Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

It is a suggestion regarding the player injuries

they are injured for 9 weeks at the max this means 18 games!

If they injure players like real life they should also play one match per week

rather then doing that' date='players should be injured for matches not for weeks[/quote']

not sure on this, whats the injury your talking about?

in real life some injuries take players out for up to a season....so 30-40 games?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ? Yeah I find the same thing, my Spartak side in GC1 have a great first XI and squad depth so I play a fit great side in most SMFA cup games, but I have w

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ? 100% agree, the results have been absolutely ridiculous lately. Just a couple of my team's stats from one of my GW's (with an averate 93 first team): G

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ? Improvements to the engine need to be a priority with a game like SM, so with respect I don't think this is really good enough as SM have been making n

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

Sorry do not agree with this .

It is a Fantasy game thats why i enjoy playing it .

It should be taken into account in the match engine but not play the main part .

If it all consisted on having the highest rated team then you might as well just walk away from the game .

As a Fantasy game yes you get a chance to fill your team and Squad with 90 plus rated players .

Yes in real life teams like these would mainly win say 90% of matches ' date='but its not real life and to me the emphasise should be on you as the manager doing your homework and picking the right tactics ,substitutions etc ,players in the correct positions and so forth .

Thats why i do agree with most that the match engine does need sorting out ,virtually no change since i left 2 yrs ago .

A player for the top league i think is supposed to be rated 85 and above etc.

Therefore with the right managment skills and if all your players ratings are 85 or more you should in this game beat a 93 in that same league and not as you suggest never or even a one off .

Since i came back noticed in my set ups i have joined and it was always the case before i left how many are ruined because the fun of some is jumping in and out of teams to stop others getting these sort of players because they want them etc .

You look at some sets and a few teams have already ripped of all the cream and left just the spilt milk for you to lick up if your daft enough to do it and not look elswhere .

Thats why there are a lot of ruined set ups and managers not logging on everyday ,they think all they have to do is buy the cream and if you lose games to lesser rated then its the match engines fault .

So if it was how they want then its pointless joining these set ups .

To me its a fantasy game and we all like it for different aspects .

In 4 of my set ups Sterling was used for exchanging with money for higher players etc ,or he was on the free transfer list .

When last playing this would be unbelievable because many forumers loved doing their homework on this kind of thing and would know at 75 rated he is going to go up and be well worth the pittance you can pay for him at the moment .

Players like him would be snapped up by those who like to play SM for this sort of thing .

I would say many SM members like playing SM for the latter aspect as well as other things etc .

But at the end of the day we are managers in set ups managing our teams to our best ability .

We all want to win the league and cups otherwise why bother playing .

To repeat what i mentioned before ,The Differnt divisions as far as i know if not changed have a starting rating for what a player should be in that division ,sure 85 was 1st Divisions .

As a kill joy i would say if your playing anyone below that leagues rating in your team or the opponents then it should have an effect on matches, but not teams that managed to pick the cream and have just gone for the highest rating .

There is nothing worse than joining a set up with certain friends having already got their teams 91 plus rated etc and because they have no transfer money left they log on just match days etc expecting no matter what formations they put in they should be anyone below 90 .

Yet others that have these lesser rated sides log on far more doing their tactics etc really thinking they do have an efffect and it is not just simply moving your teams rating up higher and higher that gets you the results.

Nope its a fantasy game let members have their fantasy on filling their team with the cream,but let us members that are not obsessed and like the managment skills more to play a part ,let the match engine take all this into the equation as well .:eek:;):)[/quote']

actually it was basically refering to the fact that SMFA competetions are not realistic . . . I almost shuffle my squads for all games but SMFA win or loses are like toss of coin than manager's skills

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

actually it was basically refering to the fact that SMFA competetions are not realistic . . . I almost shuffle my squads for all games but SMFA win or loses are like toss of coin than manager's skills

A huge problem for me,as soon as I get SMFA cup matches the ME goes crazy and more often than not the lower rated team wins.I understand upset's but in the SMFA cup it seem's the favourite's are the lower rated team's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

Yeah I find the same thing, my Spartak side in GC1 have a great first XI and squad depth so I play a fit great side in most SMFA cup games, but I have won the SMFA cup twice in 16 seasons.

