This game is sooooo scripted!!!

[Anton86]

And all you probably watch from the game is highlights. If you watch the entire game you'll see that it is fluent. So like in real life, matches can't be the same. They should be EXACTLY the same if you reload after a loose for the game for being scripted. Because if one thing is different, everything else will be different too. If you played a match in real life and it ended 0-0, you could say 'ooooh if we would have scored a goal out of that opportunity in the fifth minute we would have won', but for most matches it's very ignorant to say that because that one goal would have changed the entire course of the game...
So no, it's not entirely scripted. But except the game for being what it is as RedPJH descibed it

 

[RedPJH]

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)

I'm not arrogant at all, you're right, I'm **** at the game and don't understand a thing about it or how it works or how to win. There - see?

As for the rest of your post - all been covered already in this thread.

 

[Lazaru5]

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!!

OK, how's this? You believe what you want to believe, and I'll play my game the way it's meant to be played even accepting the shock defeats that invariably happen to even the best teams in the world in RL or in the game...

At the end of the day, you say 'many good players' believe differently...

define 'good player' - is it someone who used the manutd2 tactic in 08 which was an absolute monster of a tactic (and regularly produced 38,0,0 results for me)?

Is it someone like JP who can create a tactic (and is willing to share it with the community)?

See, for me, a good player is one who plays the game as it is meant to be played; who attempts to create their own tactics/training schedules; who play the game without ever saving it (or only when exiting for whatever reason); who don't leave everything to their assistant (tactics, training, match prep, contracts, et al); who don't feel the need to replay any game regardless of what was expected; and are still successful within the game.

We can all rely on the few who are willing to share tactics, schedules, etc and then blame the programming for our own failings when it all goes Pete Tong. Personally, I think that if you're not prepared to actually PLAY the game with all it's aspects then you shouldn't even bother buying the **** game!

 

[Piginho]

OK, how's this? You believe what you want to believe, and I'll play my game the way it's meant to be played even accepting the shock defeats that invariably happen to even the best teams in the world in RL or in the game...

At the end of the day, you say 'many good players' believe differently...

define 'good player' - is it someone who used the manutd2 tactic in 08 which was an absolute monster of a tactic (and regularly produced 38,0,0 results for me)?

Is it someone like JP who can create a tactic (and is willing to share it with the community)?

See, for me, a good player is one who plays the game as it is meant to be played; who attempts to create their own tactics/training schedules; who play the game without ever saving it (or only when exiting for whatever reason); who don't leave everything to their assistant (tactics, training, match prep, contracts, et al); who don't feel the need to replay any game regardless of what was expected; and are still successful within the game.

We can all rely on the few who are willing to share tactics, schedules, etc and then blame the programming for our own failings when it all goes Pete Tong. Personally, I think that if you're not prepared to actually PLAY the game with all it's aspects then you shouldn't even bother buying the **** game!

When winning challenge set by Pompey-Dan I did exactly what you said, my own tactics, my own training, match prep, team talks and so on and I watched the matches in full, even played reserve matches, lost some matches, drew some matches (as intended by the games designers), didn't replay any matches, had very few saves over the challenge period and came out top on one of Dan's monthly challenges and on top in one part of another monthly challenge that was a two part challenge.

Surely, by beating alcomers in this way, I ought be acknowledged as a fairly good player and no, I've never used anyone elses so called monster tactics. I took the time to read various years versions of Tactical Theorums TTF all the way through, or rather I studied these in some detail and used the knowledge gained to come up with my own tactics.

If you play the game as the designers intended, you will never be able to prove either side of the argument, as you will continue on blissfully accepting that if you lose, you've got something wrong either before or during the match.

By actually experimenting in a variety of ways with replays, it is indeed possible to prove the argument one way or the other, despite the vast number of variables that exist within the game.

This is where an understanding of mathematics and more precisely, probability is far more useful than any programming knowledge.

All of the randomness which exists within the game is based on probability and it is not beyond the wit of man (or programmer) to incorporate an underlying mechanism within the game that adjusts these probabilities outside of reasonable norms to create shock or unexpected results.

Stop denying the obvious, when you've done no experimentation yourself to prove your point. Also, any statistical analysis requires a large enough sample size to be valid, so don't just replay one or two games and say this or that happened, cos it won't mean a thing.

