shots. A few people have suggested tactical tweaks to try and solve this - I'm sure he'd get more if he posted this in the Tactics forum, and provided more detail on his tactics or a few PKMs.

As it is, he (and a couple of others) seem convinced there's some strange calculations going on here which bias the game towards teams who have only a couple of shots, and are dismissive of people who try and argue that it's not. It's not a coincidence that these threads rarely end with much productive discussion.

Then explain the Sunderland Cup and the Sunderland EPL scenario then?

If its certain tactics against certain teams, then how come i lose one despite dominating then the very next i win comfortably?

Are you suggesting that the AI would completely change its tactic from one game to the very next despite winning???

Its also hard to get productive discussion, simply because we are all just grasping at straws as to what is the cause?.

[chopper99]

That would not be a valid experiment as I am sure you must be aware.

There has been enough discussion in other threads about the 'butterfly effect' of chaos theory to make it clear enough that you can't even guarantee a similar result with the same tactics. If the same tactics can produce different results because of the various other factors then it would not be surprising if different tactics produced different ones as well.

Of course it would be. From what I can gather, Hammer yourself and Mijta are suggesting that, because he is overachieving, the game decides that he will lose this game to keep the final league table realistic.

If he uploads that save and other people can win that game it simply blows that theory out of the water. It also proves my suggestion that you can win any game that you go into. Butterfly effect and all that matters for nothing if you're claiming that the user cannot win these games simply because the AI has decided they wont so that a realistic final league table is produced.

If that's not what you're saying then I must have missed something.

[Indi75]

There speaks a real optimist!

He's been trolling the negatives on every thread for over a year now, just ignore it.

I've no idea why he's still here, obviously hates the game and has done for a while.

Just another drama queen injecting cynicism into every conversation and reducing to his gutteresque levels of debate.

[nymanr]

"Rupal"

Well you are right as even if i knew what settings he used i could only guess what is wrong, but from my experience when i have come across games like this it has helped me to go slower and wider to drag holes in the opponents defence. This was a huge issue in FM08

One thing i have noticed though with my Man Utd game is how hard it is to overachive with good teams. I find it easy to overachive with bad teams or midtable teams and finish much higher in the table then expected, but when i play with a good team i can only achive what was expected.

[Rupal]

To be fair - if you're going to suggest that the match engine is in some way biased towards teams who have fewer shots, or towards the AI, or anything along those lines, then the onus is on you to provide evidence to justify it. Because that's a far bolder claim than someone saying that a particular tactical setup might lead to certain results.

I haven't seen anything particularly convincing, yet.

I haven't suggested either of those things. All that I have been saying is that it is an assumption that it is down to tactics as opposed to (for example) team talks or motivation or the weather or an overall 'balancing' element or morale or a weakness in the program or what have you.

[JimbobWWFC]

There are certainly too many of these threads recently. Im ny opinion, it IS a tactics issue. You may have had 14 shots on goal, but only 4 on target. Play a slower tempo (and maybe shorter passing) to create better chances, not just half-chances that are difficult to finish, or even get on target. That is just a little information I found in the [thread=61144]TT&F '09[/thread].

[chopper99]

I haven't suggested either of those things. All that I have been saying is that it is an assumption that it is down to tactics as opposed to (for example) team talks or motivation or the weather or an overall 'balancing' element or morale or a weakness in the program or what have you.

So you agree that it is perfectly possible for him to win this game if he gets not only his tactics right, but his team talks and motivation etc correct?

[Hammer1000]

So you agree that it is perfectly possible for him to win this game if he gets not only his tactics right, but his team talks and motivation etc correct?

Read my reply to you mate, i explained it!

[Rupal]

Of course it would be. From what I can gather, Hammer yourself and Mijta are suggesting that, because he is overachieving, the game decides that he will lose this game to keep the final league table realistic.

If he uploads that save and other people can win that game it simply blows that theory out of the water. It also proves my suggestion that you can win any game that you go into. Butterfly effect and all that matters for nothing if you're claiming that the user cannot win these games simply because the AI has decided they wont so that a realistic final league table is produced.

If that's not what you're saying then I must have missed something.

All I suggested was that the result was not necessarily dependent on tactics. A lot of other factors go into matches and one of these may (I stress may) be an overall balancing effect.

If he uploaded the game and people altered tactics and won it, you appear to be saying that that would prove that the result was different because of the different tactics. It wouldn't. As you can reload a game and keep the same tactics and get different results or use different tactics and get the same result (as you unquestionably can) such an experiment would prove precisely nothing.

[chopper99]

As I've already said, there is one way to settle this argument.

