Superkeeper is really disrespectful to FM players

[rocky0]

tak

Im curious as to what you think you are going to achieve here?? You go on ranting about how you are right and wwfan is wrong. You have been told what is happening and why it is happening, have been given info as to what is happening and why and yet you continue to argue. In your eyes anyone who does not agree with your "discussions" is wrong and you are right.

This is not a debate as you call it, its basically saying you are right and SI is wrong. Why dont you agree that you disagree and let it go. Comments are being made, like those by Kiwi mark this morning, that are going to get this thread closed and nothing will be resolved.

While you have every right to voice your opinion and such, just let it go already. You are not going to solve anything other than having another thread eventually closed down.

[tak]

Why do you say that rocky? Didn't we, during this discussion, find out about the need for match engine balance etc. This is a breakthrough. This discussion has been very very usefull. I don't understand why we should stop...

[rocky0]

I say it because this was known before your little discussion started. Look around the forums, this has been talked about to death and then some

[PaulC]

Regardless of whether people get this thread closed or not, the issues raised are being assessed for 10.3 anyway. My opinion is as I stated earlier in the thread, and the two tweaks in question will hopefully go a long way to making the ME better.

What I can't promise, unfortunately, is that it will be perfect, or that everyone will be happy.

Thanks to those who are debating constructively!

Cheers,

Paul

[tak]

Fair enough, I hadn't seen it stated before. So what other forms does this balancing mechanism takes apart from superkeepers (poor strikers)? Funny red cards? Injuries? Long distance screamers?

[tingting]

Regardless of whether people get this thread closed or not, the issues raised are being assessed for 10.3 anyway. My opinion is as I stated earlier in the thread, and the two tweaks in question will hopefully go a long way to making the ME better.

What I can't promise, unfortunately, is that it will be perfect, or that everyone will be happy.

Thanks to those who are debating constructively!

Cheers,

Paul

I might get branded as a moaner but are those the only two issues being looked at? because the defending is a bit broke in this version

[VMX]

In any case there is something very interesting in all the above. When SI introduced the latest patch they didn't foresee the "superkeeper" problem (or "fake chances" problem, it doesn't matter how we call it). However the game itself found a way to balance the effect of those fake chances. This, I repeat, is very very interesting. It shows clearly that there is a built-in mechanism in the match engine that will balance any unforeseen side effects and keep the scores at a realistic level.

This is outstanding. The match engine is restricted from producing unreasonable results. And, let's be real here guys, we all knew that this was happening and it absolutely makes sense. If I were to design a match engine I would built a similar restriction mechanism. Any of us would and if we didn't we would run the very real risk of producing chaos.

Hahaha. Dude, don't mean to be disrespectful here or anything, but you just couldn't be more wrong than you currently are.

Taking the above one step further, I believe there is a similar restriction mechanism when it comes to someone's managerial career. This mechanism will throw unexpected events at the manager to attempt to limit achievements at reasonable levels. My snotty friend crouchaldinho made a silly argument against that theory: How come he managed a small team to champion's cup glory? First of all, we have all done that. And second, we all did that by overcoming all that was thrown uppon us by the balancing mechanism. No problem. Some choose to call this mechanism "AI cheating". No matter how one calls it, it is a reality.

OMG, you love conspiracies eh?

Have you ever thought that the versions of the match engine (and the game in general) that are released to the public are thoroughly tested previously to make sure that they produce those realistic stats? As far as I know, there are probably dozens of versions in between each release, which probably don't produce those realistic results, and thus are improved and tweaked to accomplish that. No auto-compensating system at all.

It's not like they throw something new into the ME and then release it as 10.2. They probably put new stuff in, check the results, improve it, check the results again, put new stuff in, check the results, tweak it some more, check the results... etc., just like it's done with most games.

The reason why you get that feeling is because we only get to play finished versions of the game, which obviously produce realistic results, or otherwise SI wouldn't release them. This should give you an idea of how complex it is to produce a game like this and make it output realistic results while allowing you to micro-manage pretty much in every area.

