Match Engine Is A Complete Joke

[tostao10]

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tostao10:

Thats true, Domenech is an awful coach and their only current world class player is Ribery, Henry is breaking down,Thuram is old,Vieira is broken down, Diarra though I rate him at Arsenal is first choice for France and can't even make our first team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Benzema looks quality as well tbf. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

he does but its still potential at the moment and untested.

[GillsMan]

So basically, and what these IRL things show, is that it's not just enough to pick the best players. You need to have a bit of tactical nouse about you as well IRL.

The same goes for FM, I think you need to be able to alter your tactics slightly in order to stay on top. I think the ME can be improved and I hope it is improved over the coming years, but I don't think it's bugged at the moment. But it does need refining, but then SI never denied that as far as I'm aware.

[Genuine_quality]

everytime there is a tactical discussion all the clique jump out with random occurances of a succesfull underdog, but blatantly leaving out the statistical probability of it happening

yeh for every upset there are a infinately more results with teams with better players prevailing, champ man is totally tactical based, therefore unrealistic, you could accept the odd one of tactic beating you, but there is an unnerving randomness in the game which is just impossible to predict wether your playing the top or bottom teams, and even if your playing your best 11, if every slider bar isnt perfect youll get beat of a pub team cos there tactics are better

[Genuine_quality]

explain to me how when playing the deepest i can, the most defensive i can, and everybody off forward runs, i can still get caught on the counter attack(not from a corner or free kick either), thats a good example of ambiguity in the game play

[GillsMan]

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

everytime there is a tactical discussion all the clique jump out with random occurances of a succesfull underdog, but blatantly leaving out the statistical probability of it happening

yeh for every upset there are a infinately more results with teams with better players prevailing, champ man is totally tactical based, therefore unrealistic, you could accept the odd one of tactic beating you, but there is an unnerving randomness in the game which is just impossible to predict wether your playing the top or bottom teams, and even if your playing your best 11, if every slider bar isnt perfect youll get beat of a pub team cos there tactics are better </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, that's certainly not what I've found in my experience. What I have found is this: by looking at the match engine, I've been able to see what was going wrong. For example, my first few games in my Gillingham career, I was getting humped all the time. By paying attention to the match engine, I could see that the opposition's wingers were getting in behind my full backs all the time, and laying on chance after chance for the opposition. To remedy this, I simply ensured my full backs were much more defensive (to make up for their lack of pace) and if the winger they were facing was pacy, I'd ensure that the fullback was NOT marking them tightly (so they'd always be a yard or two off them).

To make up for the lack of attacking threat from the fullbacks, I put the farrows on my wide midfielders all the way to the top, allowing THEM to get in behind the opposition's fullbacks.

I'm no tactical genius, but it's little things like this that have helped me. Admittedly, I've had to spend time, but not that much. I certainly don't fiddle about with most of the sliders in all fairness.

Just to reiterate, I don't think the ME of the game is perfect, but I don't agree it's bugged. But that's just my experience.

[Genuine_quality]

anyway, i think your france -scotland tactical analysis is incorrect

i think there were other variables to take into account like determination and work rate and sheer will, if there not all the same thing, to just say scotland won because of there tactics say 4-5-1 is wrong because what your saying is if every team just played against france with scotlands tactic they would win, dont you think that there could be other reasons for scotland win other thank passing style, etc

[GillsMan]

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

explain to me how when playing the deepest i can, the most defensive i can, and everybody off forward runs, i can still get caught on the counter attack(not from a corner or free kick either), thats a good example of ambiguity in the game play </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slow defenders? If not, then I can't. And there again, maybe unwittingly, you might have stumbled on a good point. So, perhaps if you could detail your precise tactics, the players in your defence, and how you were caught on the counter attack, we can analyse it. More importantly, it might flag up to SI a potential flaw in the game - and this can only help them, surely?

