This game is sooooo scripted!!!

[Piginho]

@Piginho: of course there's something that increases probs of the Sunderland defeating Chelsea, there needs to be shock resuts as it happens in RL, but that's not something to express in "I lost again X GAME IS SCRIPTED" (I'm not saying you said it, with such long thread I don't really know who said what), it's as simple as form runs, morale status and so on. One of the ways it can be done is that Sunderland will have increased benefits for their good runs and good morale etc than Chelsea and Chelsea will get higher penalties from the bad morale, harmony, etc than Sunderland, so maybe the result of the weighing of those may end that at the date of the save, those factors out of the tactics/formation end giving Sunderland higher chances of winning the next game despite being the a priori weaker side. And scripted has been hurled. I'm kind of not sure if we disagree at all or how you get to support the scripterists (somehow, even if you don't say scripted, well, you don't really but... eh since you seem to reply against notscripterists) . Maybe my problems with english made me not be understood right (or didn't quite get you). Heh, it's kind of a mess, so perhaps it's kind of better to say "we're not really that disagreeing, in the end it's just a very subtle difference in exposition, as it sounds"

Su inglés no es muy bien, pero es mejor que mi español. In fact, probably beter than my English.

Your first sentence above suggests that you agree that there is a mechanism in place to provide the shock results. You then go on to talk about Chelsea v Sunderland, suggesting that maybe Sunderland has good morale, harmony etc, and that even though Chelsea have been winning all their recent games, they may have poor morale, harmony etc.

Let me assure you that these so called "scripted," "unwinnable" games, which are not scripted and not unwinnable are in fact just extremely difficult to win. If I was Chelsea in above example and I had perfect morale, harmony, tactics and everything, I might play the game and lose and replay and lose and keep replaying until evetually I win, all the time using the same settings in each replay.

Part of the variability of results will be down to the normal amount of randomness in the game, but some results are outside of the normal randomness and can only be explained by significant influence from the software, not to the point where you could never win the match, but perhaps to a point where your chances of winning, whatever you do, are less than maybe 5% or even less than 1%.

 

[alicwkd]

RE the transfers. Its pretty clear why they make similar transfers every time. If in RL we went back in time the majority of the transfers that happened this summer will be the same, because the same things would have happened that caused the manager to want to buy the player

 

[Lazaru5]

I never said it was "scripted." What I did say is that the games designers have built in a mechanism to make it very difficult for you to keep winning, even if you have the best players, best training, best strategy and so on, in that certain (and only certain and then probably at random) matches will have had the odds/probabilities bent very heavily in favour of the weaker team.

When you say that you accept you've got something wrong if you lose, how do you explain if you replay the game with exactly the same parameters (and I really mean exactly the same in every sense) and you then go on to win. Do you then take credit for getting it right?
<snip>
Nobody's saying it's wrong for it to be done in this way, but don't be blind, ignorant fools in thinking that as you approach each match you will only get a poor result if you do something wrong. It just ain't true!!

First of all, I wouldn't replay it at all, this isn't a Sheff Utd v Arsenal situation (but we DO seem to get them too ) this is just a case of losing ONE game... c'est la vie, **** happens, move on, put it behind you, plan for the next game but DO analyse what went wrong.

You have to have done something 'wrong' to lose a game you should be winning. Maybe it's the pre-match Press conference, maybe it's just the players EXPECT to win (this doesn't always manifest itself as 'looking complacent'). What is certain is that YOU as their manager should KNOW (or at least suspect) what went wrong, it's your 'job' after all (in the game).

This game is 100% 'beatable' just like any other, it all depends on how much you want to dedicate to the game to actually 'beat' it. You have to 'learn' what motivates/de-motivates and/or affects your players positively or negatively and work against the negatives by doing the 'right' things.

There are so many other things wrong with this game that cause frustrations that really are programming issues that we should be wanting fixes for. Losing a game is not one of them, it's simply part and parcel of football, even losing to a lesser team. There really is no point dwelling on it (or even replaying it), just move on...

 

[Steve*]

Ok to try clear up all the drivel on this thread.....

There is a script encoded throughout the entire game but contrary to what most people say its not fixed.If it was fixed every player would sign for the same team every save game you play and the same teams would win the league. Everything in the game is randomly generated. An example of this is that the same regens never appear in different save games.