[bigdunk]

There is a balance mechanism in the match engine that keeps scores at a reasonable level. In this version this balance mechanism took the form of the superkeeper (or dumb striker). We are told that this had to happen because there were too many "fake chances" created and if there was no counterweight we would see ridiculously high scores. We are also told that this issue will be fixed by creating defenders that mark better (unrealistic superdefenders in my opinion, as I believe that to restrict restrict this type of chances you have to put pressure on the playmakers).

In any case there is something very interesting in all the above. When SI introduced the latest patch they didn't foresee the "superkeeper" problem (or "fake chances" problem, it doesn't matter how we call it). However the game itself found a way to balance the effect of those fake chances. This, I repeat, is very very interesting. It shows clearly that there is a built-in mechanism in the match engine that will balance any unforeseen side effects and keep the scores at a realistic level.

I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. I've seen the post you're referring to and it in no way means what you think it means. The engine doesn't balance itself by artificially reducing finishing ratios, or upping keeper saving percentages. The way balancing works is that the programmer involved will get a version of the match engine that they are fairly happy with. They will then generate thousands of matches and compare that stats from those matches to real life (from scorelines, right down to individual passing percentages, finishing ratios etc). I presume they will also be watching many many matches aswell, rather than just relying on stats. Obviously some of the stats generated by the match engine will be off, so the engine is tweaked and the tests repeated. This will go on for as long as it takes until the engine is 'balanced'. No matter how many times this is done, some stats will not match up to real life due to the sheer complexity of it. The key thing is that the more 'important' the stat, the more important it is that it matches real life. Obviously the final scorelines are the most important stat, and that must take priority over anything else.

Presumably, 10.2 was got into the state it is in now and it was deemed that any problems with defending/scoring ratios was less significant than the potential problems that could be introduced by trying to fix them. If the final scorelines were compromised, for example, it would be a significantly bigger problem than the one we have now. You have to bear in mind that any change to the match engine could have massive consequences. It's not just a case of fixing the 'defenders being split' problem and then whacking up the finishing ratio. Those changes could potentially affect every defensive decision and every finishing probability. At the very least, those changes would need days of testing, tweaking and retesting just to be sure that they hadn't broken anything else.

[PaulC]

Fair enough, I hadn't seen it stated before. So what other forms does this balancing mechanism takes apart from superkeepers (poor strikers)? Funny red cards? Injuries? Long distance screamers?

What balancing 'mechanism'?

[tak]

Hahaha. Dude, don't mean to be disrespectful here or anything, but you just couldn't be more wrong than you currently are.

OMG, you love conspiracies eh?

Have you ever thought that the versions of the match engine (and the game in general) that are released to the public are thoroughly tested previously to make sure that they produce those realistic stats? As far as I know, there are probably dozens of versions in between each release, which probably don't produce those realistic results, and thus are improved and tweaked to accomplish that. No auto-compensating system at all.

It's not like they throw something new into the ME and then release it as 10.2. They probably put new stuff in, check the results, improve it, check the results again, put new stuff in, check the results, tweak it some more, check the results... etc., just like it's done with most games.

The reason why you get that feeling is because we only get to play finished versions of the game, which obviously produce realistic results, or otherwise SI wouldn't release them. This should give you an idea of how complex it is to produce a game like this and make it output realistic results while allowing you to micro-manage pretty much in every area.

And yet, in this version, we have the unrealistic situation (and this comes from SI) of "fake chances". The match engine produces an unrealistic number of ones-on-ones. This is a fact. The reason that we do not have unrealistic scores despite the high number of one-on-ones is the keeper efficiency which balances the "fake chances".

All the above have come from official lips. Once more: There are too many clear chances. You call them "fake chances" because they are not relistic. Yet, despite so manny of them, we have normal scores because most of them are unrealisticaly blocked.

I am saying that the "fake chances" problem is something that SI did not see during testing but the built-in balance mechanism picked up and corrected by increased keeper efficiency.

