Are some matches fixed?

[Lawlore]

Well I guess it's simple to find out.

Play the match normaly, see the result.

Load before the match, use a completely weird tactic(2-3-5 or something) and see the result.

Are they the same? If yes, then it's fixed, if not, it's not.

Tactics are not the same as formations, and as has been explained by many others better than I, there are many, many more factors- pre-game and mid-game, which will affect the outcome. Drawing such far-reaching conclusions from such a small-scale and flawed test would be foolish.

[forameuss]

Tactics are not the same as formations, and as has been explained by many others better than I, there are many, many more factors- pre-game and mid-game, which will affect the outcome. Drawing such far-reaching conclusions from such a small-scale and flawed test would be foolish.

But surely for the purposes of what it's trying to disprove, it would show that the game is not fixed? I completely agree with what you're saying, but the other side says that there are some games where you will never win. If that is the case, then it follows that it shouldn't matter what you do to your team, you will always lose. As soon as you do something different, that's it disproved.

[grimbo88]

Maybe it could be down to the hidden attributes such as important matches, professionalism and consistency?

[Jimmious7]

Not foolish at all. If you consider a game to be "fixed" the easiest way to test it is to try something extreme. If it's actually "fixed" the result will be the same regardless.

My point of course is that people only consider some games that they lose to be "fixed" because even after reloading they couldn't win them. I'm pretty certain nobody believes there also games that the player wins that are "fixed" because ,naturally, no-one ever replays them.

And of course it's because ,as you say, all the circumstances leading to the match are the same AND you're not trying extremely different approaches because you consider what you have to already be the best possible approach.

[Dagenham_Dave]

And apart from anything else, look no further than the plethora of examples of people claiming the game is 'too random' when they reload and get different scores each time.

[Lawlore]

But surely for the purposes of what it's trying to disprove, it would show that the game is not fixed? I completely agree with what you're saying, but the other side says that there are some games where you will never win. If that is the case, then it follows that it shouldn't matter what you do to your team, you will always lose. As soon as you do something different, that's it disproved.

That's a good point- that test itself, drawing conclusions as stated, would almost certainly still show that it ISN'T fixed. But whatever the outcome, the test as set up is still extremely simplistic, deliberately ignoring the complexity of the game.

[forameuss]

That's a good point- that test itself, drawing conclusions as stated, would almost certainly still show that it ISN'T fixed. But whatever the outcome, the test as set up is still extremely simplistic, deliberately ignoring the complexity of the game.

Yeah, you're right about that. There's no test that anyone can do that would convince some people it didn't exist. The devs have these tests, but the tinfoil-hatters won't believe them anyway.

[themadsheep2001]

The Mods/Developers/Fan boys always vigorously deny the fact that some matches are fixed. Most sane people know that there is something not quite right, it is pretty obvious unless you trying not to believe it. It's not like they are going to come out and admit that some matches are fixed though is it, it would make the game kind of pointless and sales would drop, but we all know it is, and if you try denying it then you are just deluding yourself.

If you're going to start referring to people as fanboys you will not be posting much longer. I suggest you read the house rules if you want carry on contributing to the debate.

[Jimmious7]

Well yeah, the test is completely simplistic but the whole accusation is not much more... complex anyway, so it kind of "fits"

[braceletwinner]

I think people misunderstood me when I mentioned the random "seed". This is a programming term, and it has to do with how random numbers are generated, and isn't nefarious in the least. When a program calls for a random seed, a number is returned. This number is never truly random, though. For example, if I write a program using a very basic programming language to print out ten random numbers and then I run it multiple times, I will get the same ten numbers in sequence every time it is run. However, I can give the Random Number Generator a "seed", so that it will vary the number. This seed can be any number (well, any number the computer can process). Programs typically seed the RNG with something that isn't known at programming time, like the total time in milliseconds elapsed (at the time the program is run) since 1995, for example.