However some results may be similar if you play a certain match several times due to player form and tactics.By changing your own tactics makes your players feel akward playing as they need a few games to get used to the tactic.Also confidence is an issue,if your players are overconfident they may not do as well as they should which is realistic.

Just because some teams always seem to sign the same players sometimes doesnt mean its scripted.the teams will look to recruit in whichever areas its short in with the money available to them which sometimes makes it seem slightly repetitive.

Finally i dont want to start another argument about scripting. I studied computer engineering for a year in college so i have experience of games and software programming. Albeit i used java which was fairly basic compared to more modern software the principals remain the same. Hope this solves the original question.

 

[Piginho]

First of all, I wouldn't replay it at all, this isn't a Sheff Utd v Arsenal situation (but we DO seem to get them too ) this is just a case of losing ONE game... c'est la vie, **** happens, move on, put it behind you, plan for the next game but DO analyse what went wrong.

You have to have done something 'wrong' to lose a game you should be winning. Maybe it's the pre-match Press conference, maybe it's just the players EXPECT to win (this doesn't always manifest itself as 'looking complacent'). What is certain is that YOU as their manager should KNOW (or at least suspect) what went wrong, it's your 'job' after all (in the game).

...

Lazaru5,
Replaying or not replaying the game is not the issue......the question is whether the game designers have made it extra difficult for you to win certain matches and by "certain matches" I don't mean predefined at the start of the game, but certain randomly selected matches based to some extent on your current form in the game.

However, replaying a game is the only way to prove you wrong in your conjecture that you have to have done something wrong to lose.

If you replay, using exactly the same parameters did you suddenly do everything right (even though you changed nothing from when you got it wrong) if you win at second attempt?

What if you didn't win in until the tenth attempt and didn't change any conditions?

In each case you changed nothing from when you got it wrong and lost, so your suggestion that you must have got something wrong to lose is wrong.

Yes, it can be true that you've screwed up, but the first case above proves that there is randomness built into match engine and rightly so. The second case above would most likely be a case of the software being modified to make it much more difficult to win.

Not "scripted" but tweaked heavily against you and in this situation you could do everything right many times over and not win and I'm clearly talking about games you would under any normal circumstances expect to win easily.

And Stafford,

You say that "EVERYTHING IN THE GAME IS RANDOMLY GENERATED"

If you select real players at the start, they are not random, but are fixed as are the teams, nations, competitions etc.

After this most of the game is random, but all of the random events are based on probability which is mathematical, so if an event has a 10% probability of happening, most likely you would have to replay that event about 10 times to actually see it happen.

I'm saying that the software designers have made it possible in certain circumstances for the game to change the normal predefined probabilities during the game.

This is by no means difficult to incorporate into the programming, so why do people who claim to know something about programming keep trying to deny this possibility?

 

[RedPJH]

Goodness me - is this thread still running? Some folks clearly are not listening.

1/ The entire game is not scripted.
2/ There is a mechanism built into the game that, when given conditions are met (eg your team is doing 'unrealistically' well), kicks in to virtually guarantee you will lose your next game. Generally this will be a heavy loss and so will effect morale etc for a number of games.
3/ There is next to nothing you can ever do to win a game that the mechanism has decided you will lose, so to be honest its pointless trying. I've proven this over a period of years and in different versions of the game by changing all the parameters and variables I can possibly think of both leading up to and during the game including tactics, morale, fitness, coaching etc.The number of reloads required to win that particular game mean its simply better, as someone put it, to 'suck it up' and move on. It also means that, yes, there is a degree of scripting present in our beloved game. It also means that in losing these games we haven't necessarily done anything wrong as managers so go easy on yourselves.
4/ The above 'balancing mechanism' is required to make the game a success. Simply put, without it, the game would be percieved as being way too easy.
5/ This 'script' for want of a better word has been in the game as long as I've been playing it, so at least back to the days of CM3.

How do we know this? Empirical evidence. The same way we prove anything scientifically. Experimentation and observation of results over a period of years in this case. As I said earlier in the thread, evidence of the mechanism at work is at the very least reproducable. To those of you who have a knowledge of computer science this should be crucial - it means that its easy to prove for yourself, which is why I find it difficult to understand why the thread has been running so long.

