(disproved on page 2) Finaly proved it, the game engine is bogus

[VonBlade]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miles Jacobson:

Marx - with point 1, if you are managing any team in the league that you are in (not just the team you are testing), or you have full match on, then you the full match engine is used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh. That explains it. I thought I was running on Full Detail, and the team I'd added in a Bandits-minus-superplayers way were just languishing in the Conference for twenty years. Then I upped their rep to 8000 and they got promoted 4 years straight barely losing a game.

Glad it's because I was playing in the Premiership and they were lower league, rather than Rep being the ridiculously huge factor I thought it was

Perhaps a little toning down of the rep-factor in not-full-detail games might help the leagues have some variety in longer term games and aid the cup-upsets in future?

But go and eat a pie already Miles. It's Xmas

[Miles Jacobson]

arfraen - where you talk about progressing into 2015+, you'll find that some of the teams are as strong as they were, others won't be, much like real life. 15 years ago.

This is correct as per real life. In 1992/93, Norwich, QPR & Sheffield Wednesday all finished in the top 7.

As for your other point, the quick match engine used for inactive leagues does not affect the human manager in any way.

[Miles Jacobson]

OK - season has ended.

Chelsea

Relegated in 20th spot (bottom of the league)

New points record, with 3 points in the whole season (3 draws)

10 goals scored, 146 against.

Average ratings were between 5.1 & 6.04

Top scorer had 3 goals

They did get a win - beating Peterborough in the FA Cup 3rd round.

Millwall

Won league 1

45 wins and 1 draw = 116 points

Goal difference of + 214, (for 224, against 10)

Drogba - pl 53, goals 85, average rating 8.49

Won - Johnstone's Paint Trophy

FA Cup - lost to Newcastle in the 6th round.

[Sad Git]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Happy Mince Pie day to all, even those who have stopped me from spending time with my family on this one day of the year when work really should come second. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm amazed, I never realised we had the power to force the MD to come here and run tests for us whenever we have a big question.

Can someone come up with a really nasty challenge for him to do on Boxing Day as well?

[ViG1980]

Thanks Miles. MD not expected to do this sort of thing but you have...

Merry Christmas.

[Raapy]

Considering all this, perhaps what's really wrong is how a club's reputation is calculated? Perhaps the quality of the players in the club( or reputation of the players ) should have a much bigger impact on the actual reputation of the club?

Certainly if C.Ronaldo and Rooney were to go to Leeds, in the real world, that would immediately boost Leeds reputation by an enourmous amount.

[RSCA4Ever]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Raapy:

Considering all this, perhaps what's really wrong is how a club's reputation is calculated? Perhaps the quality of the players in the club( or reputation of the players ) should have a much bigger impact on the actual reputation of the club?

Certainly if C.Ronaldo and Rooney were to go to Leeds, in the real world, that would immediately boost Leeds reputation by an enourmous amount. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before Leeds would ever get a hold of them, i bet their rep would already have to be high, otherwise they wouldn't be interested at all.

[Greg Andrade]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miles Jacobson:

OK - season has ended.

Chelsea

Relegated in 20th spot (bottom of the league)

New points record, with 3 points in the whole season (3 draws)

10 goals scored, 146 against.

Average ratings were between 5.1 & 6.04

Top scorer had 3 goals

They did get a win - beating Peterborough in the FA Cup 3rd round.

Millwall

Won league 1

45 wins and 1 draw = 116 points

Goal difference of + 214, (for 224, against 10)

Drogba - pl 53, goals 85, average rating 8.49

Won - Johnstone's Paint Trophy

FA Cup - lost to Newcastle in the 6th round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this experiment seems only to have solidified my concerns. I haven't had any complaints about the difficulty of the game, but I play the game with no detail turned on for any competition. That improves game speed and allows me to use a much larger database.

But, Miles, your revelation about the match detail means that we all suffer a major loss in realism if we turn off full detail. THAT has to be why the original results were achieved. And that doesn't make me feel much better at this point.

It's nice that you could use conditions that avoided the problem, but your statement about match detail seems to prove the original point, which is that club reputation has a huge impact on match results. Granted, it's only if you don't use full detail, but many of us do not. So that means our saved games could end up with the same clubs being crap or great for decades.