I don't expect to win every season, not by a long stretch, and I want to see underdogs winning (as I have teams that are not great in the SMFA cup too!) but shock underdog wins seem too commonplace in cups and more so in the SMFA. Yet more so at the knockout stages.

I just lost 6-0 on aggregate with my Spartak side. 2-0 at home when I played an avg first XI of 94.28 to his 87.18, 4-0 away when I played a 94.45 avg XI to his 87.18. I appreciate an 87+ team is utterly competent but 94+ is absolute world class and need to have an off day or face huge over-achievement from most opposition not to win comfortably. Perhaps the other manager engineered a tactical masterpiece, hats off to him either way, but my issue is that I have no idea where I went wrong despite playing this game for 6+ years and giving some thought to my tactics for each leg.

In the first leg I played a 5-4-1 to pack the midfield and secure possession. The midfield contained Yaya Toure, Iniesta, Rooney and Messi. Messi got 4/10 and the opposition had 61% possession which seems at odds with the quality of my midfield to his (an 86, 87, and 88) and my objective. Maybe I was too defensive and invited this.

If I was too defensive the stats look a bit odd. I had 25 shots in the first leg (10 on target) and 27 in the second leg (18 on target) but failed to find the net. Sounds like his keeper played a blinder but only rated 7 in both games on performance. Perhaps my shots were limited to shots from distance by a superlative defensive display but 2 of his 3 defenders got 6/10 in the first leg, the other got 7 so I am baffled there too. In the second leg the three got 6, 7 and 8/10 so a bit more plausible I suppose.

Perhaps my forwards were rubbish but I had the best strikers in the game up front at various points, Messi, Ibrahimovic, Villa, Rooney, Higuain. Perhaps they underperformed? Well Messi got 4/10 in the first leg as mentioned (but was primarily in midfield) and Higuain got 6/10 that game. Ibrah came on at half time and got 8/10 which suggests a decent game for the game's best rated striker aside from Messi. In the second leg Messi and Villa got 7/10 despite which suggests a solid performance, which does not fit with the other stats of 10/25 shots on target and 0/10 goals from shots on target (I am assuming my forwards are largely accountable). Oh, and Ibrah off the bench got an 8/10 in the second leg too.

Perhaps I should realise that playing low condition players is a risk. Oh, hang on, I didn't. All of my players went into both games greater than 90% condition which is meant to mean that they have a greater than 90% chance of playing to full capacity if you take the Online Help literally. I don't know the opponent's condition going into the game but based on their condition after the game they were at a comparable level.

Must be poor morale then. Nope, not that either. The player with the lowest morale over the two legs was, I believe, on 72%. This was not my 4/10 Messi who actually had around 90% morale for both games, it was Goetze who got 7/10 in the second leg. The opposition's lowest was on around 68%. Generally morale for both teams was high.

Player form perhaps? Well, no. The AvP rating for all players involved from both sides, both legs, were all over 7/10. One of the reasons Higuain started my first leg was his AvP which is now 8.47. He scored 6/10 in a surprise change of form. The AvP of my players was generally high with many over 8/10. More players than the opponents.

Form of the teams? Here we have something. I am experiencing one of my worst ever runs for reasons unknown to me (I have lost a few on the bounce after a decent size unbeaten streak, also confusing in itself as if team performance is important, great form should not implode so easily). The opponent is top of his division despite being lower rated than some so is clearly doing something right. I just don't know what. If team form has some bearing, how on earth is this addressed? I believe team form it is a reflection of past events rather than something that can impact on future performances.

Tactics wise I have mentioned played 5-4-1 in the first leg. He played 3-5-2 which historically has not done well against 5-4-1. I had switched to a more attacking 3-5-2 of my own after being a goal down at 60 minutes (seems a reasonable decision under the circumstances) but they scored again at 72 minutes in. I threw men forward at 75 mins but alas nothing. The opposition made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself).