Two requests to some of the doubters:

1/ Next time you are on a really good run with a new team, morale is high, results good, fitness good etc etc and a freak result suddenly kicks in for no apparent reason, after the match, reload the game to before the match. There I said it. reload the game. And keep reloading it to see how many times you need to replay that freak result game to get a win. You can change as many factors as you like before the replay it makes no difference to the result - usually a heavy defeat complete with red cards etc thats defies all the logic of your understanding of the game. You can also change nothing and keep everything the same - its up to you and makes no difference. Now, we have been very careful to use terms like 'almost unwinnable' to describe these 'unbalanced' matches as I think they can be won given enough persistence. When carrying out my own experiments to better understand the game I've generally given up at around at 20-25 reloads. This clearly indicates that there is some sort of 'imbalancing mechanism' or script in effect for this particular match. I'm willing to bet anyone trying this for themselves will be convinced the mechanism or script is there a lot sooner than I was.

2/ Ask yourself a question and answer it honestly - how long would you play the game if the above script wasn't in place ie if you were able to use the same training, tactics etc and win again and again? This is simply the way the developers have chosen to implement the odd 'shock result' to keep us from getting bored with the game being too easy and, of course, to add a touch of realism as shock results happen in the real world. The unrealistic side of this is, of course, Sunderland wouldn't keep beating Chelsea 3-0 at the bridge again and again for 20-25 times in a row as happens in FM when we replay these 'almost unwinnable' matches. Personally, I'm not too worried about this its still the best footie sim around and has kept me hooked for, what, 10 years now? I also don't know of any other way they could implement shock results to be honest

 

[fifa_manager_fan]

What if you where Chelsea and lost to Sunderland 3-0 at home had to add this, but on another note I was Bolton and played 3 games won 2 drew 1 and then my laptop overheated and restarted arrrr played same games again with same players and tactics but won 1 drew 1 lost 1, was annoyed because I hadn't changed anything yet lost where as I won before but in real life the same happens Bolton could play a team 3 times and beat them 2-0 but then on the fourth everything the same the luck changes and they win 1-0 and i cant score.

The game (im guessing) will calculate the outcome on a law of averages for example if you have a terrible striker im guessing you may not score with 5 shots but if you have a top striker you may get lucky and score 2 of them 5

EDIT:
Didnt realise this was 3 pages long im guessing my point has already been said

 

[Anton86]

And when I look at the game play. It doesn't seem to me that the game decides 'oh this one will be a goal'. For example, when having an attack and in the end it will be my striker who has to finish one on one. It really depends on who the striker is at that time. Like fifa manager said, having my top goalscorer there, he'll probably make the goal. But a young talent will not. So that means the changes you make will effect the game. Then how could a match be scripted before it even starts. The game does not now which changes I'm going to make.
Another example. I have had 8 corners in a game. Then I feel we're not as productive as we should be because i make 1 out of 5 corners. So I change the setup an now I create a much better situation at the corner (lets say the first was totally rubbish and the new corner tactic is perfect for my team). I score the next corner. Does that mean, that IF the game is scripted, that that corner would have gone in with the first (bad) corner tactic too? Or do you think that when I would have the old corner tactic on that I would have scored a goal but not by a corner.

Many of you say, yeah it's scripted but that's part of the game and I'm fine with it. But that's rubbish. You wouldn't like to play fm if you knew that whatever you do makes little chance. This game is all about not being scripted and that's why you play it.

 

[adickson607]

Maybe I'm extremely wrong here, but if the game was scripted would results not be the same for every single player who plays the game?

For example. If two people both loaded the EPL and managed all 20 teams and used the default formations etc would results be the same for both?


I don't see how the game can be scripted because nobody reads from the same script. Everyone has a different game. This is making sense in my head btw

 

[SotK]

Surely the game being "scripted" to make you lose/get a poor result against a weaker team when you are doing well is just complacency in your players? The game taking complacency/overconfidence/whatever into account would also account for the seemingly unwinnable games taking many reloads to win.

 

[RedPJH]

Remember we're only talking about a very few matches here, ones that the game decides you are going to likely lose because otherwise you would be doing unrealistically well. Really doesn't happen that often, hardly ever for me atm tbh as is pretty hard to do 'unrealistically well' as Farnborough with limited resources So, generally what you do as a manager makes all the difference to results & performances etc. Most folks just take these 'surprise results' on the chin and move on. I do too to be honest but with every new release of FM I check to see if the mechanism is still there - it still is for FM11. Which is why I got interested in this thread.