[Knowles]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSCA4Ever:

Results calculated by reputation!!! This really disappoints me!

That is such an unrealistic approach to do, because injuries or lack of quality players won't matter at all then for big teams.

This should have been done completely different.Why not simply add together all the PA's from the 11 starting players from both teams and calculate the games from there?

Maybe game speed will be a little slower this way, but the way like it is now is cheating!!!

One question: What happens when you view Chelsea's matches? (if you would happen to have the time and willpower to do so)

You can run them at fastest speed to save time, but if then still they manage to produce a good season with crap players and high rep, then i am seriously disappointed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definetelly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

[James.Clench]

Its fair enough that you disproved this guys test but I wonder why you changed the Topic headline instead of simply closing the thread? like you did with that thread about changing players position?

Are you diverting a bit of attention maybe from the other topics which highlight the flaws, such as;

1. The Closing down bug

2. Super keepers

3. Shots on target/goals ratio bug

4. Poor regens

Any comment?

[DS]

Miles - all your test showed is what I said from the start. When matches are played in full detail it gives proper realistic results. But when they are played with no detail the results are somewhat based on reputation. FM is supposed to be a realistic football simulator so it is worrying but also I understand the need for it. If more complex calculations were done then the games would take longer to run which is not what anyone wants. So I guess we will have to live with it for now. In a few years when there are much better computers and everyone can zoom through the proper detail matches then hopefully this can be changed.

Anyway thanks for taking time from Christmas to help with this issue. Just as I was losing hope in SI.

[Jumbalumba]

What? I thought it was always known that results were determined a large part by reputation and that proper results only come about with full detail (even since I started playing in FM 2005 anyways; although this detail feature only recently came in).

[knap]

As a footnote I increased CA and PA of Spurs squad, no drop from GS, and won PL in holiday mode std tactics.

I've also changed player positions (Keane as GK, Robbo up front and Berbs CB etc) and they lost in all games played like this, maybe not by as many as expected, but outside normal gameplay, so not worth a season testing.

I assume from above that "on holiday" testing does produce realistic results with regard to tactics testing?

[Silver Foxx]

Well I thankyou Miles on this great reply to this thread on Christmas Day, and it looks like you have dissproved this theory. Thanks for your time on this, o and before I forget "Merry Christmas" and a "Happy New Year" !!

[Dimony]

Miles, you are a ****ing star.

[Mikealdo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by James.Clench:

Its fair enough that you disproved this guys test but I wonder why you changed the Topic headline instead of simply closing the thread? like you did with that thread about changing players position?

Are you diverting a bit of attention maybe from the other topics which highlight the flaws, such as;

1. The Closing down bug

2. Super keepers

3. Shots on target/goals ratio bug

4. Poor regens

Any comment? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Miles has the bit firly between his teeth now and I fully expect him to return soon and test the shots/goals ratio bug with equal vigor

*sprinkles with sarcasm*

[heathxxx]

Forgive me for thinking that the general point of this post has missed "the" point entirely. of this "simulation" of the football world.

I'm sure I'll get the usual responses such as "fanboy" etc, etc... but here goes...

This game, attempts to reflect football management in as realistic a manner as possible, but when all is said and done - it's exactly that - a representation.

To acheive some of that realism, it's obvious that teams need to be "ranked", by means of the reputation method currently used, which is clear in the editor.

Now for me, this seems to be pretty integral in ensuring that the clubs throughout all levels, over the course of a number of seasons, maintain a pretty realistic standing.

The use of such a method, and I'm sure SI will correct me if I'm wrong here, ensures that after a number of seasons, you don't suddenly find that Chelsea - for example - slide down a league or two, just because a number of their players have left the club. Their "reputation" allows them to generate good quality regens and to sign other new players. Therefore the equilibrium is maintained.

This as a management simulation, is possibly the only one that uses such a "ranking" or "reputation" system for clubs, unlike most, if any, of the other football management games on the market today. This system I believe, ensures that it's not just a case of having the best players that dictates the flow of the game, as is often the case with other management sims.