Are you saying that the "fake chances" problem was indeed known from testing and SI increased keeper efficiency themselves to avoid unrealistic scores?

[Rista]

Was just thinking, I remember like 10 years ago in MLS, instead of regular penalty shootouts they had ice hockey style penalties where players go one on one with the keeper. Anyone remember that? I know it's not really the same as a one on one in the actual match as there are no defenders but you only had 5 seconds or so to attempt a shot and it would be interesting to see which approach the players used the most (going straight at the keeper, at an angle, rounding the keeper etc) and how successful was their conversion rate.

[VMX]

And yet, in this version, we have the unrealistic situation (and this comes from SI) of "fake chances". The match engine produces an unrealistic number of ones-on-ones. This is a fact. The reason that we do not have unrealistic scores despite the high number of one-on-ones is the keeper efficiency which balances the "fake chances".

All the above have come from official lips. Once more: There are too many clear chances. You call them "fake chances" because they are not relistic. Yet, despite so manny of them, we have normal scores because most of them are unrealisticaly blocked.

I am saying that the "fake chances" problem is something that SI did not see during testing but the built-in balance mechanism picked up and corrected by increased keeper efficiency.

Are you saying that the "fake chances" problem was indeed known from testing and SI increased keeper efficiency themselves to avoid unrealistic scores?

First, you seem to be unaware that in such a complex match engine like this, the theory of the 'butterfly effect' plays a really important part. ANYTHING that is slightly changed or tweaked in one part of the ME, can suddenly cause a completely unexpected reaction somewhere else.

Second, I'm saying that the "fake chances" problem as you call it probably slipped in right at the last moment, just when SI were about to release 10.2. However, the large scale results of the match engine were, indeed, right. As you can understand, if SI have 1 or 2 days left to release 10.2, they can't play dozens of matches to test something that they believe to be pretty much alright. All they can do is take a look at some of the large scale numbers and see if everything's still alright like in previous versions. And the numbers were (and are) alright, so they probably missed the thing with the one on ones, and released 10.2.

Third, if the numbers are alright despite of the increase in one on ones, it's because those one on ones aren't, indeed, such good chances as they seem, at least in the eyes of the match engine. And I have explained that above, if you care to read. But there's no auto-compensating mechanism that will make the numbers right.

[mdbussen]

Well, think of it this way:

You're a striker, and you suddenly receive a through ball when you're just by the outer line of the box, completely centered. You turn towards the keeper and step into the box, while the keeper rushes out onto you. The keeper will rush out because you have no other option than shooting. No pass, no cross, no nothing, because you're completely centered in the box and too close to not shoot or to wait for some teammate to come. Thus, the keeper will come out to reduce your angle as much as possible. Unless you're lightning fast, it's very likely that by the time you get to actually shoot, the keeper will either spread his legs or his arms and cover as much space as possible, so your only chance is to slot the ball perfectly into one of the corners, even touching the post if possible. Chances are that you only dominate one foot, so you'll invariably have to choose just one of them, which reduces your chances even more. Then if you center it just a bit more than strictly necessary, the keeper will probably reach it with his hand or foot, unless you manage to place it just between his legs (which as far as I know is not implemented in the ME, but please correct me if I'm wrong).

Now think of this:

You're a right footed striker that comes from the left side, Henry style. As you approach the goal from the left and even step on the box, the keeper probably feels beat already (I've played as a keeper for years, and I can say this). He doesn't know if he should rush out or not, because, as you're so angled, you could easily make a deadly cross with enough time for someone to reach it, or even dribble right and open up lots of options. But if he doesn't rush out, he's showing you both the short post (even if it's just a little gap), and the far post, where even if you're not a world class striker like Henry was, you can probably make a curved shot that no keeper in the world would save.

Also, if you're right footed and are coming from the right, keep in mind that if the keeper rushes out, he's allowing you to slot the ball in the near post much more easily, because he's reducing the possible reaction time without completely closing that gap. In other words, when you're centered he can rush out and he knows he'll be closing both angles at the same rate, but when you're angled he needs to keep 2 differnet angles in mind, and it's very likely that he'll eventually open a bigger gap in one of the sides, showing you an easy goal.