Hope I haven't mislead anyone by the use of the word script, apologies if this is the case.
Sad old computing bods like me use 'script' to mean programming code all the time, Mea Culpa :$ I'm not suggesting that these 'almost unwinnable' games are scripted from start to finish ie what the players do etc is all pre-arranged. That wouldn't work, as you rightly point out, you as a manager can do things the match engine cannot easily predict.

When I say script what I really mean is that there is a continous routine (program if you like) that runs within the game while you play and monitors if your team is performing realistically or not. If you start to do unrealistically well this script or program marks your next fixture as the 'almost unwinnable' match.

I don't think he game engine then 'scripts' all the moves in the 'almost unwinnable' match, I believe it shifts parameters or variables like "the % likelihood of your player completing a pass" or "the % likelihood of your player committing a red card offence" for that match, unbalancing things so much that pretty well regardless of what you do as a manager before or during that match, you will likely lose, usually heavily. I'm not talking about a script here like for a film, I'm talking more about a shifting of the odds so apologies again if that was misleading.

Regarding the point about why I or we keep playing when we know this - look at it the other way around. What is the alternative? A game without the 'script' or program or routine whatever we call it to detect when you're doing too well and winning every match. I wouldn't fancy that much, no challenge and would get very old very fast.

Who knows, maybe there's another running script that detects if your team is doing waaaay too badly and marks your next match as 'almost unloseable' boosting your percentages so you can't fail to win handsomely. But none of us here would know about that one, would we? Its all about mixing the right level of success & failure to keep us as players engaged. A classic game balancing problem I guess.

 

[Piginho]

RedPJH has done a good job of summing up the comments of those of us that really understand what we see and know to be going on in the game, so well done Red, I agree with almost every word.

And when I look at the game play. It doesn't seem to me that the game decides 'oh this one will be a goal'. For example, when having an attack and in the end it will be my striker who has to finish one on one. It really depends on who the striker is at that time. Like fifa manager said, having my top goalscorer there, he'll probably make the goal. But a young talent will not. So that means the changes you make will effect the game. Then how could a match be scripted before it even starts. The game does not now which changes I'm going to make.
Another example. I have had 8 corners in a game. Then I feel we're not as productive as we should be because i make 1 out of 5 corners. So I change the setup an now I create a much better situation at the corner (lets say the first was totally rubbish and the new corner tactic is perfect for my team). I score the next corner. Does that mean, that IF the game is scripted, that that corner would have gone in with the first (bad) corner tactic too? Or do you think that when I would have the old corner tactic on that I would have scored a goal but not by a corner.

Many of you say, yeah it's scripted but that's part of the game and I'm fine with it. But that's rubbish. You wouldn't like to play fm if you knew that whatever you do makes little chance. This game is all about not being scripted and that's why you play it.

Anton86
Your last paragraph above shows that you are deluded or haven't read our comments properly.

We absolutely are not saying the game is scripted!! What we are saying is that the software is designed to adjust probabilities to such an extent, under certain circumstances, as outlined by PJH above, so that it doesn't matter whether you replay the game with the same parameters, or you change them, the probability of you winning a game that has been adjusted like this is extremely low, but if you keep going for long enough you will most likely win it.

What we are saying is that even if you had perfect morale, tactics etc, the program is designed to do things like make opposition players play out of their skins and so on, so yes on certain games, whether your corner tactic was good or bad, the software has decided you deserve to lose and it will throw everything at you to try to get that result.

Where I differ from PJH, is that if I have ever decided to replay one of these "software adjusted" matches, I have replayed it however many times required to eventually get the result and the most times I've ever had to replay would be around the 20-25 mark.

Yes in certain and only certain matches "whatever you do makes little chance." In other words, there are indeed some matches, not pre-determined, but selected when certain conditions arise, where the software decides that you need to be taken down a peg or two and whatever you do will make little difference.

You can indeed prove this by experimentation. You say "You wouldn't like to play fm if you knew" this. Well, I'm sorry if this takes away any enjoyment you get from the game, but it is the case.

I invited SI's programmers to comment and deny it and none have done so yet.

 

[Death Ball]

Well, bad expression in that apparent contradiction, Piginho. I agree with all that you wrote in your reply.