I would point here at older (and some current) games such as Premier Manager as a loose example. The relative positions of clubs was based entirely on the quality of the players at the game's offset. Therefore, games such as this are very easy to "win" because you would just sign the best players, then irrespective of tactics, or the club, you would "win". After a number of seasons, you would see generally unrecognisable and unrealistic league formations, such as say, an AI run Carlisle as Premier champions. Liverpool in League 2.

This game is very complex indeed. Having played each version from the very first CM - I'm pleased with the way CM & FM have developed over the years. Of course, it's easier to pick holes in such a complex product, because there are always potentially more "issues" to find.

When you're running "tests" such as this thread is looking at, you're creating whole new variables that were not intended in the original scripting of the game. Therefore, yes, you're going to see some strange and unusual outcomes, but that is all they are and don't really objectively show a flawed product.

I am aware, through personal experience, and that of others on the forums, of bugs, flaws and data issues in the game, as there have been in the previous releases. Yes, at times they can be frustrating, such as the Spanish player registration bug is for me. Ultimately though, SI as a company do actually seem to take note of those who post clearly, concisely and objectively - then respond in due time with patches to rectify the problems, along with relevant comments.

I have always liked the fact that SI include the editor as part of their release these days, as "knowing" their product, I find I can remedy alot of minor issues myself regarding data discrepencies. I am though, beginning to think that they would actually be better not shipping the game with an editor for future releases, as "conspiricy" theory posts such as this and many others are gradually taking over the forums.

Inevitably, people will go back to using 3rd party editors as of old. So if that changes anything here in the forums would remain to be seen.

With respect to the quality of this game as a product, the only issues that affect my own playability of FM2008 are as follows.

1) Data regarding the "loan" situation at Manchester United versus the financial model.

There is clearly an issue with the financial model which i'm quite sure SI are fully aware of . This is in respect of the fact that many people experience Manchester United entering financial difficulty after a number of seasons, because the "loans" set, far outweigh the "income" that Manchester United "realistically" generate.

This is in fact easily self-rectified with the use of the editor, to ensure the balance is correct and more realistic. I am also sure that SI will be looking at the financial model of the game more closely. Bear in mind insofar as realism is concerned, that the information they will have when making the game, will not be 100% accurate. Do you honestly think that every football club contained in the game would "freely" divulge their financial activity to aid the making of a computer game!?!

2) The Spanish player registration issue

Unfortunately I've not found a solution to this via the editor, but given this has been raised objectively in previous posts on the forum, am satisfied with responses from SI to acknowledge the matter, that it will be solved in the next patch.

3) The match engine - 1-on-1, etc, etc...

This is a very complex side of the game since it's introduction, as I'm quite sure that it has millions of variables possible. I am of course referring to the "visual" match engine, rather than the "game" engine.

Prior to the release of the 2d match engine, I don't recall seeing posts on the forums complaining about the match engine. That being said, I think that the ability to "view" games is a feature many players of this game enjoy greatly. There are flaws which are clearly apparent, yet I personally don't think that they have an overbearing effect on the game as a whole, once you know how to work with them. Again, this is something I am satisfied that will develop further over patch releases and new game releases.

4) Tactical issues

There is no longer a "killer" tactic...

The pursuit of such a tactic nowadays is futile, as improvements across the board have been made to the match and game engine to avoid these "exploits".

There are however, some tactics that work better than others - just as in real life. I find this to be a true reflection of modern football, as if all tactics in the game worked on a par, what would be the point of using different tactics in the first place?

The game has in fact become more difficult with respect to the tactical imput required, by us as gameplayers, to influence the outcome of matchens. This for me is something to be applauded, not flamed.

5) Results Generated By AI in non-viewed matches

The issue in this thread. I would refer back to the point I made regarding the ranking system in place that preserves the "continuity" of clubs, over a number of seasons, as they should be.

If this aspect of the game is as seriously flawed as posters are suggesting, with the AI over-compensating, cheating, against the human user, whatever you want to call it - why then is it still possible to play a game, taking a club from the bottom of the ladder, up to the very top of the ladder. There is countless proof of this within the forums for all to see. If the AI was as over-compensating for the bigger clubs as is suggested, why have I and countless others, managed to take teams from Blue Square North/South up to the Premiership, albeit over a lengthy number of seasons and win major trophies??? Surely if what people are suggesting is true, then this would be impossible.