I've watched like 90% of the matches that Casillas has played in the last 5 years or so, and I can tell you that even with his inmense quality, most of the unbelievable one on ones that he saves come from centered chances. Pure reflexes and speed, yes. Probably the best keeper in the world? Yes. However, when someone comes angled from a flank, I've seen strikers able to easily beat him. If you want to look for it, I can rememeber famous goals from Ronaldinho, Messi and others in which he didn't even seem to have a chance to stop them.

Just remember that one on ones are not the same as penalties, as the keeper can't come out in a penalty kick.

That said, and as I mentioned in my post, I do believe that the conversion ratio for those chances might be slightly lower than needed. But I also think that centered one on ones are not always that good.

I do not agree with you here. Regardless of your angle to the goal (unless you have almost no angle along the end line), if it is a one-on-one chance the keeper is rushing out and narrowing the angles.

Even if you are correct, you still haven't presented any statistical evidence to prove this assertion as I asked for in my post.

[tak]

I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. I've seen the post you're referring to and it in no way means what you think it means. The engine doesn't balance itself by artificially reducing finishing ratios, or upping keeper saving percentages. The way balancing works is that the programmer involved will get a version of the match engine that they are fairly happy with. They will then generate thousands of matches and compare that stats from those matches to real life (from scorelines, right down to individual passing percentages, finishing ratios etc). I presume they will also be watching many many matches aswell, rather than just relying on stats. Obviously some of the stats generated by the match engine will be off, so the engine is tweaked and the tests repeated. This will go on for as long as it takes until the engine is 'balanced'. No matter how many times this is done, some stats will not match up to real life due to the sheer complexity of it. The key thing is that the more 'important' the stat, the more important it is that it matches real life. Obviously the final scorelines are the most important stat, and that must take priority over anything else.

Presumably, 10.2 was got into the state it is in now and it was deemed that any problems with defending/scoring ratios was less significant than the potential problems that could be introduced by trying to fix them. If the final scorelines were compromised, for example, it would be a significantly bigger problem than the one we have now. You have to bear in mind that any change to the match engine could have massive consequences. It's not just a case of fixing the 'defenders being split' problem and then whacking up the finishing ratio. Those changes could potentially affect every defensive decision and every finishing probability. At the very least, those changes would need days of testing, tweaking and retesting just to be sure that they hadn't broken anything else.

OK, you are saying that the reason one-on-ones are not converted has nothing to do with a mechanism trying to balance the scoreline. Why are they not converted then? Surely, a player with good finishing and composure should nail most of them? Why doesn't he?

[Sussex Hammer]

I have changed my mind there are Superkeepers and here is the proof!!!! Somewhat gutted!!! :-(

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=Superkeepers-1.jpg&newest=1

[tak]

First, you seem to be unaware that in such a complex match engine like this, the theory of the 'butterfly effect' plays a really important part. ANYTHING that is slightly changed or tweaked in one part of the ME, can suddenly cause a completely unexpected reaction somewhere else.

Second, I'm saying that the "fake chances" problem as you call it probably slipped in right at the last moment, just when SI were about to release 10.2. However, the large scale results of the match engine were, indeed, right. As you can understand, if SI have 1 or 2 days left to release 10.2, they can't play dozens of matches to test something that they believe to be pretty much alright. All they can do is take a look at some of the large scale numbers and see if everything's still alright like in previous versions. And the numbers were (and are) alright, so they probably missed the thing with the one on ones, and released 10.2.

Third, if the numbers are alright despite of the increase in one on ones, it's because those one on ones aren't, indeed, such good chances as they seem, at least in the eyes of the match engine. And I have explained that above, if you care to read. But there's no auto-compensating mechanism that will make the numbers right.