What I meant to say is, that there's a need to make shock results possible, I don't think anybody wants to see Chealsea or Manchester United or Barça or Real Madrid or... winning every season with a 38 0 0 record, so there would me ways to make possible the event of defeats, and that if the mere events during the match could make it impossible for Bristol City to ever beat Liverpool, then there may be some of the other aspects that happen previous to the match that affect to the base chances (it's all a way of saying it, not that the game has a base chance variable, but we could maybe sum all the morale and so on variables to find the chances prematch) that may behave differently depending on the team's prestige and then you may find that if such and such happened, then that base chance may have become big in favour of the weak. Then maybe you seeing that you speak that there is a mechanism to ensure the team can't win everything, when it's not quite that; but if you want to call it so, knowing it would be that, then alright, calling it that way doesn't really reflect what it is, in my opinion.

And now your last post is taking it in the not quite right it's kind of decided in the "game decided you will win because" rather than "I stumbled on one of the mechanisms that got to that point".


So, uhhhh, that's my final word.

 

[adibhoy]

maybe your just **** at the game

dont like it, dont play it!

 

[RedPJH]

maybe your just **** at the game

dont like it, dont play it!

thank you adibhoy, for that most insightful comment and well-reasoned contribution to the discussion.

 

[Piginho]

maybe your just **** at the game

dont like it, dont play it!

Another person missing the point of this discussion.

I have won challenges on this site, challenges that limit your number of saves and that I have won with far fewer than the permitted number of saves (Of course I lost and drew many matches in these challenges).

I have done so without resorting to replays as any challenge won in this fashion would be hollow. I also won with fewer than permitted saves to demonstrate my fairplay and encouraged the challege originator to allow even fewer saves in future challenges.

So, no, I'm not **** at this game. I do like it, despite knowing what the game designers have done and will continue playing it.

 

[Anton86]

RedPJH has done a good job of summing up the comments of those of us that really understand what we see and know to be going on in the game, so well done Red, I agree with almost every word.



Anton86
Your last paragraph above shows that you are deluded or haven't read our comments properly.

We absolutely are not saying the game is scripted!! What we are saying is that the software is designed to adjust probabilities to such an extent, under certain circumstances, as outlined by PJH above, so that it doesn't matter whether you replay the game with the same parameters, or you change them, the probability of you winning a game that has been adjusted like this is extremely low, but if you keep going for long enough you will most likely win it.

What we are saying is that even if you had perfect morale, tactics etc, the program is designed to do things like make opposition players play out of their skins and so on, so yes on certain games, whether your corner tactic was good or bad, the software has decided you deserve to lose and it will throw everything at you to try to get that result.

Where I differ from PJH, is that if I have ever decided to replay one of these "software adjusted" matches, I have replayed it however many times required to eventually get the result and the most times I've ever had to replay would be around the 20-25 mark.

Yes in certain and only certain matches "whatever you do makes little chance." In other words, there are indeed some matches, not pre-determined, but selected when certain conditions arise, where the software decides that you need to be taken down a peg or two and whatever you do will make little difference.

You can indeed prove this by experimentation. You say "You wouldn't like to play fm if you knew" this. Well, I'm sorry if this takes away any enjoyment you get from the game, but it is the case.

I invited SI's programmers to comment and deny it and none have done so yet.

What I was saying reffered to people who believe the game is some sort of fixed and that many chances will not make any difference. What I meant to say was that this believe is very ignorant because you play the game for the excitement on having influence. People have been talking about transfers being fixed too, and the thread started by the guy saying he played the same match over and over again getting exactly the same results in goals, cards etc. So that was why I gave those examples. The game isn't fixed in that way.
The game picking matches you will lose to keep (long term) results realistic sounds much more plausable to me. This would not take away any excitement of the game as long as you don't reload when you lose (which takes a lot of excitement away on itself, dubble hard time).

 

[RedPJH]

I agree completely. Theres still plenty of room to have loads of influence and therefore have a ton of enjoyment despite the odd 'rigged' game being required to keep things in perspective long term.

No clue on the transfer thing to be honest - its not something I've ever looked at in detail. Too busy trawling the depths of the market searching for £0 wonderkids

 

[Lazaru5]

Goodness me - is this thread still running? Some folks clearly are not listening.