[Andy H]

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

anyway, i think your france -scotland tactical analysis is incorrect

i think there were other variables to take into account like determination and work rate and sheer will, if there not all the same thing, to just say scotland won because of there tactics say 4-5-1 is wrong because what your saying is if every team just played against france with scotlands tactic they would win, dont you think that there could be other reasons for scotland win other thank passing style, etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course there were other variables that contributed to Scotland's wins but part of that was the tactics.

[Genuine_quality]

well of course a part of it was tactics, like if scotland had played 9 up front they would have lost heavily etc, but on champ man its 75% tactics and 25% player ability

[George Graham]

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

The people who complain about this makes me wonder if they've actually watched a Football match in real life.

People constantly whining they're not winning 15-0 every match.

It's quite balanced. The ammount of 1 on 1 chances you get is balanced by the lack of the chances put away.

Plus if you actually watched a real game, you would notice that it's quite realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh the irony.

So its fine if unrealistic amounts of chances are created, as long as the score isnt unrealistically high?

[tostao10]

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

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

The people who complain about this makes me wonder if they've actually watched a Football match in real life.

People constantly whining they're not winning 15-0 every match.

It's quite balanced. The ammount of 1 on 1 chances you get is balanced by the lack of the chances put away.

Plus if you actually watched a real game, you would notice that it's quite realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh the irony.

So its fine if unrealistic amounts of chances are created, as long as the score isnt unrealistically high? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah its been quite fun with him .. :-)

[Ranson52]

Bottom line here is simple.

If we all accept there was a flaw in the match engine covering shots to goals ratio, and it seems that most people including SI do acknowledge this, then it should have been SI’s objective to release an interim patch to fix this.

They haven’t, and that has led to a lot of pointless topics and posts.

As much as I hate to say it, it seems to me that since SI were bought out, the service level has dropped. In the past, we could have expected a patch for this very quickly.

As someone pointed out early in this thread, this is almost the key component of the whole game.

[Ackter]

Yes, lets get SI to rush out a patch to fix one issue.

[Ranson52]

Knee jerk responses such as yours serve no purpose other than to irritate the poster, in this case me.

If you had bothered to read the whole post and think before you wrote, you would have appreciated a little more depth in your response would have been called for.

If you see the need to post frivolous rubbish just to boost your karma rating, so be it, I would appreciate it if you didn't do so at my expense thank you.

[Kriss]

Because of it's complexity SI will take all the time they can get to get it right.

As a patch is due after the transfer window it makes complete sense to keep working on and testing the ME till then rather than repeating the quick patch solution which failed in the first place.

Your rehash of the theory that the Sega connection is somehow damaging is speculative balderdash and based on no factual knowledge at all. In fact it's a huge step in ensuring the future of FM.

[chopper99]

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

well of course a part of it was tactics, like if scotland had played 9 up front they would have lost heavily etc, but on champ man its 75% tactics and 25% player ability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I personally have to disagree with this statement.

I agree that it is difficult to understand some of the tactical elements of this game, and I've been saying for a long time now that some kind of feedback system is badly needed to give certain people more of an idea of why their tactics aren't working.

And yes there is a well known issue regarding the number of one-on-one chances created.

But it's very possible to create a balanced tactic that relies on player ability. I've done it myself and if your interested the details of this can be found in this thread.

As I said there is a known problem with the number of one-on-one chances shown by the match engine. Unfortunately (and understandably) this distorts peoples belief in their tactics. Understandably they see their team creating a lot of chances that are missed and think because they are creating these chances their tactics must be solid. But like it or not you need to think differently at the moment and look more at the final scores than the number of one-on-one chances created.

So the point is that there's nothing wrong with the game once you stop looking at chances as the main indicator of a successful tactic and instead look at results. From there it's easy enough to create a successful tactic and enjoy the game immensly, as many of us are doing.

[GillsMan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ranson52:

Bottom line here is simple.

If we all accept there was a flaw in the match engine covering shots to goals ratio, and it seems that most people including SI do acknowledge this, then it should have been SI’s objective to release an interim patch to fix this.

They haven’t, and that has led to a lot of pointless topics and posts.

As much as I hate to say it, it seems to me that since SI were bought out, the service level has dropped. In the past, we could have expected a patch for this very quickly.