So, you are prepared to believe that there is some sort of optical illusion that makes us see a great chance when it is actually a half-chance but you refuse that there is a balancing mechanism (although balanced scores are exactly what SI is looking for when testing)?

[Sussex Hammer]

I don't believe in any "cheating" but there is unfairness when it comes tp these 1 on 1's.

Firstly I have asked my striker who is constantly shootong straight at the keeper to go round the keeper in a PPM. However he responds in a negative manner saying at this point in his career he sees no point. He is 24!! So straight off there is nothing you can do to train the player to stop shooting straight. That is unfair.

Secondly I have just had a game when my said striker missed 4 1 on 1's. Ok he has a finishing stat of 13 so not great, however an opposition midfielder scores from 35 yards with his only shot. His long shot stats are also 13. Now that is also unfair.

I think what some peoples point is that it is unfair to penalise those who make a good tactic for instance and render it useless on 1 on 1's just because SI want to keep the score down. It's a bit like the old corner bug, it would have been a bit like making sure the keeper caught it every time so you din't score 15 goals from corners a season therefore rendering corners useless!

[Blaupunkt]

So, you are prepared to believe that there is some sort of optical illusion that makes us see a great chance when it is actually a half-chance but you refuse that there is a balancing mechanism (although balanced scores are exactly what SI is looking for when testing)?

as i understand things you are seeing these because of the central defence bug which makes them drift slightly apart, giving the forward to much space which in turn makes the chance look A LOT better than it really is.

when this gets "hopefully" fixed in the next patch these great chances you are seeing should no longer happen or at best be a difficult half chance if even that.

[tak]

as i understand things you are seeing these because of the central defence bug which makes them drift slightly apart, giving the forward to much space which in turn makes the chance look A LOT better than it really is.

when this gets "hopefully" fixed in the next patch these great chances you are seeing should no longer happen or at best be a difficult half chance if even that.

This is very interesting. May I ask, how was this problem discovered. I mean, what sort of test took place to conclude that a central defender appears to be not where he should be according to.... what?

PS: sorry Blaupunkt I am not asking you but whoever came up with this theory

[VMX]

So, you are prepared to believe that there is some sort of optical illusion that makes us see a great chance when it is actually a half-chance but you refuse that there is a balancing mechanism (although balanced scores are exactly what SI is looking for when testing)?

It's not an optical illusion. This is a game, and it's designed to respond to determined situations. However, the unrealistic numbers of CCC's that are being created right now were never meant to be there. Thus, the game was never tested under this circumstances (as I said, it was probably too late to correct it), and it can produce an unrealistic answer. Just like if you artificially edit the attributes of some player above 20, you'll make it prone to unexpected responses by the match engine, as it's never been tested under that circumstances. However, that's not the point here:

If you watch a match in real life and you see 8 CCC's, it's very, VERY likely that they will be more varied. They won't all be so centered and thus many of them will indeed be converted to goals. However, when you see one of those matches in FM, you don't realise that 95% of those one on ones are being created right through the middle, with the striker completely centered in relation to the goal, and the keeper quickly rushing out to reduce the angle. There's no variety, it's just an instance of the same exact type of chance, which is not as good from a striker's perspective than what it actually looks like.

However, as I said, we're not used to that kind of matches because they don't happen in real life. If a real team gets 6 CCC's, it's nearly impossible that all of them are exactly the same way. They'll be more varied, and in the end goals will probably be scored, one way or another. In other words, we're trained to associate lots of one on ones with lots of goals. But those are not the fixed, repetitive kind of one on ones that FM is currently producing.

That said, and as I stated before, I do think that this one on ones problem could have highlighted another smaller, hidden issue that causes one on ones to have a slightly lower conversion rate than needed. And it may need looking at.

But it's all about the type of CCCs that are created.

And there's no need to 'believe' as you say. I just know that there's no such mechanism in game, mainly because there have been other versions of FM where the numbers weren't actually realistic enough, yet they couldn't fix them in time and it was later addressed in a patch.