In the second leg I began with a 3-5-2, same as him. I played a normal 3-5-2 attacking down the flanks, in anticipation of a weakness here. The opposition did indeed play an 85 in the right CB position, an 86 in the left CB position, and an 86 on the right of midfield. These were there weakest players. I played 98 rated Ronaldo on one wing and 93 rated Marcelo on the other. I was 3-0 down at half time. I came forward more and conceded again at 46 minutes. Further tactical changes by me were ineffectual. The opposition again made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself. Yes I am repeating myself... to make a point).

Perhaps this just came down to awesome performances on the day, luck, whatever you want to call it. Well, only one of his players got more than 7/10 in the first leg despite beating a team rated an average of more than 7 points higher away from home. Surely such a result can only come from a superlative performance in most positions, yet that doesn't seem to the case here. In the second leg the opponent performance ratings were generally quite high although two of them got 6/10 and 10 of my 11 players got 7/10 or higher despite beating a team 4-0 that are rated more than 7 rating points lower. An awesome performance like this would usually draw the plaudits all over the pitch.

Again, I really don't mind losing - I lose plenty and don't complain - but there is too much of a random element at times, too little consistency between results and stats and factors you would expect to be contributing to the result, too much mystery, and not enough tactical options.

Well done anyone who read all that, hopefully one such person works for SM and can see where I am coming from...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

Yeah I find the same thing' date=' my Spartak side in GC1 have a great first XI and squad depth so I play a fit great side in most SMFA cup games, but I have won the SMFA cup twice in 16 seasons.

I don't expect to win every season, not by a long stretch, and I [i']want [/i]to see underdogs winning (as I have teams that are not great in the SMFA cup too!) but shock underdog wins seem too commonplace in cups and more so in the SMFA. Yet more so at the knockout stages.

I just lost 6-0 on aggregate with my Spartak side. 2-0 at home when I played an avg first XI of 94.28 to his 87.18, 4-0 away when I played a 94.45 avg XI to his 87.18. I appreciate an 87+ team is utterly competent but 94+ is absolute world class and need to have an off day or face huge over-achievement from most opposition not to win comfortably. Perhaps the other manager engineered a tactical masterpiece, hats off to him either way, but my issue is that I have no idea where I went wrong despite playing this game for 6+ years and giving some thought to my tactics for each leg.

In the first leg I played a 5-4-1 to pack the midfield and secure possession. The midfield contained Yaya Toure, Iniesta, Rooney and Messi. Messi got 4/10 and the opposition had 61% possession which seems at odds with the quality of my midfield to his (an 86, 87, and 88) and my objective. Maybe I was too defensive and invited this.

If I was too defensive the stats look a bit odd. I had 25 shots in the first leg (10 on target) and 27 in the second leg (18 on target) but failed to find the net. Sounds like his keeper played a blinder but only rated 7 in both games on performance. Perhaps my shots were limited to shots from distance by a superlative defensive display but 2 of his 3 defenders got 6/10 in the first leg, the other got 7 so I am baffled there too. In the second leg the three got 6, 7 and 8/10 so a bit more plausible I suppose.

Perhaps my forwards were rubbish but I had the best strikers in the game up front at various points, Messi, Ibrahimovic, Villa, Rooney, Higuain. Perhaps they underperformed? Well Messi got 4/10 in the first leg as mentioned (but was primarily in midfield) and Higuain got 6/10 that game. Ibrah came on at half time and got 8/10 which suggests a decent game for the game's best rated striker aside from Messi. In the second leg Messi and Villa got 7/10 despite which suggests a solid performance, which does not fit with the other stats of 10/25 shots on target and 0/10 goals from shots on target (I am assuming my forwards are largely accountable). Oh, and Ibrah off the bench got an 8/10 in the second leg too.

Perhaps I should realise that playing low condition players is a risk. Oh, hang on, I didn't. All of my players went into both games greater than 90% condition which is meant to mean that they have a greater than 90% chance of playing to full capacity if you take the Online Help literally. I don't know the opponent's condition going into the game but based on their condition after the game they were at a comparable level.

Must be poor morale then. Nope, not that either. The player with the lowest morale over the two legs was, I believe, on 72%. This was not my 4/10 Messi who actually had around 90% morale for both games, it was Goetze who got 7/10 in the second leg. The opposition's lowest was on around 68%. Generally morale for both teams was high.