As with most arguments/debates, if one side or the other cannot be persuaded by reasonable evidence that their view is incorrect and needs to be re-evaluated.....then we'll all have to agree to differ...........unless, of course, one of SI's programmers comes out and spills the beans!!

Stop making baseless claims about other people's abilities or motives regarding this game.

There is evidence on this website to back up that I am a good player and contrary to certain poster's comments, I don't as a matter of course replay games in general play, but I do know from years of experience and evidence collected that the game parameters are modded in the way we have suggested...Fact!!

This doesn't mean I'm ******** about it, it doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea and I haven't given alternative methods of achieving realism much thought, but it's no good you denying it's existence, just because you like to think everything you do and achieve is totally under your control. It's not true in FM and not true in life either. There are many things we can change and influence and many that we cannot and have to accept as they are.

In many ways, it's the frustration attached to the things that we can't change that has led me to experiment with replays in the way that I have, I guess.

 

[RedPJH]

OK, how's this? You believe what you want to believe, and I'll play my game the way it's meant to be played even accepting the shock defeats that invariably happen to even the best teams in the world in RL or in the game...

At the end of the day, you say 'many good players' believe differently...

define 'good player' - is it someone who used the manutd2 tactic in 08 which was an absolute monster of a tactic (and regularly produced 38,0,0 results for me)?

Is it someone like JP who can create a tactic (and is willing to share it with the community)?

See, for me, a good player is one who plays the game as it is meant to be played; who attempts to create their own tactics/training schedules; who play the game without ever saving it (or only when exiting for whatever reason); who don't leave everything to their assistant (tactics, training, match prep, contracts, et al); who don't feel the need to replay any game regardless of what was expected; and are still successful within the game.

We can all rely on the few who are willing to share tactics, schedules, etc and then blame the programming for our own failings when it all goes Pete Tong. Personally, I think that if you're not prepared to actually PLAY the game with all it's aspects then you shouldn't even bother buying the **** game!

No-one is suggesting anyone doesn't accept shock defeats. No-one is suggesting we should reload to avoid them. Shock defeats happen and should indeed be accepted. What we are saying is that, in addition to the normal shock defeats there is a type of match present in the game that is 'almost unwinnable' and that is triggered by your team doing too well. Its a balancing mechanism.

No-one is suggesting anyone reloads to avoid these 'almost unwinnable' matches either. We are suggesting that you use reloads if you have any doubts that the almost unwinnable match exists - to prove it to yourself. Anyway, I don't want to get involved in the good player vs bad player debate as its totally subjective, each to his own & all that.

Personally, for me its realism all the way and I'm just happy 'being ****' (apparently ) & working my way up from the conf every time I start with a new team. I just can't accept the idea that e.g. my favourite team Liverpool would accept me as a manager without me proving myself in the lower leagues first. I always watch my teams games in full match mode (funny Anton should mention that) in case I miss something, but thats just me I'm not saying its right or wrong & I guess most folks would find it tedious in the extreme.

But, we digress from the thread subject. I'm pretty much all explained out on this one guys & I think people are at the stage where they're gonna believe what they want to in the end. Off to play the game - enjoy it however you wish to.

 

[Lazaru5]

see, you're all adamant that this is deliberate on SI's part. I just can't see how the programmers could make any one game 'almost unwinnable', it just doesn't make sense...

There are just too many variables to 'adjust' to make that possible (or at least, that's what I think).

I'd assume that there would be something like x positive variables and y negative variables which affect the outcome of any given game. If all the positives are switched 'on' and all the negatives switched 'off' then you'll win 50-0. If all the positives AND negatives are switched on, a dour, drab, not much happening 0-0 draw (i.e. cancel each other out). Any other combo (which is what we're most likely to get) results in the games we actually get to watch and their subsequent results.

(at least, this is how I like to believe the program works, dunno how accurate it actually is but definitely makes more sense than random 'unwinnable games' being somehow included)

It seems that, as Piginho says, we'll have to agree to differ unless someone from SI spills the beans (and I do hope that they do to prove/disprove the myth/truth one way or the other)

GL with your saves

 

[Anton86]

That makes no sense either. In your version of the story there's a possibility for an unwinnable game too. In your story there's all those variables. But many of those are predetermined before you start a match too right? Form? Tactics, Press, etc. So even when you will be able to chance a certain amount of variables, it could be that you haven't got enough left (like having 10 out off your described 50 already having a negative outcome). Then at the match only a few possible solutions possible to make some variables turn out positive (but only a certain amount are possible, you could change the whole tactic but they'll only play worse) but never enough to get to a positive point.
Not that the variables story makes much sense to me. (and I used 50 because of your 50 goals, there's probably like a thousend but that doesn't differ the story).