Save each game directly before kick-off. When you come to one of these games that you claim you should definitely win but are somehow being stopped from winning, upload the save from directly before the match detailing what pre-match team talk you used. At this point moral will have been set and the only thing that can affect the game will be tactics and the random 'luck' element. I think you'd agree that the thread I started a while ago has already proved that the random element is not too strong so if people can go onto win this game comfortably using other tactics the only logical conclucion is that Hammers tactics are flawed against certain teams playing certain styles.

[Hammer1000]

As I've already said, there is one way to settle this argument.

Save each game directly before kick-off. When you come to one of these games that you claim you should definitely win but are somehow being stopped from winning, upload the save from directly before the match detailing what pre-match team talk you used. At this point moral will have been set and the only thing that can affect the game will be tactics and the random 'luck' element. I think you'd agree that the thread I started a while ago has already proved that the random element is not too strong so if people can go onto win this game comfortably using other tactics the only logical conclucion is that Hammers tactics are flawed against certain teams playing certain styles.

Sorry mate, but are you ignoring my posts on purpose? i've already explained it!

As for the rest of you claiming some kind of tactical issue, but not knowing what exactly, at least there are those of us here trying to explain what the problem may be?

[chopper99]

Sorry mate, but are you ignoring my posts on purpose? i've already explained it!

As for the rest of you claiming some kind of tactical issue, but not knowing what exactly, at least there are those of us here trying to explain what the problem may be?

You mean by the fact that you played the same team a few days later and got different results?

That proves nothing I'm afraid. The cup could be more or less important to that team meaning it's perfectly possible that they would send out a different team and play different tactics.

To be honest I'm pretty sure that from your previous posts you don't actually want help solving this issue, your happy with your tactics and don't want to change them and that's perfectly fine. I'm just giving you my opinions, and I've personally seen nothing that tells me that this isn't down to the fact that your tactics are flawed when teams play a certain way. I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong if you can prove otherwise, but as I said, I've so far seen nothing that even remotely proves otherwise.

[Rupal]

As I've already said, there is one way to settle this argument.

Save each game directly before kick-off. When you come to one of these games that you claim you should definitely win but are somehow being stopped from winning, upload the save from directly before the match detailing what pre-match team talk you used. At this point moral will have been set and the only thing that can affect the game will be tactics and the random 'luck' element. I think you'd agree that the thread I started a while ago has already proved that the random element is not too strong so if people can go onto win this game comfortably using other tactics the only logical conclucion is that Hammers tactics are flawed against certain teams playing certain styles.

And as I've already said, this wouldn't prove anything.

[RT--]

As for the rest of you claiming some kind of tactical issue, but not knowing what exactly, at least there are those of us here trying to explain what the problem may be?

Nobody can know 'what exactly' because you've provided very little details for anyone to go on. For all we know, you could have a 15-year old kid in goal and a 17-stone centre-back as your lone striker. If you're genuinely interested in tactical suggestions, post the problem in the Tactics forum and provide more details.

Otherwise, it's pretty simple - if you think that there's some 'balancing' or bias going on towards teams with fewer shots/less possession/whatever, then you need to work a lot harder to convince anyone. The three or four threads you've posted so far, with the odd screenshot of match stats, aren't anywhere near enough.

With regards the Sunderland games - how would you explain it? That there's this balancing/bias issue, but that it only happens for one or two games?

[Hammer1000]

You mean by the fact that you played the same team a few days later and got different results?

That proves nothing I'm afraid. The cup could be more or less important to that team meaning it's perfectly possible that they would send out a different team and play different tactics.

To be honest I'm pretty sure that from your previous posts you don't actually want help solving this issue, your happy with your tactics and don't want to change them and that's perfectly fine. I'm just giving you my opinions, and I've personally seen nothing that tells me that this isn't down to the fact that your tactics are flawed when teams play a certain way. I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong if you can prove otherwise, but as I said, I've so far seen nothing that even remotely proves otherwise.

I've also explained that i could have replayed the game myself and won, but would pay the consequences in future results.

And yes, i do want help, but its not a tactical issue, i want help finding the real issue?

[chopper99]

And as I've already said, this wouldn't prove anything.

Why not?

Everything other than tactics are already set and saved. The only other thing that could affect the outcome is the 'random element'. So your left with the outcome being decided by either the random element or the users tactic. As I said, I've done enough tests to convince me that the random element is not too strong, so if other people can win this game using other tactics what does that say to you?

[chopper99]

I've also explained that i could have replayed the game myself and won, but would pay the consequences in future results.

And yes, i do want help, but its not a tactical issue, i want help finding the real issue?

So you genuinely do believe that the game will punish you at some point to maintain realistic results?

[Hammer1000]

Nobody can know 'what exactly' because you've provided very little details for anyone to go on. For all we know, you could have a 15-year old kid in goal and a 17-stone centre-back as your lone striker. If you're genuinely interested in tactical suggestions, post the problem in the Tactics forum and provide more details.