As someone pointed out early in this thread, this is almost the key component of the whole game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listening to SI's podcast - which is just one way that SI communicate with their fanbase - I heard a very sensible comment from Miles Jacobson. He did feel that people were making too much of an issue about the goals to shots ratio, but then he did concede that it happens a bit too much in Football Manager. He then said this would be fixed in the next patch released end of February.

I honestly can't agree that this "issue" makes the game unplayable. I can see the logic in the argument that there are too many clear cut chances created in a game that are being in the ME, and this will be fixed.

[Ollieonly1]

I hope that in fixing this bug, it doesnt make the problem with 'zombie' defenders even worse. Hopefully they will improve the realism of defending at the same time.

[xouman]

IMHO there are two problems in ME related and people complaint about one of them.

It's clear that some tactics create tons of chances, more chances than any matches. Yes, big teams sometimes have 20 shots in a match, but that is not real average. In FM is easy to have lots of chances, and some that look easy in 2D. That is a problem.

And then, those tactics make teams miss lots of chances. I have seen it by myself, it's nearly ridiculous to have 20 shots in goal and only 1 against and lose the game. Second problem.

But there are other tactics that work in a comprehensive way, with fine goal rating and a reasonable number of chances. I have found a couple of tactics that match this and I'm having success despite having less chances than before.

So, people who say FM is unplayable: choose a right tactic, and you will enjoy the game.

And people who say that FM has no problem: explain me why can't I play with fast tempo and direct passing and expect normal behaviour from the ME.

[GillsMan]

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

IMHO there are two problems in ME related and people complaint about one of them.

It's clear that some tactics create tons of chances, more chances than any matches. Yes, big teams sometimes have 20 shots in a match, but that is not real average. In FM is easy to have lots of chances, and some that look easy in 2D. That is a problem.

And then, those tactics make teams miss lots of chances. I have seen it by myself, it's nearly ridiculous to have 20 shots in goal and only 1 against and lose the game. Second problem.

But there are other tactics that work in a comprehensive way, with fine goal rating and a reasonable number of chances. I have found a couple of tactics that match this and I'm having success despite having less chances than before.

So, people who say FM is unplayable: choose a right tactic, and you will enjoy the game.

And people who say that FM has no problem: explain me why can't I play with fast tempo and direct passing and expect normal behaviour from the ME. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very sensible post. I quite agree to a degree. The ME isn't perfect, but neither is it unplayable.

[Roger Hunt]

I think that the difficulty is that 'shots on target' is the 'last' ratio before goals. What I mean is that - if you have good possession and passing, but poor territorial advantage - then you assume you are being too cautious and adjust your play. If you have lots of shots off target, you assume that your strikers are poor or that they aren't getting quality service.

But if you are getting 10-15 shots on target, 'logic' (experience of watching football irl) tells you that you should (most of the time) beat the keeper with 2-3 of them; and furthermore, it's very hard to see what else you as the manager can do to increase the quality of the chances. I fully accept that there may be things that can be done but they are not obvious, and I think this has frustrated people.

If SI believe that the match engine is 'right' then imho there need to be other managerial tools within the game (along the lines of an OPTA analysis) that help you understand why your shots aren't turning into goals.

[Andy H]

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

well of course a part of it was tactics, like if scotland had played 9 up front they would have lost heavily etc, but on champ man its 75% tactics and 25% player ability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you have said,

" Tactics can separate teams that are close in natural ability, but thats all".

So I have put my point across that tactics have a lot more to do with teams winning and losing as Scotland are no where near France in terms of natural ability but yet managed to beat them twice and therefore kinda picking all sorts of holes in the statement you made.

Of course its mostly about tactics as that is what football is mainly about, although you seem to be of the belief that you can simply put eleven players on a pitch who seem better on paper and ability and expect them to win every single game but thats is not how football works irl and in FM.

[This field intentionally l]

After Torres missed yet another sitter I looked at the match report. It wasn't a sitter it was a diving header, a much more difficult chance to convert. The 2D didn't represent this chance adequately; and I missed the commentary line 'cos it flashed past too quickly.