 

[Piginho]

Lazaru5, Anton86

Nice to know there's still life in this thread, by the way!

How much do you really know about programming?

In any given match there are a whole host of variables, both positive and negative, but even within the match, individual events are not predetermined, they have probabilities of happening. Lampard strikes for goal, it goes in, clatters off the bar, the goalie saves it, the goalie parries it, or hopefully gets skyed into the stand. Each of those options will have a percentage chance of happening and the total will add up to 100% (unless a small percentage is left for he completely misses the ball and does an airshot!)

Each match is full of possibilities, but they are weighted, not guaranteed, by all of the variables in play. In the example above, Lampard's Long shots, Finishing, Composure and many other stats, including his morale and form will have an effect on the base percentage chances of any of the 5/6 options to actually occur (as well as the opposition goalie and his stats).

But again, it's not fixed in any match. He may score or hopefully he won't. (Sorry Chelski fans)

What we are saying is that most of the time it's only these variables that come into play, but that underlying all of these modifiers is a routine which allows for shock or unexpected results. Otherwise, if you had the best team, players, tactics and so on, you would always win, as over the course of a complete match, good and bad luck would tend to even out and you would always start each match with better modifiers than your opponent.

My contention is that this underlying routine reads the game and looks at teams that are doing unrealistically well and gives all of the normal modifiers a real big kick in the direction, or favour of the weaker team. This is a simple thing to do mathematically and therefore relatively simple for a programmer to do.

What then happens is that despite your normal high fitness levels and low injury-proneness, you will get a key player injured, despite your players heading the fair play league, you'll get a key player sent off, despite your goalie being the best shot stopper in the league, he'll let in a couple of easy goals, despite the general poor form of your opponent, they'll all average around 8 during your match, but your players who already average around 8, will only turn in performances around 6 - 6.5.......you get the picture. All of the normal underlying modifiers have been moved away from you and towards your opponent.

Experience shows that this is true, the trouble is can you identify when it's just your own poor preparation for a match or when it's big SI brother saying you can't keep winning?

Also, this underlying routine that I talk about, may work on a sliding scale, from mild interference to very strong "almost impossible to beat" interference. Again, this can be randomly generated mathematical adjustments to probabilities.

Can anyone who is a really good programmer tell me that what I have suggested is not possible, because it's all based on maths, everything in the game has numerical values, stats, etc, and all things that happen in the game can go in a number of directions based on probabilities (again numbers) and programming at the most fundamental level is all about numbers, albeit 1's and 0's and what the programmer chooses to do with them?

 

[rephlex]

I'd argue, again with empirical evidence, that this is true - perhaps something like an "underdog modifier" which contributes to the perception of luck. The problem with "random probability" games is that they can never truly reproduce the truly odd events where teams just don't perform for no reason, because mathematically they must be a variable which triggers this. Reproducing this "random off-day" variable seems a prudent design feature of a game which is trying to reproduce some of the more strange results in football without one team running away with it with maxed morale from one match to the next, plus you can stack the deck in your favour by playing the transfer window and applying tactics in a much more bespoke nature.

 

[Lazaru5]

The analogy I used earlier in the thread was a baord full of light-switches... imagine one now, 10 rows of 5 switches that together light up 50 lights.

If you switch on only the first, third and fifth of each row the room would be lit-up enough without the need for the remaining twenty lights. If you only switch on the first two of each row the other side of the room would be in darkness, only the middle and both sides of the room would be dark whilst the middle of the room would be lit.

Then lets say that the top 5 rows are 'positive' and the bottom 5 rows are 'negative'.

You want to switch on the top 5 rows and not the bottom rows to get a positive result, whereas the opposition will be trying to switch on the bottom rows and not the top ones.