Phew... my longest post I believe

In short, why not actually try playing the game, if possible, for more than a season, without being in holiday mode, or using the editor. You never know, you might find theres an excellent game here

[Lyssien]

Miles, you are my hero. Respect.

[CowRonaldo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 4) Tactical issues

There is no longer a "killer" tactic...

The pursuit of such a tactic nowadays is futile, as improvements across the board have been made to the match and game engine to avoid these "exploits".

There are however, some tactics that work better than others - just as in real life. I find this to be a true reflection of modern football, as if all tactics in the game worked on a par, what would be the point of using different tactics in the first place?

The game has in fact become more difficult with respect to the tactical imput required, by us as gameplayers, to influence the outcome of matchens. This for me is something to be applauded, not flamed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well lots of people have been noticing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 tactics work much better than a 4-4-2 tactic.

Perhaps it needs to be balanced considering 4-4-2 is a very successful tactic in real life.

[heathxxx]

I'm using a more orthodox 4-4-2 that works well. The Fiora2 formation that's been posted on the forums.

Like any tactics, fan made or generic, they need tweeking to suit players strengths and weakness'.

People always have their own preferences with tactics, but with a little experimentation, it's not too difficult to come up with a few that do ok. I think alot of people lack the patience...

...though there are some people with too much patience and time on their hands!!

[snootyjim]

Comical thread, gave me some much needed entertainment this morning after a pretty naf Xmas Day.

Just goes to prove that SI are completely unique in terms of game companies out there today, checking out the forums to participate in a bizarre test to back up their match engine on 25th December of all days... pity it had to happen, but well worth it all the same for us lot

Merry Xmas everybody

[snootyjim]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heathxxx:

1) Data regarding the "loan" situation at Manchester United versus the financial model.

There is clearly an issue with the financial model which i'm quite sure SI are fully aware of . This is in respect of the fact that many people experience Manchester United entering financial difficulty after a number of seasons, because the "loans" set, far outweigh the "income" that Manchester United "realistically" generate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a Manchester United fan, I'd just like to point out that the situation you mention is a very realistic one, that arose as a direct result of the Malcolm Glazer takeover. There has been concern for a good while over the sustainability of Manchester United's finances, in reference to our enormous debt. It's sad, but true.

As for the other bugs you refer to, I know nothing about them. However for this one, I think SI might be spot on

[davidbowie]

As an MU fan, and someone who worked on the loan issue itself (I have a thread somewhere in the data forum), as well as having played a long term MU save in 08, the loan is realistic enough, and is payable as long as your remain successful.

[snootyjim]

Fair enough, never played a Utd game long enough to find out

[Sad Git]

I'm somewhat unconvinced by Miles' argument that the background match engine "doesn't affect the user in any way". Of course it does, EVERYTHING in the game affects the user! Anything that means the game world isn't being convincingly rendered can potentially cause problems down the line. You might take over a club in a background league, and switch the league into the foreground. You might sign a player based on his performances in a background league. You might play against clubs that have been promoted or relegated from a background division. I can think of literally dozens of other examples.

Call me stupid but I don't quite understand why the background match engine uses team Reputation to calculate results. Why not use squad CA? I don't honestly see why it should take any longer that way, and it's overwhelmingly the players that decide the outcomes of football matches, Reputation counts for nothing. (See England, Newcastle, Spurs, etc etc.)

[Themistofelis]

You know you can use FMM trainer to run tests on your team /or an AI one; 20 games as a reputation 1000 club vs 20 games as a reputation 10000 , same players , same formations , same morale , same opposition (fmm removes bans, injuries and keeps morale at top).

Sorry i can not stand playing 40 matches in fm08 to run the test myself.

[Guest]

Call me stupid but I don't quite understand why the background match engine uses team Reputation to calculate results. Why not use squad CA? I don't honestly see why it should take any longer that way, and it's overwhelmingly the players that decide the outcomes of football matches, Reputation counts for nothing. (See England, Newcastle, Spurs, etc etc.)

lol didnt england flopped too even when the CA of their players are high?