So for this game, I mentioned a seed because I don't know what SI uses for their seed. If it's something in the saved game (total number of players in the database times goals scored last season for your league, for example), then the RNG will produce the same sequence of numbers for each replay. I doubt that this is the case, as seeding with the current time or something similar is common, and we would literally see the same game play out on replays, assuming no changes to squad/tactics/talks, etc... But I still wondered if it could just be a bad seed that caused a very unusual game that I replayed twelve times, each with different players and tweaks to tactics. (By "bad", I don't men malicious - I mean bad luck to me.) I saw many similarities in each of those twelve matches (opposition always scored at least three; my non-injury-prone left back was injured in seven or eight of those matches (I can't recall the exact number now); my GK made unbelievable mistakes like just watching balls roll past him, etc...). I didn't replay because I wanted to win - the result was just so astounding that I wanted to find out what I'd done wrong or if the game was truly hosed (If I'd been the near-bottom and beaten the league leaders 9-3 while witnessing the same errors, I probably would have done the same). Anyway, the seed, whatever it may be, caused a sequence of numbers that could have just worked out horrendously for me each time. This does seem unlikely, but with thousands of people playing this game every day, results that would be impossible in real leagues will happen from time to time, and they may happen over and over. Most people who replay a match probably never see a sequence like this, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Once more: I am not saying SI program the game so that we will automatically lose a certain match. I'm saying that very occasionally the RNG will hose you badly. It's just how computer programs work sometimes.

[Canaries Fan]

No, they're not fixed, as has been mentioned above, you're playing with the exact same build up to the match. If you insist on continuing to play you will eventually get your result though. But, in all honesty why do it? Saving and reloading really kills any sense of achievement, for me at least.

[Dr. Hook]

Once more: I am not saying SI program the game so that we will automatically lose a certain match. I'm saying that very occasionally the RNG will hose you badly. It's just how computer programs work sometimes.

Sometimes teams of otherwise competent, capable professionals will hose you badly sometimes. It's just how football works.

[Jean-Luc]

There are so many people who have experienced the "lost multiple times in a row" thing that there must be something going on. Similarly, every time it comes up, uploading a save produces a win for someone else, so the result is absolutely not "fixed".

I think it's quite simple.

If you reload a game, you often don't watch it on full mode, maybe not even on extended mode. At least once you start to reload a game for the 3rd time, I am pretty sure most people will just watch "Key moments" or "Only commentary". Which still can take a while, and nobody here can tell me that they watch 5 or 6 or 10 games in a row in full mode (resulting in several hours of gameplay!), just to turn around that one loss they tried to avoid.

But as soon as you start to watch a game only via Key Moments, you diminish your chances to influence it and react to what happens and turn it around.

Hence the frustrating rows of bad results (and my assumption is even, the more often you reload a game, the less you actually take influence), and hence the surprising win once somebody else downloads the game (because this person has all the time and all the patience in the world, to try the to win the match by getting active).

[penseur1]

Even if the same scenario is replayed over 17 times, it's still extremely unreasonable to expect Fraser Forster to deliver a mammoth performance in all 17 of them. Barcelona should be winning most of these simulations as a result, by an average of about 2 goals.

[penseur1]

Not if they played them 17 times in a row, no. But this isn't what's being discussed. It's playing the exact same game over and over.

People cannot seem to differentiate the two scenarios here.

So you're saying that Forster would play well in all 17 simulated scenarii and keep virtually everything out?

[Dagenham_Dave]

So you're saying that Forster would play well in all 17 simulated scenarii and keep virtually everything out?

Why not? If he can do it once, then by definition he can do it every time, given you're not actually playing the games sequentially, but playing the same game over again. His confidence and frame of mind will be the same in each case, whereas it wouldn't be if you actually played 17 games back to back.

This isn't difficult.

