retired_janellewood86

Well, if it didn't what would be the point in it? If the media involvement had no effect on how the game would go then why do Premier League managers spend so long slagging each other off and playing mind games?

I admit, sometimes the media comments seem to disproportionately affect team morale/performance, but this cannot account for everything.

If player morale is low, play a simple, closed game to try and get the draw or sneak the 1-0. When you're more confident play wider and freer. You have to play to the conditions that the team has been put under.

retired_victor1961

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PachaMama13:
usually people who consistently lose, rely on "luck". Imo there isnt such a thing "luck". Its something that people invent when they didnt understand something and they didnt find a reason or a logical answer.

this game is heavily based on random factors. there's a lot of luck in it both good and bad.

retired_lilimima

Have you stopped to think that you were against largely inferior opposition and in the first game they took the lead so were probably compelled to sit back and defend their lead and pick you off with a counter. In the second game you took the lead and they had to try and get a goal back meaning much more space for your attack minded players to work in hence the goal glut.

retired_monica90

Kevin Keegan would agree with you there.

retired_sojinha

[quote]Originally posted by borivoje213:
Thank you borivoje213...someone who finally understands my point!!!
CrazyHorseLegend....the poin is mate that when you play the same match over and over again the ref and weather are the SAME! So is the pitch, your team and opposition. The only thing which is not a constant if you play the same match over and over again is the computer generated luck.
Look guys the match engine must have an element of randomisation in it....and so it should. Luck plays a part in real life.
My point is simply that it SEEMS to play a bigger part in fm07 THAN fm06.
In FM06 - which I played a great deal - once I found a decent tactic and bought the right players I could pretty much guarantee that I could win the league and only lose a couple of matches....much like Chelsea.
In FM07 however I can play the same tactic with the same players and one season/game have a blinder and the next do awful.
I'm not saying it's bad...but inconsistency seems to be consistent in this version and I think it might be because "luck" is programmed to play a larger part in the outcome.

retired_victor1961

hmmm im thinking maybe if luck has that great a part then people would have a far more inconsistent season rather than having extremely good/bad. im wondering whether the game has been programmed to adapt to your tactics more quickly. on the other hand if a club is good enough at playing to its own strengths can clubs really change their style of play to counter that with such effeciency. bah...i give up

retired_curt2850

For me as the game stands it has joined the liks of most managemnt games on the market the results seem random.

Surely the game being a game must be based on some kind of mathmatical formula meaning that if you played the same game over and over a certain set of results would appear? I am not talking the same result but at least a consistent type of result?

A sad friend of mine ran a similar test but over a season and I think in one season he finshed 16th-17th and the other he was 2nd. Just points to the fact that the random elements in the game are too random.

retired_sojinha

It's not just me then!!!!!
Mathematically (I know I'm simplifying!!) a Christian Ronaldo with dribbling of 19 and flair of 20 will ALWAYS beat a player with low stats in tackling and and determination.
But IRL life the Southend factor will always occur and so a random effect must be applied.
But the more you ratchet up the random effect the less often you can guarantee Ronaldo beating a poorer defender....and so it makes it pointless to spend £50m buying him.
Random effects can make a whole lot of difference to the game and while in some respects it adds extra tension and longevity to the game it also takes some fun away.
I've always really enjoyed building a team's finances over time so I can buy the big players and watch them make a difference and over time dominate the league....like building the Man Utd dynasty in the 90s.
At the mo' I'm so frustrated at what appears to be an increase in luck that it hardly seems worth "saving up" to buy the better players only to watch them lose 2-0 to a side one minute and win 7-1 the next.
Surely better players IRL do minimise your chance of losing ... why else would footballers be worth many millions?
Is that reflected in the game??

retired_hanaa

Instead of arguing and theoritising we should test this matter empiricaly. Someone should save his game just prior to a match versus a significantly but not hugely inferior team and set his AssMan to do the team talk. Then he should play a match exactly 100 times and after each step write down the result (scoreline plus possibly some statistics). Then he can compare the results if they matches the Gaussian distribution.

retired_janellewood86

this game is heavily based on random factors. there's a lot of luck in it both good and bad. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you borivoje213...someone who finally understands my point!!!
CrazyHorseLegend....the poin is mate that when you play the same match over and over again the ref and weather are the SAME! So is the pitch, your team and opposition. The only thing which is not a constant if you play the same match over and over again is the computer generated luck.
Look guys the match engine must have an element of randomisation in it....and so it should. Luck plays a part in real life.
My point is simply that it SEEMS to play a bigger part in fm07 THAN fm06.
In FM06 - which I played a great deal - once I found a decent tactic and bought the right players I could pretty much guarantee that I could win the league and only lose a couple of matches....much like Chelsea.
In FM07 however I can play the same tactic with the same players and one season/game have a blinder and the next do awful.
I'm not saying it's bad...but inconsistency seems to be consistent in this version and I think it might be because "luck" is programmed to play a larger part in the outcome. </BLOCKQUOTE>

We do get your point - we just don't agree with it. What we are saying is that "luck" isn't really the word you're looking for.

There are reasons why the results are different, as people have pointed out.

What you think is "luck", other people think of as just different circumstances. If a goal goes in, you and the AI need to change tactics, and thus the game is completely different. That's football.

The inconsistency of your tactic, or of any tactic is in its inability to adapt to conditions. Your tactic, to put it crudely, must be a dodo. You need to change, adapt to circumstances.

And it can account for the difference between 7-1 and 2-0 as anyone who played CM01/02 will tell you about the Germany vs England World Cup Qualifyer towards the beginning of the game.

Replaying the game over and over again solves nothing. There are billions (literally) of differnet scenarios all requiring a different response. In short, you cannot predict a result, but you need to know how to respond.

The game is no longer a results generator. It's evolved to something more than that. Something beyond the dodo.

To clarify - I get where you're coming from - I just disagree. Strongly.