Player form perhaps? Well, no. The AvP rating for all players involved from both sides, both legs, were all over 7/10. One of the reasons Higuain started my first leg was his AvP which is now 8.47. He scored 6/10 in a surprise change of form. The AvP of my players was generally high with many over 8/10. More players than the opponents.

Form of the teams? Here we have something. I am experiencing one of my worst ever runs for reasons unknown to me (I have lost a few on the bounce after a decent size unbeaten streak, also confusing in itself as if team performance is important, great form should not implode so easily). The opponent is top of his division despite being lower rated than some so is clearly doing something right. I just don't know what. If team form has some bearing, how on earth is this addressed? I believe team form it is a reflection of past events rather than something that can impact on future performances.

Tactics wise I have mentioned played 5-4-1 in the first leg. He played 3-5-2 which historically has not done well against 5-4-1. I had switched to a more attacking 3-5-2 of my own after being a goal down at 60 minutes (seems a reasonable decision under the circumstances) but they scored again at 72 minutes in. I threw men forward at 75 mins but alas nothing. The opposition made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself).

In the second leg I began with a 3-5-2, same as him. I played a normal 3-5-2 attacking down the flanks, in anticipation of a weakness here. The opposition did indeed play an 85 in the right CB position, an 86 in the left CB position, and an 86 on the right of midfield. These were there weakest players. I played 98 rated Ronaldo on one wing and 93 rated Marcelo on the other. I was 3-0 down at half time. I came forward more and conceded again at 46 minutes. Further tactical changes by me were ineffectual. The opposition again made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself. Yes I am repeating myself... to make a point).

Perhaps this just came down to awesome performances on the day, luck, whatever you want to call it. Well, only one of his players got more than 7/10 in the first leg despite beating a team rated an average of more than 7 points higher away from home. Surely such a result can only come from a superlative performance in most positions, yet that doesn't seem to the case here. In the second leg the opponent performance ratings were generally quite high although two of them got 6/10 and 10 of my 11 players got 7/10 or higher despite beating a team 4-0 that are rated more than 7 rating points lower. An awesome performance like this would usually draw the plaudits all over the pitch.

Again, I really don't mind losing - I lose plenty and don't complain - but there is too much of a random element at times, too little consistency between results and stats and factors you would expect to be contributing to the result, too much mystery, and not enough tactical options.

Well done anyone who read all that, hopefully one such person works for SM and can see where I am coming from...

I don't think there's anything left to agree. A detailed analysis of 2 ridiculous matches and many more complaining about the same issue just not as detailed as this one. What do you want more SM?! Because really anything more to get your attention I can come up with is a brick through your window or setting your car on fire (though that could be me..) :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

actually it was basically refering to the fact that SMFA competetions are not realistic . . . I almost shuffle my squads for all games but SMFA win or loses are like toss of coin than manager's skills

My bad reading sorry ,:eek:

blame it on my old age ,i thought you meant your normal league games .:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

hopefully one such person works for SM and can see where I am coming from...

Brilliant piece mate .

I think after all this time you have been playing SM can see and know where your comming from.

This is not new we know its been the same for yrs and the same asking of SM.

Yet for reasons only known to them they have not done anything to rectify it just promises that never seem to happen ( QUICKLY THAT IS ) .

Been a bit since they fetched NMF players into the equation but ive noticed a teams with quite a few do not hardly have disadvantages for playing them .

Would be nice if SM did give a real feedback on why many of the inconsistencies of the match engine have not been sorted .

After all some that are being mentioned we were told 2-3 yrs back were being sorted and that my friend at the moment just has not happend .:eek::)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

A huge problem for me' date='as soon as I get SMFA cup matches the ME goes crazy and more often than not the lower rated team wins.I understand upset's but in the SMFA cup it seem's the favourite's are the lower rated team's.[/quote']
Yeah I find the same thing' date=' my Spartak side in GC1 have a great first XI and squad depth so I play a fit great side in most SMFA cup games, but I have won the SMFA cup twice in 16 seasons.

I don't expect to win every season, not by a long stretch, and I [i']want [/i]to see underdogs winning (as I have teams that are not great in the SMFA cup too!) but shock underdog wins seem too commonplace in cups and more so in the SMFA. Yet more so at the knockout stages.