What you have to do is make sure that more of the top switches are on than those at the bottom to get the result you want. These switches can relate to anything, training happiness, morale, form, team-talk, press, team-mates (my Sampdoria team plays ***** without Cassano but ok when he's in the side even if he himself is playing ****!) and so on.

There can be many reasons for why a team underperforms and it's your job as manager to discover what they are to limit the times your team plays **** (like the Cassano example).

 

[oggmeista]

OK, guys.

Most people posting in reply are just ignoring the thread. Its not about complaining at being defeated (although its evident he is not happy about it) and its not about cheating.

Wether he is cheating or not, or if he should take the defeats like a man (sic) are irrelevant to the thread.

The thread is about the game being sccripted. And so it is.

Ive been playing FM forever, from the very first Championship Manager, back then you know. So, Im a fan of the series. Ive been there and done that. But there is something no one can deny: the game IS scripted and has always been. Hey, we all veterans know it.

If at a given time the script decides that youre gonna have a terrible time with a game, youre going to. Period.

Its not a question of being the worse team... its not rare to have one of those games happen when you are first in the league and you receive at home a team in the bottom half.

Its also not a question of tactics. If it were for that, a simple tactic change would succeed. Not the case. We all know that if you repeat that game youre gonna have a lotta trouble even if you turn the tactic upside-down. Even if you seem to be wrestling a victory or drawing the game the 10th time you repeat it with a new tactic... ¡boom! a well placed penalty kick at the last minute is going to do the trick for the opposition. The script IS the script after all.

Also is not a question of form. More than once you are in great form and the opposition is not.

No. Its the script. Its there and we all know it is.

We love the game, it has given us years of joy and fun, so we accept it has its faults. And this is a fault. Im sure in years and versions to come, someone along the way will decide to put an end to the script. From my humble point of view that will make the game much better. Until then, we will take it as it comes.

But scripting is there. Has always been for years. You just have to learn to live with it and accept it... or not and choose another game. Easy as that. For me its an acceptable flaw.

Im not saying your right or wrong with your reasoning about the game, but what I do want to say is

If you are right , then how does this statistcal processing function when your playing another human because if the decisions can ultimateley be decided by scripts it kind of makes a mockery of playing games in a leage cup etc online or on a lan


What if anything have the delopment team said about this point?


thx

 

[Zidave]

Interesting thread this and enjoyable reading.

I have played 2 full seasons as Chelsea and thoroughly enjoyed the game despite the flaws and bugs described elsewhere in other threads.

My "conspiracy theory" thoughts didn't relate to a specific game but a series of events.

In Season 1 I am flying in the League (eventual champions) and have not suffered many injuries.
I had Real Madrid in 10 days following an International Break in the 1st Leg of the Champions League QF at The Bernabeau.
No lie, I had 10 injuries to senior players within those 10 days plus Essien & Mikel were on International duty at the same time so were unavailable (which is a fixed bug I understand)
Therefore no surprise my reserves got thrashed 5-1 away.
I didn't sulk or replay the game but did feel that the game had decided I was not going to win the Champions League in my 1st season and was not too subtle in its actions.
It potentially decided it din't want Real to win it either as the Real board inexplicably sacked Mourinho 2 days before the final.

Season 2 Liverpool ran away with the Premiership despite making all the lousy signings pointed out on this site in other peoples saves.
There was a close 4 way battle for the remaining 3 Champions League spots.
With 5 games to go I am 2nd and without radically changing tactics or formations from previously successful ones I manage to preside over 1 draw and 4 defeats and finish 5th.
Again, I am sure people will reply saying I am the shittest manager ever etc but I have never lost 4 games out of 5 when managing a previously successful team.

What was interesting was that the green bars in the match preparation screen all plummeted from fluid to awkward so basically the squad I had played like they were total strangers in a totally foreign tactic!!!

Low and behold 1st game of pre-season and my primary tactic is back to fluid and the team plays like it despite having the summer off.

I therefore was left with the feeling that it was somehow decided that Chelsea were not going to qualify for the Champions League and there was nothing I could do to change that?

 

[Lazaru5]

ever heard of "squeaky *** time" ?

 

[Piginho]

The analogy I used earlier in the thread was a baord full of light-switches... imagine one now, 10 rows of 5 switches that together light up 50 lights.