Otherwise, it's pretty simple - if you think that there's some 'balancing' or bias going on towards teams with fewer shots/less possession/whatever, then you need to work a lot harder to convince anyone. The three or four threads you've posted so far, with the odd screenshot of match stats, aren't anywhere near enough.

With regards the Sunderland games - how would you explain it? That there's this balancing/bias issue, but that it only happens for one or two games?

I dont need tactical help, which is why i posted in this Forum and i'm not trying to prove the game cheats, it cant be cheating if its coded to do what it is doing?

Have a look at Swash's post again and read how wwfan said they had solved this issue by the removal of the crazy arrows, this is about as much proof as is needed to realise this was accepted as a massive issue with 08 and that despite the removal of fancy arrows, the problem very much remains in 09.

What else do you need?

[Rupal]

Chopper99, it's been pointed out by those anxious to rebut claims that the game is too random that the 'butterfly effect' would be quite adequate to explain the difference between a 1-0 defeat and a 4-0 win.

If that is so, then that would apply equally in this case. If you replayed Hammer1000's game with different tactics and won it 4-0 it wouldn't prove a thing.

Is the game random or not???

[Hammer1000]

So you genuinely do believe that the game will punish you at some point to maintain realistic results?

Of course it does, i dont regard it as cheating though, i find it a neccesity because of the massive failings yet again of the ME.

Please dont tell me you are happy with the current ME and Matchday Experience?

I still remain hopeful that someone will hold the knowledge to help reduce this from happening so often?

[chopper99]

In the thread I started it showed that, when done properly, there were very, very few cases where you went from a 1-0 defeat to a 4-0 win. Most results were in fact very similar with little variation. So no, for me the game is not too random.

This has now no longer become an issue for me though after this post by Hammer:

I've also explained that I could have replayed the game myself and won, but would pay the consequences in future results.

This suggests that he believes the game is programmed to punish over-achieving in some way, a view that we will never agree on. Many people in the challenges forum have edited the attributes of players in poor teams and have gone on to storm leagues. If the game punished you for over-achieving then this simply could not happen.

[DanGLiverpool]

One thing I have learned is that in BSS, none of the downloadable tactics really work, unless specifically aimed at that level. I stick to the standard 4-3-3 attacking, and have found relatively good success.

[chopper99]

Hammer, I refer you to the last paragraph of my post above. If the game was programmed to have some kind of 'leveller' then people would not be able to storm leagues and go unbeaten with edited teams.

[JimbobWWFC]

i could have replayed the game myself and won, but would pay the consequences in future results

I have also found this. If I reload to win or draw a game I originally lost, I would find that I am punished by seemingly 'unfair' results in later games. Therefore, I do not reload, because everything evens itself out, and you will get your own fair share of luky results to compensate for those incredibly unlucky results that go against you

[RT--]

I dont need tactical help, which is why i posted in this Forum and i'm not trying to prove the game cheats, it cant be cheating if its coded to do what it is doing?

Have a look at Swash's post again and read how wwfan said they had solved this issue by the removal of the crazy arrows, this is about as much proof as is needed to realise this was accepted as a massive issue with 08 and that despite the removal of fancy arrows, the problem very much remains in 09.

What else do you need?

With regards Swash's post: yes, I remember wwfan explaining that one of the reasons that the arrows were removed was because they were being used in some cases to produce tactics that the AI couldn't realistically cope with. But I don't remember him saying that the game had consequently been balanced by biasing the game towards teams (AI or human) who had very few shots on goal, or anything like that.

If you can find me a post by wwfan, or anyone else closely involved in the Match Engine (be it from SI or not) which suggests that there's this balancing effect (or whatever you want to call it), then I'd be very interested to read it.

[chopper99]

If you can find me a post by wwfan, or anyone else closely involved in the Match Engine (be it from SI or not) which suggests that there's this balancing effect (or whatever you want to call it), then I'd be very interested to read it.

As would I.

[Ah Fat]

When people steal a win from the dominating AI, they will say: oh, my tactic works!!!

When people dominate but draw or lose, they will say: AI is cheating!!!

[Hammer1000]

This suggests that he believes the game is programmed to punish over-achieving in some way, a view that we will never agree on. Many people in the challenges forum have edited the attributes of players in poor teams and have gone on to storm leagues. If the game punished you for over-achieving then this simply could not happen.

What???

How is it overachieving when you have edited the players to be the best in the league your in?

Also, the difference between teams in the lower leagues is minor, a couple of good loan deals and you may well have a team expected to come 24th having one of the best squads in the Division.

[Rupal]

Hammer, I refer you to the last paragraph of my post above. If the game was programmed to have some kind of 'leveller' then people would not be able to storm leagues and go unbeaten with edited teams.

You are not taking into account the question of how much weight this factor would have in determining the result of a particular match. If you edited Elgin to have all of Barcelona's players (to choose an extreme example) it would take a quite huge weighting to prevent them from beating Raith Rovers in a Scottish cup match.