[jc1]

Why not? If he can do it once, then by definition he can do it every time, given you're not actually playing the games sequentially, but playing the same game over again. His confidence and frame of mind will be the same in each case, whereas it wouldn't be if you actually played 17 games back to back.

This isn't difficult.

I really do wish you'd just give civil answers without making the little snide quips here and there.

[Dagenham_Dave]

If you don't like my posting style, put me on ignore. That's what the function is there for.

[themadsheep2001]

I really do wish you'd just give civil answers without making the little snide quips here and there.

If you don't like my posting style, put me on ignore. That's what the function is there for.

Both of you, please, give it a rest. Dave cut out the quips too, it just gets people's backs up, and regardless of whether your point is valid or it only makes them want to not read what you are posting.

[Bad_Religion]

This. If you save right before the match, then everything leading up to the match is locked in, so morale, press conferences, etc are all there n set, so is it any wonder that it keeps producing the same result?

Funny how nobody ever saves n reloads after they win a match they should never have won, or question the match engine when they've been played off the pitch but still won....

So you are basically saying that team talks and morale are much more important than the tactical aspect of the game? Clearly if he replayed a match 17 times, no matter what the morale was, and provided that his tactics which he kept switching were not horrible, he would have won few times at least.

[Svenc]

So you are basically saying that team talks and morale are much more important than the tactical aspect of the game? Clearly if he replayed a match 17 times, no matter what the morale was, and provided that his tactics which he kept switching were not horrible, he would have won few times at least.

There still has been no upload (for a reason, perhaps?), thus much of the theorizing is pointless and the only thing to go by are claims. As said, I haven't seen a single thread of this kind where the issue wasn't resolved (or the game won, quickly) after an upload, thus...

[jc1]

Both of you, please, give it a rest. Dave cut out the quips too, it just gets people's backs up, and regardless of whether your point is valid or it only makes them want to not read what you are posting.

I like to read what everyone is doing and how they get help, fixes for their game etc, I attempt to give assistance if I can, or even get help myself through reading the various threads. I'm not the only poster on here who's made reference to his way of replying to others, it's not big or clever.

I will no longer reply to any of Dagenham Dave's posts, I've decided not to stoop to his level.

[Lawlore]

So you are basically saying that team talks and morale are much more important than the tactical aspect of the game? Clearly if he replayed a match 17 times, no matter what the morale was, and provided that his tactics which he kept switching were not horrible, he would have won few times at least.

Not necessarily much more important than tactics, but certainly much more important than they're being given credit for- tactics are far from the only thing which affects decisions made in the game. Furthermore, there are factors like tactical familiarity and player fitness. If all of those other factors are poorly handled, you're starting with a disadvantage before you even think about tactics, and will be every time you reload the same game.

[jc1]

So you are basically saying that team talks and morale are much more important than the tactical aspect of the game? Clearly if he replayed a match 17 times, no matter what the morale was, and provided that his tactics which he kept switching were not horrible, he would have won few times at least.

Try an experiment by saving a game just before you do team talk, then play the game over a good few times by changing team talks each time and see how each match transpires, you may be surprised.

[Svenc]

Try an experiment by saving a game just before you do team talk, then play the game over a good few times by changing team talks each time and see how each match transpires, you may be surprised.

Not a good idea. Matches transpire differently for various reasons. For one, from kick-off no sequence of play will be the same. When evenly matched sides meet, the one that goes in front immediately has a higher chance of winning despite the even quality. For one, the team going up will likely play it more safe and deny spaces, whilst the other is prone to open them up and push more aggressively forward (the AI certainly works in similar ways, even if the human user never does anything). If you monitor the tab on body language/feedback, you will see that individual matches also influence in-match player confidence. Players can get upset over wrong calls, they certainly always react to goals (a player such as De Jong actually got more fired-up each time he conceded in a match I played against one of his teams), etc. As such, such runs won't tell you much. Each reload will lead to a completel different sequence of play with difference events, which is one of the reasons why I find the OP claim so dubious (17 reloads and not even a draw at home against clearly inferior opposition, how could that possibly happen).