I just lost 6-0 on aggregate with my Spartak side. 2-0 at home when I played an avg first XI of 94.28 to his 87.18, 4-0 away when I played a 94.45 avg XI to his 87.18. I appreciate an 87+ team is utterly competent but 94+ is absolute world class and need to have an off day or face huge over-achievement from most opposition not to win comfortably. Perhaps the other manager engineered a tactical masterpiece, hats off to him either way, but my issue is that I have no idea where I went wrong despite playing this game for 6+ years and giving some thought to my tactics for each leg.

In the first leg I played a 5-4-1 to pack the midfield and secure possession. The midfield contained Yaya Toure, Iniesta, Rooney and Messi. Messi got 4/10 and the opposition had 61% possession which seems at odds with the quality of my midfield to his (an 86, 87, and 88) and my objective. Maybe I was too defensive and invited this.

If I was too defensive the stats look a bit odd. I had 25 shots in the first leg (10 on target) and 27 in the second leg (18 on target) but failed to find the net. Sounds like his keeper played a blinder but only rated 7 in both games on performance. Perhaps my shots were limited to shots from distance by a superlative defensive display but 2 of his 3 defenders got 6/10 in the first leg, the other got 7 so I am baffled there too. In the second leg the three got 6, 7 and 8/10 so a bit more plausible I suppose.

Perhaps my forwards were rubbish but I had the best strikers in the game up front at various points, Messi, Ibrahimovic, Villa, Rooney, Higuain. Perhaps they underperformed? Well Messi got 4/10 in the first leg as mentioned (but was primarily in midfield) and Higuain got 6/10 that game. Ibrah came on at half time and got 8/10 which suggests a decent game for the game's best rated striker aside from Messi. In the second leg Messi and Villa got 7/10 despite which suggests a solid performance, which does not fit with the other stats of 10/25 shots on target and 0/10 goals from shots on target (I am assuming my forwards are largely accountable). Oh, and Ibrah off the bench got an 8/10 in the second leg too.

Perhaps I should realise that playing low condition players is a risk. Oh, hang on, I didn't. All of my players went into both games greater than 90% condition which is meant to mean that they have a greater than 90% chance of playing to full capacity if you take the Online Help literally. I don't know the opponent's condition going into the game but based on their condition after the game they were at a comparable level.

Must be poor morale then. Nope, not that either. The player with the lowest morale over the two legs was, I believe, on 72%. This was not my 4/10 Messi who actually had around 90% morale for both games, it was Goetze who got 7/10 in the second leg. The opposition's lowest was on around 68%. Generally morale for both teams was high.

Player form perhaps? Well, no. The AvP rating for all players involved from both sides, both legs, were all over 7/10. One of the reasons Higuain started my first leg was his AvP which is now 8.47. He scored 6/10 in a surprise change of form. The AvP of my players was generally high with many over 8/10. More players than the opponents.

Form of the teams? Here we have something. I am experiencing one of my worst ever runs for reasons unknown to me (I have lost a few on the bounce after a decent size unbeaten streak, also confusing in itself as if team performance is important, great form should not implode so easily). The opponent is top of his division despite being lower rated than some so is clearly doing something right. I just don't know what. If team form has some bearing, how on earth is this addressed? I believe team form it is a reflection of past events rather than something that can impact on future performances.

Tactics wise I have mentioned played 5-4-1 in the first leg. He played 3-5-2 which historically has not done well against 5-4-1. I had switched to a more attacking 3-5-2 of my own after being a goal down at 60 minutes (seems a reasonable decision under the circumstances) but they scored again at 72 minutes in. I threw men forward at 75 mins but alas nothing. The opposition made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself).

In the second leg I began with a 3-5-2, same as him. I played a normal 3-5-2 attacking down the flanks, in anticipation of a weakness here. The opposition did indeed play an 85 in the right CB position, an 86 in the left CB position, and an 86 on the right of midfield. These were there weakest players. I played 98 rated Ronaldo on one wing and 93 rated Marcelo on the other. I was 3-0 down at half time. I came forward more and conceded again at 46 minutes. Further tactical changes by me were ineffectual. The opposition again made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself. Yes I am repeating myself... to make a point).