There's no need to assume that a factor like this should be so extreme, though.

[Rupal]

As would I.

Paul C has made much of the overall realism of the final league tables.

Clearly, therefore, results between AI teams are certainly subject to such an effect.

[chopper99]

I'm talking about people editing the attributes of players currently at the club. The game uses the clubs reputation to determine where they are expected to finish in the league, so editing the attributes of the players will have no baring on this in the first season. These teams can then quite happily storm the league simply because there players have excellent attributes, yet the game still see them as a team predicted to finish 20th.

So yes, it will be overachieving, and it is very possible.

[chopper99]

Paul C has made much of the overall realism of the final league tables.

Clearly, therefore, results between AI teams are certainly subject to such an effect.

Yes, AI teams are. There has never been a mention of this affecting human teams, it would be foolish for SI to programme the game in this way.

[neilb242]

Hammer - why not try a bit of trial and error? save before a game you think may throw up a result like above, and try different things. There's a lot of variables, from team talk, morale, formation, individual tactically instructions, player selection and so on.

I don't know enough about the workings of tactics or the game in general to know the outcome of all these things combined, a lot of it may be luck. All I can suggest is to try different things, see what happens. change one thing at a time. Yes, it may be a long and dull thing to do, but you may find what you are looking for?

[JimbobWWFC]

Hammer - why not try a bit of trial and error? save before a game you think may throw up a result like above, and try different things. There's a lot of variables, from team talk, morale, formation, individual tactically instructions, player selection and so on.

I don't know enough about the workings of tactics or the game in general to know the outcome of all these things combined, a lot of it may be luck. All I can suggest is to try different things, see what happens. change one thing at a time. Yes, it may be a long and dull thing to do, but you may find what you are looking for?

For even more accurate results, do it with 2 user-controlled teams, so that the AI won't be changing variables to influence the results

[Rupal]

Yes, AI teams are. There has never been a mention of this affecting human teams, it would be foolish for SI to programme the game in this way.

It may, or may not affect human teams. I don't know. What SI decides to programme in or out of its game and why is a mystery beyond my limited understanding.

As far as editing teams is concerned, as I suggested earlier, it would depend surely on how much they were edited and how much weight was given to any balancing factor.

[Mitja]

To be fair - if you're going to suggest that the match engine is in some way biased towards teams who have fewer shots, or towards the AI, or anything along those lines, then the onus is on you to provide evidence to justify it. Because that's a far bolder claim than someone saying that a particular tactical setup might lead to certain results.

I haven't seen anything particularly convincing, yet.

the balancing thing is not something we made up on these forums. that is a feature which is coded into the game. it was last year when Mark or Paul (or someone else from SI) told us that.

[chopper99]

As far as editing teams is concerned, as I suggested earlier, it would depend surely on how much they were edited and how much weight was given to any balancing factor.

Not in terms of what Hammer is arguing, which is that over-achieving teams will be limited in some way by the game. The only thing the game will initially take into account when deciding where a team is predicted to finish is their reputation.

Try it yourself, edit all of Hulls players to be CA and PA of 200 then start a game, their predicted finishing spot will not have changed.

Then during the matches themselves the most important things taken into accound by the match engine when it's doing it's calculations are the players attributes and the tactics. There are many other things taken into account that affect the outcome, but these are the most important. If Hammers theory were true then this edited team would be punished in some way as their reputation shows them to be a lower end of the table team. But as I've seen time and time again in various parts of these forums, these edited teams are not punished and can be used to win leagues quite easily.

When it comes to match day the teams reputations are not taken into consideration in the actual calculations, only in the way in which the opposition will set up against you.

[Hammer1000]

I'm talking about people editing the attributes of players currently at the club. The game uses the clubs reputation to determine where they are expected to finish in the league, so editing the attributes of the players will have no baring on this in the first season. These teams can then quite happily storm the league simply because there players have excellent attributes, yet the game still see them as a team predicted to finish 20th.

So yes, it will be overachieving, and it is very possible.

Chopper - I have always admired your posts and have said so many times, but your last few are actually quite scary mate.

To suggest that giving players excellent attributes and this not having an effect on how the team performs is ludicrous to say the least and i'm astonished that it is YOU that has actually posted it?????

The same to a lesser extent with your last post regarding PaulC, surely if you are agreeing that this is actually the case, then you have to accept that this would apply somewhat to Human users also?

Especially when you, half the Forum AND SI, have already pointed out that there is absolutely NO distinction made between the Human and AI controlled team???

[chopper99]

the balancing thing is not something we made up on these forums. that is a feature which is coded into the game. it was last year when Mark or Paul (or someone else from SI) told us that.

It is coded into the game for AI teams only to make league tables in leagues that the user is not playing in look more realistic.