[delibey]

So there is a "quick match engine" after all. We can only presume it's there to make the game go faster, or rather not slower. We would all be ****ed off if leagues we aren't in slow down our game but it's my personal opinion that this current set-up is not a realistic reflection of real life. Well it is in some way, the bigger teams succeed and worse teams stay where they should. But still this is a simulation. If a team is not made up of good players, they shouldn't win on a regular basis, no matter what their reputation is. It can be argued that a high rep club will always have good players but what if any high rep club sells one of its best players? I'd expect to see some sort of change in the team's performance.

Doesn't this system also hinder young promising players coming through a worse club's ranks and shining there? They will be there but their club won't win games(to simplify). If a player isn't doing anything extraordinary he won't be noticed by bigger clubs. This relates to the transfer system. The AI shouldn't notice and buy youngsters with potential for no reason at all. They should perform and be noticed, not transferred suddenly to a big club 6th Sense style.

PS: Quick, someone make a thread "proving" the one-on-one problem. We'll send MJ into another testing frenzy, only to have him somehow prove we don't exist.

[Kristian]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miles Jacobson:

Kristian - this test is nothing to do with the match engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Miles, just to be clear I do realise this thread was not to do with the match engine, my point simply being that no matter how flawed I believe the match engine to be I still wouldn't expect that you guys would be working on it on Xmas day.

The match engine is just my own particular source of frustration with the game.

[marx]

the only thing we have learned from this thread is that reputation is main factor to determine matches in inactive leagues.

[Jimbokav1971]

Excellent response from Miles .

SI have received an enormous amount of bad press on thses forums in the recent past. I would hope that this thread will silenece a lot of the negative destructive posting that has recently become this forums nor, (but I am not that naive).

I think it is phenomnal that SI not only responded to this thread on Christmas Day, but also ran a complete test, posted and explained it's correct findings and in great detail explained why the original poster was mistaken.

By the way, well done to arfaern for caring enough to run the tests in the first place, and also for admitting when he was wrong. Very refreswhing in here .

It is this sort of dedication that has seen FM be the continued market leader in it's field. There is no doubt that FM08 has some serious issues, but with such a passionlate team behind the running of it, there is every chance that recent mistakes will not only be rectified, but also hopefully not repeated.

This thread is an outstanding advert for the SI team.

Well played .

[Gibbo84]

This thread reminds me, I must go on the Sonic the Hedgehog website later and complain that hedgehogs are in fact not blue as the game insists. I have conducted numerous tests and i have found that hedgehogs tend to be of a browny colour. My current test involves counting on a numerical basis the number of tails the average fox possesses. I will keep you informed. Sega have a lot to answer for.

[heathxxx]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davidbowie:

As an MU fan, and someone who worked on the loan issue itself (I have a thread somewhere in the data forum), as well as having played a long term MU save in 08, the loan is realistic enough, and is payable as long as your remain successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree the loan figures quoted and used are realistic enough, yet I think what I'm pointing at is that the financial models used are possibly flawed.

In my own save, I'm not actually playing as Man Utd, but I keep an eye on things. Their finances are rated "Insecure" near the end of season 1, dispite being in the top 3 in the league, in Champions League semis.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but realistically, the revenue from the Champions League alone would be sufficient to cover the "loan" repayments.

Of course, there may be a lot more to the purchase by the Glaziers than meets the eye IRL, but I just can't see Manchester United struggling to the extent that they do in the game, without something being leaked to the media. For one thing, there's no way the financial backers would just allow the club to run into administration. They would more likely invest further in order to secure the continued success of their "investments" on and off the field.

To clarify - I believe the financial models in the game need to be updated, not the actual "loan" situation at Man Utd, which appears to be realistic enough. A thankless task at best in my opinion, as I doubt that SI would ever have access freely, to such sensitive financial issues, from all the clubs featured.

I normally just make a few slight tweeks in the editor to make, what I feel, is a more appropriate "balance" to the loan debt versus the financial model.