Perhaps this just came down to awesome performances on the day, luck, whatever you want to call it. Well, only one of his players got more than 7/10 in the first leg despite beating a team rated an average of more than 7 points higher away from home. Surely such a result can only come from a superlative performance in most positions, yet that doesn't seem to the case here. In the second leg the opponent performance ratings were generally quite high although two of them got 6/10 and 10 of my 11 players got 7/10 or higher despite beating a team 4-0 that are rated more than 7 rating points lower. An awesome performance like this would usually draw the plaudits all over the pitch.

Again, I really don't mind losing - I lose plenty and don't complain - but there is too much of a random element at times, too little consistency between results and stats and factors you would expect to be contributing to the result, too much mystery, and not enough tactical options.

Well done anyone who read all that, hopefully one such person works for SM and can see where I am coming from...

I read it all and it mirror's my situation exactly,it's just so annoying when you take the time and effort to do tactic's and buy better players yet consistently lose to lesser teams whose managers seem to put little or no effort into tactics and just go 352 all the time regardless of who there playing.Gold SMFA cups are basically the highest honour you can win on SM and yet when you get into the knockout phase the match engine consistently churns out results & match reports that don't make any sense whatsoever and leave you totally baffled.

After years of promises regarding the match engine it totally baffle's me why SM haven't attempted to update/repair the match engine.

The most important part of the game get's totally ignored whilst SM seem obsessed with largely pointless cosmetic changes to the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

If the tendency for these 'strange' results is much higher in Cup competitions, whether SMFA or GW Cup/Shield, than in the league, then I honestly don't see a problem. It mimics real life. Competitions that are elimination based often produce much more 'strange' results where a big team loses to a much weaker one (specially in single leg cup games). Many examples can be found in real life (most recent Arsenal v Bradford). The tendency for this scenario to happen in a cup game is much higher than in a league game.

It comes down to mental aspects having superiority over technical aspects. I remember as a kid when playing football in my school competition, I used to perform much better against senior teams. The drive to perform in that 1 game to try and prove a point is very immense (at least compared to playing against my peers of similar age). Couple that with the sure-to-win mentality of the seniors and the result was often unexpected.

May be that's what SM has done. It increases the 'luck' factor (or whatever you call it) in cup games favoring smaller teams.

Experienced SM managers are welcome to comment on this. Did any of you notice a change in the frequency of these 'strange' results between league and cup games?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

@tebthereb:

I think the most important thing that you said is we have no idea where to look when we lose games. In other manager games, you can see how the game went wrong for you. You can see which personnel under-performed and got battered by their counterparts. You can see why you only put up 3 shots on target. You can see why your midfield got overrun. You can see why your opponent scored 8 goals. And then you can make the necessary adjustments.

But unfortunately in this game, the match ratings, match statistics, commentary, and player productivity have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What's worse is the tactical options that we make do not affect the game the way we think it should based on conventional wisdom.

Case in point:

1. A very defensive-minded team(4-5-1 defensive, men behind ball) with no support for the lone striker suddenly puts up 35 shots on goal.

2. A packed 5-man midfield who plays shortpassing gets only 40% possession and the team who hoofs the ball up-field to the opposite box gets 60%.

3. There is no penalty for conflicting tactics.

4. Playing out of position and poor conditioning don't seem to affect unmanaged clubs.

It doesn't matter if I put up 25 shots on target and the opponent only 1. Of course some would say you can still lose in real life and indeed you can, just like Chelsea winning in the Champions League final, but that should be on rare occasions. Generally real-life managers would look at that stat and say we had a fantastic game, but unfortunately it doesn't matter on SM.

And now we go to the dreaded match ratings. I'm sure many of us had checked out match ratings either on websites or TV shows before. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't but it generally has some connection with the game ie: Gareth Bale torching Maicon in the Champions League, Neuer having a monster game against Manchester United. But SM's match ratings have nothing to do with the stats, the results, or even with the ratings of the opposing side.

So what is left to analyze in our matches? How did we win? How did we lose? Where do we look? And how do we adjust?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

@tebthereb:

I think the most important thing that you said is we have no idea where to look when we lose games. In other manager games' date=' you can see how the game went wrong for you. You can see which personnel under-performed and got battered by their counterparts. You can see why you only put up 3 shots on target. You can see why your midfield got overrun. You can see why your opponent scored 8 goals. And then you can make the necessary adjustments.