Whilst I find the random seed theories interesting, surely no seed is going to massively influence every sequence that thereon follows this hugely that it makes the apparently massively better side underperform each and every time. However, in theory it is possible that the side feels huge pressure from the way the build-up was handled, and this being a promotion decider it is likely also flagged as a "big game", and (in theory) the squad could also be full of players that don't handle pressure well and have low attributes for the big occassion (look for assistant feedback in player reports, as such is certainly simulated and a bonafide player attribute in the database). Then it might also be one of those ever so popular cases in which the tactics clearly isn't specifically made for breaking parking bus teams down, and on top opens space for the break that occasionally is being seized upon. Even then...

About team talks in general and their effects: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/354390-Team-Talks-Ruining-Game-Experience?p=8790306&viewfull=1#post8790306 Read the following SI posts that are adressing common misconceptions regarding their usage and some more, if you like, such as the green/red arrow confusion (green=good, red=bad, except not). In any case, I'd never get that riled up about team talks that I wouldn't ever let them the assistant handle it. As long as the tactics set-up is halfway sound and doesn't cause huge gaps or anything, the team with the better players is more likely to win (don't read that as: will always win). Team talks obviously have an effect, but there are firstly more important things than that, and as has been said, there are various ways to handle them, there is not "the one right way". It's usually people that never change anything but their team talks that come to the conclusion they'd be game changers (the same goes for many other areas of the game - few things can be tracked down to a very specific thing you did). Sure, this makes FM very ambiguous to play in parts. But so is management, and it'd be bloody boring if say you all had to do was hitting "overload" to create chances and score a bucketload of goals and going vice versa for shutting up shop for good.

[Bad_Religion]

Try an experiment by saving a game just before you do team talk, then play the game over a good few times by changing team talks each time and see how each match transpires, you may be surprised.

I am aware that team talks and morale are very important. However, if they are the most important aspect, I am not sure I like that and that it makes sense in the first place. Basically, that would mean that you just had to know what to say and when to say it and proceed to play 442 long ball tactic as Arsenal ripping your opponents apart in the process.

[OxfordUnitedFC]

Has anyone ever won a match and convinced it was fixed played it again 17 times to see if they could lose? Every 'match is fixed' argument i've seen on here is from someone losing a match. Funny that.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Has anyone ever won a match and convinced it was fixed played it again 17 times to see if they could lose? Every 'match is fixed' argument i've seen on here is from someone losing a match. Funny that.

Common sense has no place on this thread, begone with you.

[Savo7en]

if people think matches in FM are fixed, then take a look at Chelsea v West Ham from earlier today, 39 shots at goal for Chelsea and no goals? must be a fix!!!

[buddiemirren]

if people think matches in FM are fixed, then take a look at Chelsea v West Ham from earlier today, 39 shots at goal for Chelsea and no goals? must be a fix!!!

If you could go back to before kick-off & replay that game 17 times, which of course you can do in FM14, would you expect a draw every game?

It's just an observation by the OP, and many others, but some members enjoy ridiculing other Forum Members & SIGames customers who have the nerve to offer up contentious opinions.

[Dagenham_Dave]

They had 13 corners too!! Real life needs fixed asap, it's just unplayable!

[Svenc]

It's just an observation by the OP, and many others, but some members enjoy ridiculing other Forum Members & SIGames customers who have the nerve to offer up contentious opinions.

Agreed about the silly in-fights, but then that's the internet, sadly.

However, to correct: It's just an observation by the OP, and many others, that from my experience has never stood any farther than the point the game was uploaded. That's a difference. A significant one. Unfortunately neither the OP nor the others who have chimed in and seized upon the "opportunity" presented to them have bothered. So it might well be that somebody is having massive fun by the stir caused.

Remember: This is the internet, after all.

[themadsheep2001]

Agreed about the silly in-fights, but then that's the internet, sadly.