[VMX]

This is very interesting. May I ask, how was this problem discovered. I mean, what sort of test took place to conclude that a central defender appears to be not where he should be according to.... what?

PS: sorry Blaupunkt I am not asking you but whoever came up with this theory

Again, this is not a theory, this is a fact that you can check if you look closely at the positioning of the 4 back when one team attacks and the other defends, instead of just making up conspiracy theories.

Basically, if you compare it to real life football, you'll see that they position themselves too far appart from each other when defending, instead of congesting the middle to avoid being split. In particular, the 2 center backs leave a considerable gap between them, which leads to an easy through ball by the midfielder. Meanwhile, the full backs stay wide without a real reason to do so. It would seem more logical that the 4 guys in the back stood closer to each other and the full backs only moved wide if needed to close down someone (i.e.: a winger). This way the gap between the 2 center backs would be much smaller and thus there wouldn't so many chances to play such an easy through ball.

This also means that the one on one is always too centered, always of the same kind.

Of course, as I said, noticing this may require close observation of the gameplay and a bit of common sense instead of just a tendency to create conspiracy theories at the minimum chance

[tak]

OK VMX fair enough, "the 2 center backs leave a considerable gap between them, which leads to an easy through ball by the midfielder."

You also said, "if the numbers are alright despite of the increase in one on ones, it's because those one on ones aren't, indeed, such good chances as they seem, at least in the eyes of the match engine."

You understand the flaw in all these don't you? You are saying that the defenders are not doing a good job but you are also saying that they are actually doing a good job but they look like they don't.

I am supposed to be a "conspiracy theorist" (what a cliche!) but you came up with the most weird explanation that I've ever heard.

Let us re-cap:

a) If the defenders are not defending properly (standing too much apart etc.) then all those chances are perfectly legitimate and most of them should be converted. The fact that they don't brings us back to the balancing mechanism I explained earlier. Or does anyone has any other explanation?

b) If what we see is not actually as good chance as it seems, at least in the eyes of the match engine, then the visual simulation has a problem. The match engine "sees" something differently than us. Can SI verify if something like that is possible?

Thank you very much.

[VMX]

What's so difficult to understand?

I'm saying that it's the defenders' somewhat flawed positioning that leads to so many one on ones. And also, that those one on ones aren't as good chances as they seem to be, because they're always centered and allow the keeper to rush out and quickly reduce the angle to shoot. They're counted as CCC's, yes, just like any other one on one. But they're not as easy to score as other one on one's.

Thus, they create a somewhat distorted view of the match, as it seems that one team has dominated and created lots of CCC's without scoring most of them due to bad luck or something. But actually, those CCC's were created because of a slight flaw in the match engine, and not really by dominating the match or by the tactical success of the manager. Despite being one on one's, they're only a very particular kind of one on one's, which aren't that easy to score.

If you ignore those one on one's and design a tactic that allows you to create chances in a more varied way (for example, more angled one on ones), you'll find that the conversion ratio increases a lot.

The current biggest problem, from the user's perspective, is that seeing so many one on one's being created makes you think that you're doing great as a manager and using a great tactic, and that you're just being unlucky for not scoring more. Thus, you tend to NOT change your tactic and insist on this type of play because you believe in it, which emphasizes the problem even more.

[Blaupunkt]

again from what i have read and believe to happen, you B idea is closer to the truth, with the defenders being slightly to far apart them ME gives the illusion of a much better chance than it really is due to its visual limitations, thats why through out this thread wwfan has been saying to think of these chances as only half chances at best.

but again with the fix coming this will hopefully be resolved.

to give another example, sometimes you might see a GK make a good save and still appear to be on the floor near the far post, the rebound falls to another player on the same team who shoots towards the middle of the net, the GK seems to spring from a prone position to make an impossible save, the problem here is the ME/animations not showing the keeper getting back to his feet fast to be able to dive in the opposite direction to make the save.