If you switch on only the first, third and fifth of each row the room would be lit-up enough without the need for the remaining twenty lights. If you only switch on the first two of each row the other side of the room would be in darkness, only the middle and both sides of the room would be dark whilst the middle of the room would be lit.

Then lets say that the top 5 rows are 'positive' and the bottom 5 rows are 'negative'.

You want to switch on the top 5 rows and not the bottom rows to get a positive result, whereas the opposition will be trying to switch on the bottom rows and not the top ones.

What you have to do is make sure that more of the top switches are on than those at the bottom to get the result you want. These switches can relate to anything, training happiness, morale, form, team-talk, press, team-mates (my Sampdoria team plays ***** without Cassano but ok when he's in the side even if he himself is playing ****!) and so on.

There can be many reasons for why a team underperforms and it's your job as manager to discover what they are to limit the times your team plays **** (like the Cassano example).

The analogy of the 50 switches, some being on and some off doesn’t quite work, but can be modified to illustrate my point. With switches, you have either an on or off condition, but factors such as morale, tactics, quality of player etc, are not just on or off.

For example, morale will vary from poor to superb and does so on a sliding scale. So instead of switches, let’s imagine 50 sliders (variable resistances or pots in an electrical circuit). If all of the sliders are at maximum, we have maximum overall resistance value. Conversely, if all are set to minimum, we have minimum resistance value.

Maximum value represents best chance to win a match, minimum value means the opposite.

Your aim is to get as many sliders to max as possible and in reality you can never really achieve this, but you aim to have a higher value than your opponent.

Taking the electrical analogy a little further, if you arrange all these sliders in series, you simply total up the value of all resistances to give you an overall total. In this situation you can give different sliders different values/ranges of resistance (to allow for different weighting of all of the variable factors that can affect a match) and it won’t matter if some go down to zero resistance, it would just mean that that slider would have no positive effect on your total.

More likely, you would arrange them in parallel, but give them all a limited range of resistance. If any could go down to zero, your overall resistance would also be zero as electrical current will always take the easiest path. For this reason you give them all limited range and again vary each slider’s range to allow for how much weighting it ought to have.

Whichever of the above (and it’s possible to use a combination of the two) the idea is still to get as many sliders to maximum as possible.

My contention is that if you have best morale, best players, best training, best staff, best tactics, best team talks and so on, you will always have a higher rating than your opponent. Best is an absolute, you can’t have two teams that are best.

In this situation, theoretically you couldn’t lose. The software does some obvious things to help change this, at least a little. The inferior team may have a good record of achieving results against superior opposition (they raise their game). The opposition plays well against certain formations (maybe your most favoured one). Your own highly paid prima-donnas struggle to get excited about playing weaker teams and complacency reduces their effectiveness.

The above and maybe more modifiers exist to reduce the chances of the better team always winning, but still don’t go far enough to explain some of the unexpected/shock results that occur, because these modifiers if they are consistent, would not have enough impact to turn around all the other positive modifiers in your favour against sufficiently weaker opposition.

So how do you introduce some unexpected/shock results, which like in real life, have to happen to introduce reality? One poster (rephlex) used the phrase “UNDERDOG MODIFIER,” which I think is a perfect way to label what I have attempted to describe throughout this thread.

What you do is put in another slider, controlled by the software, and let’s call it an “UNDERDOG SLIDER,” which has a variable resistance from 0-infinity OHMs. This slider is arranged in parallel to the other 50 sliders and it doesn’t matter how they are arranged, we will agree that they provide an overall value of resistance according to how well we’ve managed to get our sliders maxed out.

The “UNDERDOG SLIDER” can have anything from no effect when set to maximum (or infinity/open circuit) to total effect when set to minimum (zero OHMs/closed or short circuited). If this, or something like it is in play within the software, we can see that the “UNDERDOG MODIFIER” could be set to have no effect, in which case we are more or less in control of our own success or failure in any given match. Conversely, it could be set to have total effect, in which all of our positive modifiers would be zeroed out and we’d be certain to lose, whatever we did.

In practice the software would never be allowed to totally ensure that the weaker team was guaranteed to win (or so all of my practical tests have so far proven), but the “UNDERDOG SLIDER” is also a sliding scale and could be set to have such a significant effect on any given match, that you would only have maybe a 1-5% chance of winning it whatever you did and however maxed out all your sliders were.