The point is not every sitter is as sitter.

[Barnzy]

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

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

IMHO there are two problems in ME related and people complaint about one of them.

It's clear that some tactics create tons of chances, more chances than any matches. Yes, big teams sometimes have 20 shots in a match, but that is not real average. In FM is easy to have lots of chances, and some that look easy in 2D. That is a problem.

And then, those tactics make teams miss lots of chances. I have seen it by myself, it's nearly ridiculous to have 20 shots in goal and only 1 against and lose the game. Second problem.

But there are other tactics that work in a comprehensive way, with fine goal rating and a reasonable number of chances. I have found a couple of tactics that match this and I'm having success despite having less chances than before.

So, people who say FM is unplayable: choose a right tactic, and you will enjoy the game.

And people who say that FM has no problem: explain me why can't I play with fast tempo and direct passing and expect normal behaviour from the ME. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very sensible post. I quite agree to a degree. The ME isn't perfect, but neither is it unplayable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unplayable depends on your point of view, I myself find the game unplayable due to certain things within the match engine - you may not take any notice of these things and carry on regardless.

[Ruud Van Nistelrooy 774]

I personally find the match engine on the patch unplayable. The chances created bug is dreadful and I have given up playing it. First I tried playing it on just text commentary which made things better but I wanted the 2D pitch so I just went back to the beta patch and by doing this the match engine is near perfect.

[Ranson52]

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

Because of it's complexity SI will take all the time they can get to get it right.

As a patch is due after the transfer window it makes complete sense to keep working on and testing the ME till then rather than repeating the quick patch solution which failed in the first place.

Your rehash of the theory that the Sega connection is somehow damaging is speculative balderdash and based on no factual knowledge at all. In fact it's a huge step in ensuring the future of FM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am rehashing nothing at all, and while I respect your right to an opinion (just like I and everyone else) to refer to my comment as "speculative balderdash and based on no factual knowledge at all" is stupid at best and crass at worst.

I am not indulging in any sort of speculation, simply making a comment based on my own observations since the first day the Collyer Bros released a football sim, which I have been playing ever since. I didn't base my comments on any factual knowledge as there is none, I simply made an observation.

Your comment that it is a “huge step in ensuring the future of FM†is based on your own opinion, and only after the next 15 to 20 years of the games existence will you be able to claim any "factual knowledge".

Grow up, if you can't respect another person's right to express an opinion, then I suggest you refrain from making derogatory comments.

[Antonin]

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

Is the OP posting anything we havn't heard before?

SI have kindly provided a search function & as has been said a large match engine thread already exists on the first page. Also I do believe SI have admitted their mistake on the shots issue & will be fixing it, so can people not just wait until 8.02 is released on this one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should point out that while you don't like the fact that the OP created this thread, by responding to it you have simply bumped it to the top of the pile...

[Kriss]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ranson52:

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

Because of it's complexity SI will take all the time they can get to get it right.

As a patch is due after the transfer window it makes complete sense to keep working on and testing the ME till then rather than repeating the quick patch solution which failed in the first place.

Your rehash of the theory that the Sega connection is somehow damaging is speculative balderdash and based on no factual knowledge at all. In fact it's a huge step in ensuring the future of FM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am rehashing nothing at all, and while I respect your right to an opinion (just like I and everyone else) to refer to my comment as "speculative balderdash and based on no factual knowledge at all" is stupid at best and crass at worst.

I am not indulging in any sort of speculation, simply making a comment based on my own observations since the first day the Collyer Bros released a football sim, which I have been playing ever since. I didn't base my comments on any factual knowledge as there is none, I simply made an observation.

Your comment that it is a “huge step in ensuring the future of FM†is based on your own opinion, and only after the next 15 to 20 years of the games existence will you be able to claim any "factual knowledge".

Grow up, if you can't respect another person's right to express an opinion, then I suggest you refrain from making derogatory comments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see anything derogatory there, your opinion v my opinion.

Get off your high horse.

