retired_Lyon

Happens to me as well, but I don't think it's for no reason, i think there's a reason but we just aren't sure what it is. For example, maybe the AI got them so fired up, and your own players underestimate them. Forest raised their game against me and almost knocked me out of the FA Cup, but thanks to a very late Ronaldo penalty I managed to force a replay :cool:

leftfoot

With regards to losing in the cup to a lower league team I figure SI introduced a random element to simulate Cup fairytale scenarios so every so often David slays Goliath. It's just bad luck that it decided it was gonna be you.

To the OP's question I second what Ackter said. Luck, luck and more luck. And of course a Polish superkeeper

retired_Nsweet119

Of course. I went unbeaten for the whole season with Tamworth (blue conference north). My record was 38 wins 4 draws and 0 losses. It is possible but you need a lot of luck, lot of skill and a great team. That's the only time I've managed it though... And yes it was FM2008 with the new betapatch.

Mikey JS

I went an entire domestic season unbeaten with Arsenal once. So yeah, it's possible to be indestructable. Winning every single game is unlikely, the computer will make sure you lose no matter what at some point or other.

retired_dreamsosweet

But this is what I am getting at really. Either it is technically possible or it isn't. If the computer does 'make sure' that you lose at some point, how does it do so? And if the engine does this then there has to be an element of predetermination. That is, there will be scenarios that play out where you can not do anything to stop yourself losing.

I don't think that it does this. It would be easy to do but it would hurt the gameplay a lot.

My guess is that there are a number of situations whereby the engine will counter pretty much all you can do without making it completely impossible for you to win but very very difficult.

However, if I'm right, then isn't there going to be a time where the actions that you take become somewhat meaningless? It may not be predetermination per se but it's still close to it. The average user, without knowledge of the code is going to find it impossible to counter the AI.

If we look at the variables, morale, tactics, formation, players, weather, player condition, confidence, manager attributes etc there is likely to be a 'magic' formula on any one occasion that will enable you to win. However this variable and the combination has to change, of course they are all interlinked, that's obvious, (e.g fill a team with the best Brazilians and make them play at minus 4 in the cold and wet they are less likely to win) but even if you figured out the various scenarios and how each is linked surely the engine will throw in something because if it doesn't then it would be relatively easy to crack the game.

If this is the case, then I assume that the game deviates from 'pure tactical management' and turns into more of a code puzzle.

The engine has to work like this, not just in-between games but in each game. For example, if I play one single game against team X I win 3-0. If I keep exactly the same tactics, and all else stays the same and I reload, I could lose 3-0. So there's obviously a luck factor to it (which there should be). Now I know how that's done (if I'm correct of course) but I'm not so sure that it's possible to counter on every occasion. It certainly shouldn't be possible, unlike others I think that we ought to lose at times and for no reason. It happens in real life.

But, we are then in a situation where certain matches or sequences become meaningless for the player.

Let's take Call of Duty 4 which I was playing last night. On one of the levels I kept getting killed. After a while I figured it out. I replay the level and I can now beat it everytime. I know how to do it.

Of course they are different games and to some extent FM has a better engine because it throws variables in that change depending on circumstance and sometimes just because you ought not to win every game for 20 seasons.

And that takes me back to my point. Are there situations that really, unless you are very lucky, you can do nothing about?

On a smaller scale, it's easy to give an example of this. If my entire team has terrible shooting, concentration tackling, passing and heading then when I play Man U I will not win. If you play as Wimbledon AFC with the default team then it's not possible to actually win against, say, Barcelona. Fair enough of course

Consequently even if you hit that 'magic' formula, you still won't win every game because of, for want of a better phrase, the 'luck factor'.

Now that intrigues me. Again, simple to implement but not to make it realistic. If every match worked like this then the results would be far too random. You would get teams that really ought to beat another team, say Man U vs Barnsley but end up losing. Even if the game is constantly reloaded the result is often very similar, or at least in the negative.

The answer to this might be:

1. It's your tactics.
-Not so, you may have beaten Chelsea the week before using the same tactic, with the same players, same weather, same morale against exactly the same system.

2. It's sometimes just down to pure luck. Results can be strange.
-Agreed!

So number 2 is probably the best answer to this.

However, if I'm right, then reloading the game 10 times would give you at least a greater than 50% chance of beating Barnsley would it not? UNLESS you're in a situation where the engine is throwing everything it has at you because you have reached a point where you really ought not to win again.

There are too many people playing this game with far too much experience of the game for the engine not to throw a spanner in the works because otherwise every other person would be winning trebles week in week out.