[heathxxx]

Must add, regardless of this and other "issues". I find FM2008 totally playable and thoroughly addictive and entertaining.

I will certainly continue to buy the series, as I'm continually impressed with the improvements that are made.

[MixitupMixitdictator]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Must add, regardless of this and other "issues". I find FM2008 totally playable and thoroughly addictive and entertaining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree with this, but one thing i have too say i have a problem with the next patch is due for Feb. The game has been released nigh on 5months by the time we get this and it's only another 7/8 months before the new game comes out. This too me is unacceptable, nearly as much incomplete game time as complete game time.

But then i don't have too much of a problem with the current game.

[Law_Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heathxxx:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but realistically, the revenue from the Champions League alone would be sufficient to cover the "loan" repayments.

Of course, there may be a lot more to the purchase by the Glaziers than meets the eye IRL, but I just can't see Manchester United struggling to the extent that they do in the game, without something being leaked to the media. For one thing, there's no way the financial backers would just allow the club to run into administration. They would more likely invest further in order to secure the continued success of their "investments" on and off the field.

To clarify - I believe the financial models in the game need to be updated, not the actual "loan" situation at Man Utd, which appears to be realistic enough. A thankless task at best in my opinion, as I doubt that SI would ever have access freely, to such sensitive financial issues, from all the clubs featured.

I normally just make a few slight tweeks in the editor to make, what I feel, is a more appropriate "balance" to the loan debt versus the financial model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heathxxx you dirty cheat lol

But to correct you if you're wrong: it has been widely reported that to service the debt (i.e. simply meet interest repayments as they fall due, without actually repaying any of the capital amount) is costing Man Utd £60-£80m per year.

If Man Utd remain successful domestically and in the champions league plus sponsorship and merchandising and gate receipts they should be able to meet this, but with very little operating profit left over for player purchases. This is why Man Utd fans have doubtless been pleasantly surprised that the Glazier's got their wallet's out in the summer to fund the purchases of Nani, Hargreaves etc.

I posted in another thread on this issue:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Basically:

1) Man Utd was valued at about £500m at the time of the takeover

2) Glazers wanted to buy it.

3) They paid over the odds for it, and the price per shar they actually paid in fact valued the club at about £650m

4) The Glazers didn't have the cash to buy it, so they raised most of the £650m through loans.

5) Once they bought the club they de-listed it from the stock exchange and turned into a private company.

6) Then the Glazers simply transferred the massive debts they owed from themselves to the company.

**What this actually means is that Man United went from being one of the most profitable and debt-free football club's in the world to being about £600m in debt. So basically because of increased ticket prices and other merchandising price increases, the Man Unitd season ticket holders have essentially been forced to pay for the privilege of burdening their club with massive debt**

That said, season ticket prices etc are still much lower than the Arsenal's and Chelsea's of this world. It's not wonder at all that Arsenal's annual results this year have been so good! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[RSCA4Ever]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Knowles:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSCA4Ever:

Results calculated by reputation!!! This really disappoints me!

That is such an unrealistic approach to do, because injuries or lack of quality players won't matter at all then for big teams.

This should have been done completely different.Why not simply add together all the PA's from the 11 starting players from both teams and calculate the games from there?

Maybe game speed will be a little slower this way, but the way like it is now is cheating!!!

One question: What happens when you view Chelsea's matches? (if you would happen to have the time and willpower to do so)

You can run them at fastest speed to save time, but if then still they manage to produce a good season with crap players and high rep, then i am seriously disappointed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definetelly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't edit my quotes!!

You forgot the line "Also not perfect but at least way better then by reps."!

Maybe your expertise might bring up a much better idea, but since i don't see you give an alternative for the non detailed leagues i think calculating with the players their own stats is more honest then by club reps.

Miles clearly showed that in detailed leagues we don't have to worry about this at all, but for non detailed leagues this might be a good alternative imho.

[Steve1977beyond]

Well done Miles on disproving this 'critics'. Maybe if he spent more time reading the manual / changing tactics / working on training regimes, maybe after all that he would be better at the game and stop whining like a bitch.