This may not exactly describe what the software designers have done, but believe me and all other posters who have experienced the evidence of the effects of something similar over the many years of playing this game, the programmers have definitely put in some kind of mechanism to heavily weigh certain matches against you, matches that you would normally expect to win easily.

I hope this helps the doubters to understand that sometimes they can do everything right and still lose. It’s not always your fault if you lose!

oggmeista

As for matches played between human opponents, I have insufficient evidence to prove one way or the other, as I said in an earlier post the only 2 player games I play are over a network with my son and we don't allow replays in head to head matches. As I also said, I would prefer no replays at all, but he won't play if we don't agree a limited number of replays and I do like to play multiplayer.

We do sometimes get some strange results in head to head games and there is at least a suggestion of software interference, but I hope not as I believe that especially against a human opponent it should be a true contest between minds. If other matches are tweaked by the software in a multiplayer game, hopefully it would even out over the season.

Zidave

Your experience, and particularly the way the green bars on the match prep screen plummeted from fluid to awkward, adds further weight to my argument. I assume that you kept the same basic tactic (or up to the three allowed in the match prep screen) and selected players who had been training with this tactic. If so, the drop from fluid to awkward looks very suspicious.

Either way, your experiences also bear out the argument being made here.

Lazaru5

Hey, it's not so bad accepting that we don't control everything in our lives, otherwise all "accidents" would be our fault and never the other person, or even some failed component couldn't be blamed if it had to be our fault always.

Some things you can't control......sometimes "COMPUTER SAYS NO!!!"

 

[Lazaru5]

Lazaru5

Hey, it's not so bad accepting that we don't control everything in our lives, otherwise all "accidents" would be our fault and never the other person, or even some failed component couldn't be blamed if it had to be our fault always.

Some things you can't control......sometimes "COMPUTER SAYS NO!!!"

touché

actually, I like your analogy and also your theory on the 'underdog slider'. I suppose there could be something like that in the game but I seriously doubt it would be heavily weighted against you at any given time deliberately. I still think that your own actions would affect the 'underdog slider' in some way and it would still be, essentially, your fault if you get spanked by a **** team.

 

[CJPNE]

Reloading after one loss? My current run is: Played 8- Drawn 1- Lost 7.

 

[Piginho]

Reloading after one loss? My current run is: Played 8- Drawn 1- Lost 7.

You need the "underdog modifier" to work for you. You must deserve a break after 7 defeats.

touché

actually, I like your analogy and also your theory on the 'underdog slider'. I suppose there could be something like that in the game but I seriously doubt it would be heavily weighted against you at any given time deliberately. I still think that your own actions would affect the 'underdog slider' in some way and it would still be, essentially, your fault if you get spanked by a **** team.

Thank you for being gracious enough to at least accept the possibility that there is something in what I say. I don't think it happens in the game as often as some people think, but where I differ from you is that when it happens big stylie, there's not a lot you can do about it.

About not being heavily weighted against you deliberately, maybe you're right about that, in that maybe it just targets the big teams randomly, but will eventually get to you.

It's been an interesting and fun debate, but I really wish a proper programmer from SI would come out and tell us the truth............

But then, maybe we can't handle the truth!

 

[RedPJH]

You need the "underdog modifier" to work for you. You must deserve a break after 7 defeats.




Thank you for being gracious enough to at least accept the possibility that there is something in what I say. I don't think it happens in the game as often as some people think, but where I differ from you is that when it happens big stylie, there's not a lot you can do about it.

About not being heavily weighted against you deliberately, maybe you're right about that, in that maybe it just targets the big teams randomly, but will eventually get to you.

It's been an interesting and fun debate, but I really wish a proper programmer from SI would come out and tell us the truth............

But then, maybe we can't handle the truth!

Yes, its been interesting all 'round - good debate/discussion . Its clear that Piginho & I have been in agreement on most, if not all of this throughout, but I can't resist a comment on this one - targets the big teams? oO) I can assure you that the lowly Blue Square Conf N/S minnows are every bit as likely to get 'smacked upside the head' by the modifier if they get ideas above their station.