So I guess the three controversial points here are:

1. When and why does the engine decide that enough is enough?
2. There are going to be times where you lose and it is out of your control
3. The variables are beyond a player's control and are not pure footballing variables.

Now I'm not suggesting that the game is fixed necessarily, but I guess the odds are stacked against you at times which would make it 'almost' impossible to win a game.

This would tally with what I see a lot of people post and hear a lot of people talking about. I tend to accept the fact that I can lose for no reason (unless it's 5 in a row but people I know find it very difficult to accept. "I should win this game, I've done everything right, I've lost, the AI cheats". Perhaps it is 'cheating' but isn't that what makes the gameplay more realistic?

retired_rachaelvogel

Super keepers, 4-2-4.

retired_charytine

Yes. It's only a game after all.

retired_dreamsosweet

Super keepers, 4-2-4. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Well 424 would be a valid and fair technique.

Superkeepers would be one very easy way of doing it, but I don't think SI would do this, it's a cop out and I think they have a better engine than that. More likely would be that other factors contribute to making it look like the opposition has a 'superkeeper.'

retired_lennypekerti

no because no matter how good you are at some point the AI will make your players dumb as a 10 years old kid... my team for example was scoring 3 goals each game, then my 2 main strikers got dumb and didnt score even though they were able to get 15+ shots on target, so i started to use my other 2 strikers, 1 month later still wiinning because the 2 new strikers were scoring then those 2 also got dumb and so i had 4 world class dumb strikers... </BLOCKQUOTE>


Anything that is man made, can be defeated by man. The brain is more powerful than the FM AI, whatever some of you may think. It would be possible, but so is winning the lottery twice in a row.....

retired_w0lfpack1

If you go off into a the philosophy of it, I don't think the predeterministic conclusion is warranted. Think back to that coin-toss analogy again - yes, there's a chance that the coins is going to come up against you over and over, and cost you a game.

Them's the breaks.

But concluding from that that "the actions you take become meaningless" is incorrect: the actions you took influenced the *odds* of success. You just got unlucky.

Essentially, your job as a manager - just like a manager's job IRL - is to put your players in position to succeed. But since you can't play the game yourself, you can't actually control whether you win or lose.

Now, to the question:
At least once per release, probably more like once every three months, we get some kid posting a pseudo-scientific "analysis" in which his methodology consisted of loading a save game on match day, and playing the same match over and over and over, "trying a bunch of different tactics", and losing. Often he adds "I even went on holiday and let the Ass Man handle it." Said match is almost always Man U (or similar world-beater) against a relegation-battler. He concludes the 'pre-deterministic' philosophy from his results: "the match engine has decided that I need to lose this game!"

There are several fundamental flaws with his methodology:

One, it ignores SI's repeated assurances that the match engine makes no distinction between the human team and an AI team.

Two, his players' morale (visible) and motivation (not visible) is determined by his past team talks and media handling. The most likely explanation is that his players may be approaching this match with a degree of complacency.

Three, his players' condition is the same, with whatever injuries, poor condition, etc, he has lingering from his last match.

Four, his tactic almost certainly falls into the "I create a ton of chances when the other team attacks" category; its always harder to break down a determined defense - see wwfan's articles in T&TT for further explanation.

Five, trying out 'new' tactics, and then assuming that 'they didn't work', ignores the need for the team to have experience with a given tactic - the team "becomes comfortable with" them over time.

Six, trying out new lineups is equally bad - again, teams need time to "gel".

Seven, there are numerous other constants which may be confounding variables for this match, including his training, the weather, his captain, pitch size, etc.

So .. he reloads the game 10 times, and loses to Barnsley 10 times ..

.. but that doesn't mean that the engine is Finally,
There are other possible explanations for that.

First, the AI has gotten better - in other words, the opposition managers are doing a better job of constructing a team and adjusting their tactics to what you do.

Two, the game's psychological model has gotten better, ensuring that a streaking team aren't "up" for every game.

Three, the game's match engine has gotten better, ensuring that random chance dictates that one team or the other can win every match out. (As opposed to earlier versions, where the 'better team on paper' tended to win, full stop.)

This comes into play heavily in the late rounds of Cups, because if the 'best' I can do is slant my odds to a 55% of winning each particular 2-legged tie, my odds of winning four in a row and thus claiming the title are 9.1%. (Incidentally, that's why using the full season's results to determine a League champion is better than my native American style of using a playoff system - luck plays less of a part, so you get a more 'true' champion.)