[wwfan]

I have two objections regarding how he thinks football (or in this instance finishing) should be represented in the game. His opinion is based on theoretical studies which again will be misleading. His Pollard study does not even include a 1v1 section so even his viewpoint is his alone and he has no evidence to back it (once again let me say that i am basing this on the studies that he said he had accessed in the previous page) .

I think I covered this when I stated: Although they do not specifically mention one on ones, they do quantify how often chances are converted within certain ranges of the goal when a player is at an angle or not and when he is in at least a metre of space, drawn from a sample of 1096 attempts at goal. I made it pretty clear I was referencing this paper in relation to generalised scoring chances only and it was not the study from which I took the one on one data.

In relation, when I mention chances of one on one conversion, I was only trying to draw a comparison to real life, not explain how Torres will be restricted in the same manner as Kevin Davies in FM2010. Torres should, and will, score a higher number of good chances (one or one or not) than Davies, alongside a greater number of difficult chances. He just won't score 66% of his one on ones. Perhaps because some are difficult one on ones, which he makes a mistake on. Perhaps because the keeper makes a great save. Perhaps Torres will score 4 out of 9 in a season, whereas Davies will score 1 out of 5. I'd be happy with that. What I wouldn't find realistic would be for Torres to score 7/8 out of 9 and Davies 3 out of 5.

[rocky0]

VMX

You have done a great job in trying to make people understand but I fear you are just wasting your breath now. People wont change their minds when they refuse to accept anything other than their own opinions. Its right there in match play and if people would watch a match, they would see what has been said is what is happening.

I give you credit for trying but sadly you are fighting a lost cause. I think people actually believe SI would intentionally design issues within the game so the AI can cheat. Call it what you want but that sure sounds likes a "conspiracy theorist" to me

[PaulC]

This thread is getting a bit weird now. I dont want to get into a debate with you tak because I dont feel it will benefit the game or the thread.

As I said before, we will look into the issue of excessive one on ones caused by split DC's and the issue of keepers having too large a reach on close range, powerful shots. If this produces knock ons, eg a lack of goals, or an excessive percentage of goals from another source, then we'll just have to deal with that as best we can. Its the nature of the beast.

[tak]

VMX this is trully incredible: "centered" one-on-ones are actually more difficult than "angled" ones (and we know already that one-on-ones in general are extremely difficult for the striker, according to wwfan's books).

Some people in here have managed to create a universe which bears no relation whatsoever to real football. On-on-one chances in here have become the most difficult situation a striker will have to face during his professional life. There are strikers all over the world praying that they won't have to run at another keeper ever again.

We will soon hear that managers are putting their teams through intense new training routines to stop them from creating one-on-one chances because they are a waste of time.

Paul I understand the reason why you don't want to debate. Can you answer something though? Is it true that the FM match engine considers one-on-ones difficult to convert chances?

[VMX]

VMX this is trully incredible: "centered" one-on-ones are actually more difficult than "angled" ones (and we know already that one-on-ones in general are extremely difficult for the striker, according to wwfan's books).

Some people in here have managed to create a universe which bears no relation whatsoever to real football. On-on-one chances in here have become the most difficult situation a striker will have to face during his professional life. There are strikers all over the world praying that they won't have to run at another keeper ever again.

We will soon hear that managers are putting their teams through intense new training routines to stop them from creating one-on-one chances because they are a waste of time.

Paul I understand the reason why you don't want to debate. Can you answer something though? Is it true that the FM match engine considers one-on-ones difficult to convert chances?

Well, it's clear that you either don't want to understand what I'm saying, or I'm just not good enough to explain this to you. Either way, I give up, as I'm not getting paid for this...

[tak]

No problem VMX, see you around. I understand what you were trying to do and that's fine.

Matter of fact I have an idea. Can the moderators start a poll just to see what people think?

Is the superkeeper problem created:

a) because the defenders are doing a bad job letting attackers slip through them but they are actually not doing such a bad job after all as those chances are not good chances although they seem like they are?

or

b) because a balancing mechanism limits the score to realistic levels?

[PaulC]

Enough of these games. The issue is under review for 10.3.