But unfortunately in this game, the match ratings, match statistics, commentary, and player productivity have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What's worse is the tactical options that we make do not affect the game the way we think it should based on conventional wisdom.

Case in point:

1. A very defensive-minded team(4-5-1 defensive, men behind ball) with no support for the lone striker suddenly puts up 35 shots on goal.

2. A packed 5-man midfield who plays shortpassing gets only 40% possession and the team who hoofs the ball up-field to the opposite box gets 60%.

3. There is no penalty for conflicting tactics.

4. Playing out of position and poor conditioning don't seem to affect unmanaged clubs.

It doesn't matter if I put up 25 shots on target and the opponent only 1. Of course some would say you can still lose in real life and indeed you can, just like Chelsea winning in the Champions League final, but that should be on rare occasions. Generally real-life managers would look at that stat and say we had a fantastic game, but unfortunately it doesn't matter on SM.

And now we go to the dreaded match ratings. I'm sure many of us had checked out match ratings either on websites or TV shows before. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't but it generally has some connection with the game ie: Gareth Bale torching Maicon in the Champions League, Neuer having a monster game against Manchester United. But SM's match ratings have nothing to do with the stats, the results, or even with the ratings of the opposing side.

So what is left to analyze in our matches? How did we win? How did we lose? Where do we look? And how do we adjust?[/quote']

From my observations, it's all about the choice of tactics, each player's condition and morale. Add to those 3 factors a 'chance' factor (that is probably doubled in cup matches). I can't say I played many games but what I can see is that stats like shots, cards, corners, match ratings, injuries, penalties, and MoM are all randomly distributed after the match engine has calculated who wins and by how many goals.

In a strange way I hope I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

I know this is a free game after all (and a decent one compared to other online FM games to be honest), but I believe some of these 'glitches' are simply an update away from being fixed. I just hope that the SM Devs are at least acknowledging the problem and working on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

@tebthereb:

I think the most important thing that you said is we have no idea where to look when we lose games. In other manager games' date=' you can see how the game went wrong for you. You can see which personnel under-performed and got battered by their counterparts. You can see why you only put up 3 shots on target. You can see why your midfield got overrun. You can see why your opponent scored 8 goals. And then you can make the necessary adjustments.

But unfortunately in this game, the match ratings, match statistics, commentary, and player productivity have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What's worse is the tactical options that we make do not affect the game the way we think it should based on conventional wisdom.

Case in point:

1. A very defensive-minded team(4-5-1 defensive, men behind ball) with no support for the lone striker suddenly puts up 35 shots on goal.

2. A packed 5-man midfield who plays shortpassing gets only 40% possession and the team who hoofs the ball up-field to the opposite box gets 60%.

3. There is no penalty for conflicting tactics.

4. Playing out of position and poor conditioning don't seem to affect unmanaged clubs.

It doesn't matter if I put up 25 shots on target and the opponent only 1. Of course some would say you can still lose in real life and indeed you can, just like Chelsea winning in the Champions League final, but that should be on rare occasions. Generally real-life managers would look at that stat and say we had a fantastic game, but unfortunately it doesn't matter on SM.

And now we go to the dreaded match ratings. I'm sure many of us had checked out match ratings either on websites or TV shows before. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't but it generally has some connection with the game ie: Gareth Bale torching Maicon in the Champions League, Neuer having a monster game against Manchester United. But SM's match ratings have nothing to do with the stats, the results, or even with the ratings of the opposing side.

So what is left to analyze in our matches? How did we win? How did we lose? Where do we look? And how do we adjust?[/quote']

I absolutely agree with the above points, you 've pretty much pointed out the problems of the match engine. I hope some Devs are reading...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

I agree strongly with most of the discussion. Some of the results generated by the match engine are shocking to say the least. I think the Developers ought to pay more attention to creating a more realistic match engine.