I'd just point out that mine is an informed opinion and yours is just speculation.

[polar_bear]

It's unplayable as far as I'm concerned. Realism is everything. The average Premiership game has about 20-25 shots on goal, but in my FM08 games it is more like 40. But the ME makes you miss loads of easy chances to ensure the total goals aren't too high.

Once you get it in your head that it's not a realistic match engine, it takes away the fun for me. The whole point of FM is we want to think we are playing a real game of football with real tactics etc...not just using trial and error to find some tactic that will beat a phoney match engine.

Let's hope the patch fixes this issue, but I'm very disappointed they released the game with such glaring problems in the first place.

[Kriss]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the ME makes you miss loads of easy chances to ensure the total goals aren't too high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see why people would think that but that isn't the way it works.

[chopper99]

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

I think that the difficulty is that 'shots on target' is the 'last' ratio before goals. What I mean is that - if you have good possession and passing, but poor territorial advantage - then you assume you are being too cautious and adjust your play. If you have lots of shots off target, you assume that your strikers are poor or that they aren't getting quality service.

But if you are getting 10-15 shots on target, 'logic' (experience of watching football irl) tells you that you should (most of the time) beat the keeper with 2-3 of them; and furthermore, it's very hard to see what else you as the manager can do to increase the quality of the chances. I fully accept that there may be things that can be done but they are not obvious, and I think this has frustrated people.

If SI believe that the match engine is 'right' then imho there need to be other managerial tools within the game (along the lines of an OPTA analysis) that help you understand why your shots aren't turning into goals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this completely. Although I've managed to create a tactic that doesn't suffer from this problem, and have realised that results are more important than number of shots (meaning I'm now enjoying the game as much as ever), I can completely understand why it is so misleading to people. As has been said it's very difficult to know what to do to improve a tactic when all the signs point to it being a good one already. If you're creating vast numbers of chances that look good but still losing, then how will you have any idea what you're supposed to do to stop losing?

So while the game is playable and enjoyable for many of us this issue makes the tactical side of the game very difficult and frustrating for many, which is why more tools are needed to help the user have the same level of understanding of the tactics that the AI managers seem to have.

[George Graham]

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the ME makes you miss loads of easy chances to ensure the total goals aren't too high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see why people would think that but that isn't the way it works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you enlighten us as to where the problem lays then?

It would be useful as it might help people play around the issue as we know it doesnt happen to everybody.

[George Graham]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

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

I think that the difficulty is that 'shots on target' is the 'last' ratio before goals. What I mean is that - if you have good possession and passing, but poor territorial advantage - then you assume you are being too cautious and adjust your play. If you have lots of shots off target, you assume that your strikers are poor or that they aren't getting quality service.

But if you are getting 10-15 shots on target, 'logic' (experience of watching football irl) tells you that you should (most of the time) beat the keeper with 2-3 of them; and furthermore, it's very hard to see what else you as the manager can do to increase the quality of the chances. I fully accept that there may be things that can be done but they are not obvious, and I think this has frustrated people.

If SI believe that the match engine is 'right' then imho there need to be other managerial tools within the game (along the lines of an OPTA analysis) that help you understand why your shots aren't turning into goals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this completely. Although I've managed to create a tactic that doesn't suffer from this problem, and have realised that results are more important than number of shots (meaning I'm now enjoying the game as much as ever), I can completely understand why it is so misleading to people. As has been said it's very difficult to know what to do to improve a tactic when all the signs point to it being a good one already. If you're creating vast numbers of chances that look good but still losing, then how will you have any idea what you're supposed to do to stop losing?

So while the game is playable and enjoyable for many of us this issue makes the tactical side of the game very difficult and frustrating for many, which is why more tools are needed to help the user have the same level of understanding of the tactics that the AI managers seem to have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on.

BTW what do you find gets around this issue?

