retired_elpata

You answered your own question for me, its a one off game.

Already posted above, most of which will always be different no matter how many times you restart the game.

retired_sojinha

Mistakes? Players under performing, players over performing. injuries, A free kick in a different position, set pieces, a player in the right place at the right time. A fluke goal. Posession of your team, what they do with the possession. A sub.

I can list more, but you get the idea

All major factors and totally uncontrolable. You can tell the players what to do for most cases, but it doesn't mean it will work 100% </BLOCKQUOTE>

But Cleon.....that's my entire point. Players under-performing, over-peforming, injuries, a fluke goal, mistakes.....they are all RANDOM effects. Hence the name of the thread is "Luck - does it play too big a part in tactic success"

You've just listed all those things that a player of FM07 cannot control...they are random, it is luck.
My entire point is that those random effects seem to play a bigger part in FM07 than FM06.
Some may like that, others not. I'm not judging whether it is good for the game or not. It's just that it doesn't seem to have been discussed on the forums and IMO plays TOO big a part in the outcome of games as against your players and your tactic.

retired_elpata

Yet you complain that the game you replayed was not consistent. The randomness of factors as not changed for FM07 though, its the exact same as FM06.

I think your tactics are part of the problem, they are not consistent. But its hard to create a consistent tactic unless you have lots of time to read and evalute things.

Some of that is currently down to match engine bugs though rather than actual luck imo.

Luck does play some part, but not as much as you seem to think imo.

retired_sojinha

I can see this discussion has now reached pointless proportions.
If you know for definite that the coding for random factors has not changed then who am I to argue!!!
But please try to understand that a tactic cannot beinconsistentin one game played over and over again unless the random effect comes into play.
The game is simply calculating an outcome on the basis of numbers (player stats, tactics etc). If all players stats stay the same, the tactics stay the same and the results are different how can that be an inconsistent tactic.
The point of me raising this in the tactic forum is that there are a lot of people struggling with tactics and consistency and feeling frustrated that they cannot seem to find a balance that works.
I'm simply pointing out that perhaps luck now plays a greater part and people may not have realised that.
I'm now going to beat my head against a wall for entertainment and leave you in peace.

retired_elpata

Why can't your tactic be inconsistent? OFC it can. But yes, it is down to random factors too.

But you cannot run a test to prove that is or isnt the case. As no matter how many times you restart a game it will never ever be the same.

It always has and always will play a part, but not as big as you seem to be thinking imo

retired_victor1961

bah, i agree that it does have a lot of random elements. guys i think theres a point to be said on both sides of this. I think what Lincoln is trying to put across is that in real life no manager in the world can guarantee success in every match, they can only try to choose the right tactics, right signings, and other beneficial techniques to give them the best CHANCE of winning (in their own opinion). Yet it is beleived in this version of FM that the result generation is so random that its making these factors less effective. On the other hand lincoln i would say you need more proof of this than a small comparison of results. since this game is based quite heavily on statistics it would be interesting to see a greater analasys using the right variables. IE, the same team being used in the same run of however many matches, and trying different tactics each time you play that part of the season. I think there'd have to be an awful lot of repetition needed before you saw any pattern though.

On a brighter note you'll all be glad to hear that i'm officially **** at the game. I started and re-started (2 entirely separate games as covenrty city). in both i Bought dave nugent and billy jones on both occasions. in one game i was playing 442 attacking at home and 532 defensive on the counter attack away. in the other i used 442 straight home and away. on both occasions after a poor start i found my footing in the league and approached the playoffs, at the same point of the season in both games i then began to see the worst strings of bad luck in footballing history, dismissals, injuries, penalties conceided, penalty misses (on my part), poor finishing, goalkeeper mistakes (conceiding goals), defender mistakes (conceiding goals) were absolutely rife on both occasions. this happens every time i play football manager as coventry, regardless of the tactics i use, and players i select. i don't know what this means, i actually think in some ways rather than being random there are certain this that are pre-determined and hard to change.

if you look at the manager editor has anyone noticed that each team has their own defensive, attacking, midfield etc attributes? does anyone else think its a bit odd that a club should have its own attributes in the game rather than the players and the managers attributes themselves determining how successful they are in certain areas of the game as they do in real life? or am i misunderstanding their relevance?

retired_janellewood86

Lincoln Imp I think you need to read between the lines. Cleon is answering your questions, but you don't seem to be properly reading them.

What people seem to be saying is that random events and general differences in performances and play CAN make the difference between a 2-0 win and a 7-1 reverse.

The tactic may be bad but gets a lucky early goal which the opposition cannot, for some reason, claw back or, on the other hand, the good team may get one early and go on to maul you.

Take the Chelsea v Tottenham game of last weekend. Had Chelsea's "luck" been better and the Drogba "goal" had stood they could very well have been 4 up by half time. As it was, they didn't, were always in with a chance of losing and - bam - they did.

If you'd replayed that game with same tactics, same team-talks etc. the results would vary widely.

Tactics are affected by "the random effect", but overall a good tactic will do well in most situations. Like rashid says, you can minimise the effects of random by setting up a good tactic.

"Man makes his own destiny, but it is not always of his own choosing."

wikichua

In real life each game is different.

Take for example same two teams playing each other ten times, and every game will be totally different story, dont you agree with that?

:thup:

retired_victor1961

No i don't. if you play chelsea vs torquay 10 times over chelsea will win 9 of those games and draw maybe 1 too. this would likely happen without much difference apart from the odd freak result. chelsea might pummel them 15-0 on one occasion and only 1-0 on another but i'd still expect to see chelsea dominate near enough every single game. If football was completely random bookmakers would be able to reliably produce odds. we're talking likelyhoods here. no one is saying a match should be predetermined, but odds should be able to be stacked up in your own favour or else theres no point. the argument is simply that the balance between luck and likelyhood are slightly more heavly leant towards luck rather than the choice we make. Im not saying that point is right. i think ur just slightly missing the meaning of it.

and just to re-itorate, yes if chelsea and barcelona played each other i'd expect a different game every time, because BOTH clubs are using their own benefits to the max with such a slight differene whereby both luck/misfortune and individual brilliance/diabolical mistakes could and would prove deadly on the day.

retired_elpata

And if it was a AI manager this would probably be the case. But if a human manager oesn't, then his tactics are flawed imo