A realistic game engine!!!!!!! This is Soccermanager!!!!!! not Football Manager...I think you're asking a bit much there mate. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

I know it's only a friendly' date=' but still:

sm-ratings.gif

Yes, that's right. My 95-rated team had an average player rating of 8.0, while my illustrious opponent had an average player rating of 5.8. Yet Stockport wins 1-0. Um... okay.

I hate to be that guy, but isn't this what happened in the Celtic vs Barca game in real life? And it was not even a friendly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

I hate to be that guy' date=' but isn't this what happened in the Celtic vs Barca game in real life? And it was not even a friendly![/quote']

It's not just the fact that we lost to Stockport, it was that the entire match results did not make any sense. Celtic defeated Barcelona with a spirited performance in which they created good opportunities and resisted Barcelona attacks with tenacity.

If my players had a poor game or Stockport had played magnificently, then fine, upsets happen. But in this case, the match ratings say that every single one of my players was better than the equivalent player in the other team, that my team as a whole substantially outperformed the opposing team, and that the best Stockport player performed only as well as the worst Everton player. Yet... 0-1. As a manager, what lesson am I supposed to take out of that game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

It's not just the fact that we lost to Stockport' date=' it was that the entire match results did not make any sense. Celtic defeated Barcelona with a spirited performance in which they created good opportunities and resisted Barcelona attacks with tenacity.

If my players had a poor game or Stockport had played magnificently, then fine, upsets happen. But in this case, the match ratings say that every single one of my players was better than the equivalent player in the other team, that my team as a whole substantially outperformed the opposing team, and that the [i']best[/i] Stockport player performed only as well as the worst Everton player. Yet... 0-1. As a manager, what lesson am I supposed to take out of that game?

If I remember correctly, Celtic had like 3 chances and scored 2 of them. They had less than 20% possession. Barca, on the other hand, had close to 30 shots or so but only scored 1 (they wasted a lot of chances plus the Celtic keeper had the day of his life). BUT, overall, Celtic were not better than Barca. If I was to rate each individual player in that match I would generally still give the Barca players more point because they created so many chances and had that much possession. Naturally they won't get high rating (nothing near 9 or 10) but they don't deserve 5 or 6 either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the match engine is flawless or realistic. I just think that this wasn't a good example of how poor it is. I mean there are other examples of the random structure of cards, injuries, penalties, commentary, and final match stats that really blows your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

i cant believe you drew a game you must be rubbish:p, my point is the majority of people play sm for free and still complain, everyone uses the same game engine so its not like certain teams are punished, i take SM far to seriously yet if i lose, i lose. I usually just laugh and blame the engine ;) but life goes on :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

i cant believe you drew a game you must be rubbish:p' date=' my point is the majority of people play sm for free and still complain, everyone uses the same game engine so its not like certain teams are punished, i take SM far to seriously yet if i lose, i lose. I usually just laugh and blame the engine ;) but life goes on :o[/quote']

I agree with you in principle.

I just believe that SM could still improve. My contributions on the forum are mainly to address ways for SM to be a better game.

At the end of the day, SM is a free game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?

If I remember correctly' date=' Celtic had like 3 chances and scored 2 of them. They had less than 20% possession. Barca, on the other hand, had close to 30 shots or so but only scored 1 (they wasted a lot of chances plus the Celtic keeper had the day of his life). BUT, overall, Celtic were not better than Barca. If I was to rate each individual player in that match I would generally still give the Barca players more point because they created so many chances and had that much possession. Naturally they won't get high rating (nothing near 9 or 10) but they don't deserve 5 or 6 either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the match engine is flawless or realistic. I just think that this wasn't a good example of how poor it is. I mean there are other examples of the random structure of cards, injuries, penalties, commentary, and final match stats that really blows your mind.[/quote']

If Everton had been wasteful or the Stockport defence or goalkeeper had been brilliant, that ought to have been reflected in the match ratings at least for those positions.

You'd expect the Stockport keeper to have 9 or 10 for having saved a whole bunch of shots... instead he got a 6. Or perhaps the defence was really good at forcing the Everton strikers to take pot shots from a distance... but no, they got 5s and 6s. Or perhaps the Everton midfielders and strikers were just completely useless and were skewing their shots or shooting straight at the keeper... but no, they all got 8s and 9s. How does that even begin to make sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...