1/ The entire game is not scripted.
2/ There is a mechanism built into the game that, when given conditions are met (eg your team is doing 'unrealistically' well), kicks in to virtually guarantee you will lose your next game. Generally this will be a heavy loss and so will effect morale etc for a number of games.
3/ There is next to nothing you can ever do to win a game that the mechanism has decided you will lose, so to be honest its pointless trying. I've proven this over a period of years and in different versions of the game by changing all the parameters and variables I can possibly think of both leading up to and during the game including tactics, morale, fitness, coaching etc.The number of reloads required to win that particular game mean its simply better, as someone put it, to 'suck it up' and move on. It also means that, yes, there is a degree of scripting present in our beloved game. It also means that in losing these games we haven't necessarily done anything wrong as managers so go easy on yourselves.
4/ The above 'balancing mechanism' is required to make the game a success. Simply put, without it, the game would be percieved as being way too easy.
5/ This 'script' for want of a better word has been in the game as long as I've been playing it, so at least back to the days of CM3.

How do we know this? Empirical evidence. The same way we prove anything scientifically. Experimentation and observation of results over a period of years in this case. As I said earlier in the thread, evidence of the mechanism at work is at the very least reproducable. To those of you who have a knowledge of computer science this should be crucial - it means that its easy to prove for yourself, which is why I find it difficult to understand why the thread has been running so long.

Two requests to some of the doubters:

1/ Next time you are on a really good run with a new team, morale is high, results good, fitness good etc etc and a freak result suddenly kicks in for no apparent reason, after the match, reload the game to before the match. There I said it. reload the game. And keep reloading it to see how many times you need to replay that freak result game to get a win. You can change as many factors as you like before the replay it makes no difference to the result - usually a heavy defeat complete with red cards etc thats defies all the logic of your understanding of the game. You can also change nothing and keep everything the same - its up to you and makes no difference. Now, we have been very careful to use terms like 'almost unwinnable' to describe these 'unbalanced' matches as I think they can be won given enough persistence. When carrying out my own experiments to better understand the game I've generally given up at around at 20-25 reloads. This clearly indicates that there is some sort of 'imbalancing mechanism' or script in effect for this particular match. I'm willing to bet anyone trying this for themselves will be convinced the mechanism or script is there a lot sooner than I was.

2/ Ask yourself a question and answer it honestly - how long would you play the game if the above script wasn't in place ie if you were able to use the same training, tactics etc and win again and again? This is simply the way the developers have chosen to implement the odd 'shock result' to keep us from getting bored with the game being too easy and, of course, to add a touch of realism as shock results happen in the real world. The unrealistic side of this is, of course, Sunderland wouldn't keep beating Chelsea 3-0 at the bridge again and again for 20-25 times in a row as happens in FM when we replay these 'almost unwinnable' matches. Personally, I'm not too worried about this its still the best footie sim around and has kept me hooked for, what, 10 years now? I also don't know of any other way they could implement shock results to be honest

What complete and utter garbage! If you don't manage your team properly you will lose games, even games that you should be winning. Just because you don't understand why your team lost doesn't mean that you didn't do something wrong, you're just too arrogant to accept that.

To do the first request of yours would require me to save the game before every game, or at least every game that could produce a 'shock' result. But then, where do I save it? Right after the last one, perhaps? What would happen if I'd said the wrong thing in the post-match teamtalk of that game which had an effect on the next one? Maybe I should just save it right before I hit 'submit team' but then what would happen if I've ballsed up the news conference? So many variables, I couldn't even know where to save it to ensure I wouldn't lose the game...

Playing a game over and over to try and win it 'could' be controlled by the program I suppose, i.e. if you've lost, you've lost and the game then uses some string/variable to ensure that your attempt at cheating fails... In the old days you'd see in your history things like "knocked out in 3rd rd of fa cup" several times before it then said "won in 3rd round of fa cup" but all on the same date which made it easy to tell if you'd "cheated".

I dunno if it does that anymore, but if it does then maybe there is a variable that uses that info to try and limit the amount of cheating you do?

I don't know, to be fair, but what I do know is that shock defeats are almost certainly caused by something the manager has done/said/omitted/changed/tweaked/etc and not because the game has decided you need to lose one...

To those who say play the match with the same variables and see what results you get... the whole match would be played completely differently even if the result was the same, therefore the actual in-match variables which are AI controlled (weather, opposition players, set-pieces, things your players do, passes they attempt, etc etc etc) can affect the outcome.

You all WANT the game to be 'rigged' in this way so you can say "well, the game is made like that" rather than accepting that, as someone so succinctly put it, you're **** at the game. (H)

 

[Piginho]

Lazaru5
Very noble of you to always take responsibility for all of your unexpected defeats, but what if your wrong?

Evidence of many good players experience proves that you are indeed wrong. Sometimes the game just doesn't want you to win. Accept it and shut up....Please!!