I never bother to read too much into these posts such as 'my team is crap despite blah blah blah' because when starting a new game, you could have the worlds best players but because you are an unknown manager, the players arent going to play as good as they would if they had a manager who had plenty of experience and the players respected.

So a lot of time its just pent up teenagers who need to slip one off and are taking out their agression on this forum.

[earmack]

I don't like the way quick simulation works because at the end of the day I'm not going to run 200 leagues on full detail because I don't have the time machine required to acquire a quantum computer that could actually handle that ammount of processing. Its not a huge problem and I understand theres probably nothing SI can do differently but its painful having to chose which leagues get screwed by not being fully simulated.

Also, Miles does that MD stand for Managing Director? If so you've really got to learn to delegate .

Merry HOLIDAYS.

[SkidRo]

well thanks to miles i am now going to run all leagues in full details just so i dont get some dodgy results and such in other leagues.

[Kriss]

Interesting thread, it would be wrong to knock the OP. His misconception was genuine and anyone with doubts should voice them on here.

I think the thread clarified some things very usefully too.

Don't be fooled into feeling sorry for Miles's sacrifice, he was also logged into FML while posting here.

He's sad in the nicest possible way

[Neji]

Miles just wanted to play FM. I can imagine it now - "can't spend time with you love, go work to do". Off he trotts to his computer and plays FM

Seriously, credit where credits due to both Miles and the OP. Admitting when you're wrong was something I didn't expect to see from the poster of a thread called 'Finally proved it, the game engine is bogus'.

[eXistenZ]

I only have read the (original) title but anyway;

I think that if your (world-class) strikers need 15 chanches to score once and mediocre opponents score on an average 1/5, that's enough progg that the match engine is no good.

[eXistenZ]

enough proof*

So stupid we can't edit our own posts

[ptakers]

arfaern = pwned

[dudester]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kriss:

Interesting thread, it would be wrong to knock the OP. His misconception was genuine and anyone with doubts should voice them on here.

I think the thread clarified some things very usefully too.

Don't be fooled into feeling sorry for Miles's sacrifice, he was also logged into FML while posting here.

He's sad in the nicest possible way </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will there warnings packaged with FML that it could be dangerous to your health?

[ml3js]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eXistenZ:

I only have read the (original) title but anyway;

I think that if your (world-class) strikers need 15 chanches to score once and mediocre opponents score on an average 1/5, that's enough progg that the match engine is no good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have taken teams from Serie C2 to Serie A and into CL as well as from German Regionals to Bundesliga and CL and the whole time my strikers have regularly been scoring about 1 in 3 one-on-ones overall. Seems rather reasonable to me.

Miles: I'm impressed. If you care enough to do this I'm confident that you'll do your best to fix whatever other flaws you find and patch em us for us. Either way, its a great game and has occupied me more than it should

[JordanC]

I actually covered this thread as part of my regular Thursday feature this week at GetSacked.Net. Check it out if you'd like:

http://blog.getsacked.net/2007/12/27/using-the-editor-t...ith-game-issues.aspx

[gubbs]

Miles, what spec box do you use for FM development and testing? I am guessing you have some sort of distributed network for rapid game result calculation?

[Brian Rømer]

Well, pardon me for posting something that might have been posted already (just cant read all the posts - too many of them).

But to me its obvious that changing the team rep. will affect the results. Here is my formular - its not Einstein, but still:

5 star player wants to play in 5 star club. If 5 star player plays in 1 star club, he will want to leave. And he probably has some "leave clause" and if he doesnt he will not give 100% on the field.

So a one star club with five star players will either lose the players or see them play bad. What if Cristiano Ronaldo had to play for Accrington or some club like that? would he want to leave? I think so.

If the club has players that are not motivated or lost their players, of course the club will not win games.

To me, that is not a bug, but a simple piece of reality.

With this said, if the rep. itself, by keeping the players, have an effect, then it is a problem. But it doesnt seem like it though.

I play with Man Utd and I tried beating Liverpool 4-0, but I also lost to Reading by 2-0 (one of my 5 defeats in two seasons sofar). To me that is realistic and I will not stop playing the most brilliant game ever made.

Thanks SI for making this superb game!