[Powermonger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

I agree with this completely. Although I've managed to create a tactic that doesn't suffer from this problem, and have realised that results are more important than number of shots (meaning I'm now enjoying the game as much as ever), I can completely understand why it is so misleading to people. As has been said it's very difficult to know what to do to improve a tactic when all the signs point to it being a good one already. If you're creating vast numbers of chances that look good but still losing, then how will you have any idea what you're supposed to do to stop losing?

So while the game is playable and enjoyable for many of us this issue makes the tactical side of the game very difficult and frustrating for many, which is why more tools are needed to help the user have the same level of understanding of the tactics that the AI managers seem to have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also agree with this and have been harping on this a lot lately. Tactics need a overhaul and need to be made more understandable instead of the cryptic way they currently react with the match engine.

I don't have the time or patience to watch every game with full highlights in an effort to try and work out what is going wrong. Even if I do manage to isolate a problem, trying to translate a solution through the sliders can be frustrating in itself.

Tactics and match analysis need to be made more accessable because the match engine is increasingly becoming more complex but the information and tools given to us are never improved. We are playing FM08 now, not CM4, it's no longer acceptable for this part of the game to be neglected.

[chopper99]

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

Spot on.

BTW what do you find gets around this issue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm currently using a very balanced 4-1-2-2-1 formation with high creative freedom and stuff on the 2 AMC's. The tactic's neither particularly attcking or particularly defensive and seems to do the trick.

If I'm perfectly honest I can't really pinpoint the exact reason why my tactics don't result in a noticeable amount of missed one-on-one chances but if you'd like to take a look at it yourself more details can be found in this thread which includes a link to the tactic if wanted.

[Kriss]

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the ME makes you miss loads of easy chances to ensure the total goals aren't too high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see why people would think that but that isn't the way it works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you enlighten us as to where the problem lays then?

It would be useful as it might help people play around the issue as we know it doesnt happen to everybody. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry George, I wasn't offering a solution, just pointing out that they don't tune up keepers so that they effectively ensure the correct goal ratios occur.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Please read this, it will help explain why we are where we are with the ME.

In the beginning Fred Dev sat down with a whole list of changes and improvements he wanted to make for the FM08 version of the ME.

Fred doesn't just know the ME, he created it so he's not flying blind, however even he can't predict every consequence of every change he makes.

So he makes the calculated adjustments to.

Improve GK's closing down a striker.

Get strikers to try rounding the GK more often.

Get strikers trying more chips or lobs.

Change the effect of the proximity of defenders on strikers muffing a chance.

Reduce strikers taking long shots.

And more and more and more, because these are all things people have suggested needed improving from 07.

Now that is just one minute area of the ME touched in several different ways and the consequences in terms of match play can only at this stage be estimated.

Fred actually makes hundreds and hundreds of changes right down to adding different goal celebrations.

All of these changes have an effect on and are affected by the external factors such as match fitness, pre match morale, effect on morale of in match events, referee and assistant settings.

Rep and current form of the two teams.

The list is endless and the code changes run into thousands.

After many a long hour Fred declares the ME ready for it's first test.

This is a soak test and the ME is set to automatically play hundreds of matches so the end data can be analysed for accuracy.

A key stat is the number of goals per match and of course Fred has the real life figures, so at the end of the test if all those matches produce a goal average within a decimal point of the real life ones Fred can declare the changes a sucess can't he?

Well no he can't actually, because he has no idea how realistic the in match football which created those correct stats was played out.

The only way to be sure that the stats were created by a beautiful rendition of the beautiful game is for real people to play hundreds of matches and that's where beta testing comes in.

The problem with having real people judge the reality of Fred's efforts is that it takes a long time and as you see on this forum everyday peoples opinions tend to differ somewhat.

Accept that after a while Fred and the testers agree that there is certainly a problem with defenders closing down.

Fred makes a series of adjustments and a new copy of the ME goes to testers who start the testing process again.

We now discover that improving closing down has caused a big increase in fouls, more adjustment, another ME version issued, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Several ME's later the testers are only moaning a little about the match play so we must be close.

Time to run another soak test, this produces too many goals per game.

Oh hell! here we go again.

I hope this gives some people a clearer idea of how it works without appearing patronising.