The rest I agree with (again), I believe its a reasonably rare occurence but when it happens it kicks in big time and there is really nothing to be done. Except acceptance and moving on to eventual revenge I guess (H)

On Lazaru5's point - "I just can't see how the programmers could make any one game 'almost unwinnable', it just doesn't make sense..." it makes perfect sense to me when its a balancing mechanism to keep you interested in the game. Everyone thinks they would like to win all the time but honestly it gets old really really fast. The game would be binned pretty **** fast by most without some sort of (apparently random) 'leveller' being present to stop the best teams and tactics winning all the time. I guess that what some of us are saying is that the leveller isn't random - far from it, it kicks in when it has to ie when your team is doing too well (and you as a player are in danger of becoming bored and binning FM).

On the programming side, I think we're in danger of overcomplicating things with the switches & sliders tbh. If we consider the game engine to be a self-contained sub-program of the whole FM experience it would be relitively easy to implement 'bias' in results.

All it would take is a single value to be passed into the game engine every time it kicks off. Say for example the value can be a number from 1-9. In 'normal' play (90% of the time) the 'script' we talked about earlier monitors results etc and decides that things are proceeding as normal ( ie your team is not in need of being 'taken down a peg or two' as someone put it). So it passes the 'normal' value of 5 into the game engine before it kicks off.

That value would be checked by every single sub-routine in the game engine including those that control whether a pass reaches its target, whether a goal attempt goes in, whether a foul results in a card etc etc. All other normal stats for players passing ability, finishing, agression etc would still be considered of course, but the 'bias value' would potentially 'shift the odds' on every single tackle, pass, attempted save etc in the match as all the game engine sub-routines would check it. In this case, 5 has been passed in so no odds are shifted at all and everything in the match goes as expected.

Fine then, 90% of the time the script passes the value of 5 into the game engine for the next match. This means all your managerial decisions (tactics, training, press conf etc) leading up to the game and all your decisions (on tactical changes, substitutions etc) during the match have absolutely the desired effect as they should, and thefore that next match is 'balanced' ie fair, with passes from good passers getting there, goal attempts from strikers with high finishing & composure etc and on good form going in. This is the way the game runs for most folks most of the time - hence the excellent (and deserved) reputation for being a great game that FM has.

But - say your team is doing too well (which worries the developers as they are fully aware of the 'low boredom threshold' of the paying customers ). The 'script' monitoring results etc says 'ok, time to level the playing field a bit' and, for the next match, passes a value of 9 into the game engine. This effects every single sub-routine of the match engine and shifts the odds against you in terms of each pass completed, each goal attempted etc etc. This would produce exactly what some of us observe to be the 'almost unwinnable' match.

Of course, losing every game 'cos you're a **** player like me would be terribly boring too. So what stops folks like me binning FM after the first miserable week of heavy defeat after heavy defeat? Hmmm.... well maybe the 'monitoring script' that runs throughout the season says 'Geez, this guy really is **** with a capital ****, best lend a helping hand here, I mean God, hes playing a different formation to his pre-match training". So - for the next match it passes a value of 1 into the match engine adding a favourable bias to all my team's attempted passes. goal efforts, tackles etc resulting in a nice morale boosting win (morale boosting for me I mean, the players will still know deep down I'm ****) (H)

Excuse the ramble guys - just wanted to point out how easy it would be for the developers to do things this way if they wanted to. Don't know if this is how it works but something is producing 'almost unwinnable' matches in my experience.

Mind you - one of Lazaru5's earlier comments did get me thinking a bit - how do we explain the "perfect season"? 38 wins out of 38 was it? Why didn't the levelling mechanism kick in? Are there certain tactics, formations etc that are just too overpowered even for a sometimes biased match engine?

 

[Lord_Townicus]

I personally take defeats if I know they are fair defeats and not through scripting and bullshit I've noticed with 2011. Why should there be scripting in the first place? That's what I want to know.

 

[tripedius]

It definitely gives a feel of being scripted at times, but if it was scripted and people found out, they wouldn't sell another copy of the game I think, so it probably isn't.

As an example, I rage quited when both Bale and Modric became terribly injured in the same game. Bale 2-3 months gone and Modric 2-3 weeks. Also lost the game unfairly. However the next day I play the game again, guess what? Modric injured, Bale injured. But now 2-3 months for Modric and 2-3 weeks for Bale. Lost the game again. This reeks of scripting, but it's not. Bale and Modric we're both on low condition so injuries are common then and I did loose the game fairly this time. But I can see how people can think that it's predetermined.