However, to correct: It's just an observation by the OP, and many others, that from my experience has never stood any farther than the point the game was uploaded. That's a difference. A significant one. Unfortunately neither the OP nor the others who have chimed in and seized upon the "opportunity" presented to them have bothered. So it might well be that somebody is having massive fun by the stir caused.

Remember: This is the internet, after all.

Yeah, since no one has actually stepped forward, now is probably a good time to close said thread.

[Jazz Hands]

On 27/01/2014 at 00:52, themadsheep2001 said:

At no point does this happen, nor is it built in. As confirmed repeated by PaulC. You can take that as a fact.

I simply do not believe this! I have played so many saves of this game. Replayed games 20, 30, 40 or more times on occasion. Changing the team, the tactics, the team talk etc. Sometimes it is smply impossible to wn a game. Players can have good moral respond well to the team talk, and sever liking what the manager said in the press conference. Coming up against the bottom team I regularly lose despite good form etc. It's nonsense. It is absolutely programmed in, in some way that makes playing bottom sides almost impossible to wn. It makes you feel lke you are kid with a plastic steering wheel. It might feel like a car but you have no control over the result whatsoever. It got so annoying. I started using games vs the bottom three and cup games verses lower division teams for my youth, as it didn't seem to make any difference what team I put out. You can deny it all you like. The overwhelming experience is these games are totally fixed. It makes you wonder how and why, and if other games are also fixed!? Maybe they all ae, and not a lot you do makes any difference at all!

[Svenc]

11 minutes ago, Jizz0nmyf@c3 said:

The overwhelming experience is these games are totally fixed. 

People on here tend to have a lot of experience.
 

I have my own -- and it's Always been the same. Every. Single. Time. The save was provided, the "unwinnable" match was won immediately by somebody. Exceptions tend to be wins that were highly unlikely from the off.... Sheffield Utd first Season going to Camp Nou, for instance. As the match engine has flaws though -- if you aren't Aware of them to counter, and the corresponding AI club "exploits" them by Chance (say, wide midfielders barely defending central on FM 17, etc.) you will Always have a hard time for as Long as you don't counter those flaws exploited though. Changing tactics etc. isn't enough. That's just flipping the random Lever. Knowing what to Change is different. So the game has flaws. Fixed Matches isn't one of them. If anything, as the AI is limited, we can have too much "Control" over the Outcomes.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Svenc

[Jazz Hands]

2 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Changing tactics etc. isn't enough. That's just flipping the random Lever. Knowing what to Change is different. So the game has flaws. Fixed Matches isn't one of them.

So, what you are saying, is you are not playing a football sim you are battling against the idiosyncracies of the programming, and more specfically it's flaws? So, t's not about having good tactics, it's about knowng how the game s programmed? Not exactly what I bought the game for!???

[Svenc]

24 minutes ago, Jizz0nmyf@c3 said:

So, what you are saying, is you are not playing a football sim you are battling against the idiosyncracies of the programming, and more specfically it's flaws? 

On the occasion, that can happen. It's rare though that the flaw is this big that it's single-handedly responsible for anybody not Winning a match in dozens reloads. After all, you'd expect the losing Team to win off a lucky Punch at least once. Usually somebody not Winning in X reloads either has a tough match-up (much tougher than he Claims). Or his "tactics" are all majorly flawed from the get-go, as he's never put up a coherent one. (I personally don't like that you can easily put up "bad" tactics myself -- no Manager in real Football is ever punished for obviously "bad" tactics as they don't set up tactics full of holes and/or contratictions. As the AI on this game is limited, that's holes too that tend to be "exploited" by Chance thus, rather than across the board, as would happen in football).

Edited September 6, 2019 by Svenc

[thehig2]

Major necro this thread 5 years old talking about fm 15

[FrazT]

The game is not fixed- end of story, so I will now put this very elderly thread to bed where it belongs.