So to sum up, keepers aren't set to control the score line, their performances are just a result of the settings in place, which also produced the correct goal count at the end of the soak tests.

I know that's very simplistic but I hope it helps clarify things.

It is of course a very layman type explanation and Paul C will probably beat me with a big stick, but genius sometimes has difficulty explaining it's superior rationale

[George Graham]

Cheers Kriss and Chopper for the replies- I'll give the 41221 a go, as I too play this formation but have an AMR/AML instead of AMCs.

[xouman]

As software developer, I understand you perfetly kriss and love your explanation. With ME there are not program errors, just values for everything, there are lots and lots and they are interconnected. For example, how many probabilities has DMC that is playing as RB, with low form, 77% fitness, 12 marking, 14 tackle, 11 bravery, etc to take the ball from a LW who has good form, 81% fitness, 16 dribbling, 12 pace, 14 acceleration, 15 technique, 9 balance... who has been running for 20 meters and dribbled 1 CM, and has space ahead to dribble and a ST to pass the ball? You can make your maths and say 43%!!! And ohhh, ME gives now a 45%!!! so ME has to be tweaked. What can we do? downgrade importance of winger's dribbling? or just his pace? maybe the importance of the form? isn't better to tweak the marking influence? have you said tackling? Well, let's say a couple of these things. And now DMC playing as RB has a 43% of chances of taking the ball. Brilliant

But what??? now a CD that tackles as ST has a 67% of taking the ball and with real life statistics it should have a 64%!!! Let's tweak the ME again.

This is one of the problems of creating a great ME as Fm has: there are lots of things involving everything, more than can we imagine. So please, be nice with soft developers. We try to do our best, but things are sometimes just TOO much complicated.

[George Graham]

Well I tried your tactic and won my first game with it 7-1 at home to bottom placed MKDons- my striker scored 5 of them!

After that it settled down to my usual drawing streaks but I put that down to me incorrectly praising my striker, and after I got a chance to criticise him I then beat the 4th placed team 4-1 away and drew unluckily to the top team 3-3.

What did I think was different?

Well imo my tactic created (imo) clearer chances than your one, but the 2 AMCs and the FC in your tactic would cut through defences like butter with their short passing- and I found it very pleasing to watch.

I found a lot of the goals were where the striker was able to pull shots across the keeper- whereas many of my efforts were very square on goal.

So although players in my tactic were unmarked the angle for shooting was less favourable than the ones created in your tactic.

Im also amazed that the AI isnt able to take advantage of the massive hole in midfield- they seem too preoccupied in marking the AMCs rather than exploiting the gaping hole, although to be fair thats probably the best Ive seen a DMC play in FM08.

[chopper99]

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

Well I tried your tactic and won my first game with it 7-1 at home to bottom placed MKDons- my striker scored 5 of them!

After that it settled down to my usual drawing streaks but I put that down to me incorrectly praising my striker, and after I got a chance to criticise him I then beat the 4th placed team 4-1 away and drew unluckily to the top team 3-3.

What did I think was different?

Well imo my tactic created (imo) clearer chances than your one, but the 2 AMCs and the FC in your tactic would cut through defences like butter with their short passing- and I found it very pleasing to watch.

I found a lot of the goals were where the striker was able to pull shots across the keeper- whereas many of my efforts were very square on goal.

So although players in my tactic were unmarked the angle for shooting was less favourable than the ones created in your tactic.

Im also amazed that the AI isnt able to take advantage of the massive hole in midfield- they seem too preoccupied in marking the AMCs rather than exploiting the gaping hole, although to be fair thats probably the best Ive seen a DMC play in FM08. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm chuffed it's working for you. I agree that it's very difficult to understand why tactics are going wrong when you see good chances missed a lot. As you say, the chances in your tactic seem to be more clear cut than in mine and it's this that makes it difficult and frustrating for people as it's difficult to know what to change when things look like they're working. I'm just glad I've managed to create something that works.

But as you say the 2 AMC's and Striker combo seems to overwhelm the defence and create chances that seem to be well converted.