Is this result of careless programming or plainly intentional?

[Buffs Mad]

Its planned, to an extent. They can't do realism very easily and need to use chance to make the unexpected happen. Unfortunately embedding a chance that's big enough to allow the minnow to beat the bigger fish means it can go crazy when the 'chance' delivers extremes. So those one-off results can be more frequent in the game.

Commentary is the best guide we have for whats going on but its not a good guide unless we knew what priorities were given to comment/event selection. Its just a snapshot, even worse than TV highlights because the selection is programmed for a all the fixtures whereas TV highlights are selected for that game.

PS. Unless your team is all 9* we're not talking about Man Utd or Championship - that is unrealistic. Most teams in this game would be non-league And some are Boy Scouts.

[Celtic]

Its planned, to an extent. They can't do realism very easily and need to use chance to make the unexpected happen. Unfortunately embedding a chance that's big enough to allow the minnow to beat the bigger fish means it can go crazy when the 'chance' delivers extremes. So those one-off results can be more frequent in the game.

Basically you're telling me that what the game does is comparing teams, sending the odds to Random.ORG and serve a result that you can't change but cosmetically.

[Buffs Mad]

Basically you're telling me that what the game does is comparing teams, sending the odds to Random.ORG and serve a result that you can't change but cosmetically.

Nope - thats your 'random, out of your control' conclusion.

If you we just consider a simple example of a player making a shot. His relevant attributes will determine a result as to whether its on target or off - there will also be a random generated factor (actually there will be more than one) which will be applied to that initial result to modify it. I'd imagine that as in PNP DnD, iirc, that factor can produce a definite fail or success regardless of the initial result - like on a d20 rolling 1 or 20. Ofc its a small chance but a chance nonetheless

In games these exist to ensure there are no guaranteed wins or losses, success or failure - whether its 1/100, 1/20 or 1/16/ or 1/10 or another will affect the frequency of these things.

(There will also be other hidden factors such as the one that determines whether two identical players (attributes-wise) are different performers - I'd call it performance factor. It could be a smaller range from 0.75 to 1.25 (or even smaller) or big from 0.5 to 2.0 (or bigger). That means using the bigger number any player could be half as good or twice as good as his average - good 3*, bad 5*, great 7*, bad 7* - its all relative.)

Simply put, there is always a chance that a 1* succeeds in testing a 9* GK and similarly that a 9* GK fails to stop that 1* shot. Once you get an unfavourable run of chance you get a bad beat.

However, I do think these unexpected things happen too often in this game - too many exulted David's and dead Goliaths.

You yourself have spoken about a higher/lower chance of winning home/away. If that was true they'd achieve it my factoring everything by a say 1.2 or 0.8 factor. It offers an improved chance to win/lose based on location but not too much to rule out the opposite.

PS. all the numbers here are for demonstration purposes

[Celtic]

Nope - thats your 'random, out of your control' conclusion.

I have no doubts the results are simulated and served. Everything you do inplay is mostly cosmetic.

As for the second hand I did the exact same thing:

- played with the same 11
- same morale
- same condition
- same bonus
- same behaviour

Won away 0:5 and the commentaries were in my favor from start. You'll get used to guess the final result from reading the first 10 minutes of commentaries. If you believe otherwise, well, what can I do.

[Sully]

I have no doubts the results are simulated and served. Everything you do inplay is mostly cosmetic.

As for the second hand I did the exact same thing:

- played with the same 11
- same morale
- same condition
- same bonus
- same behaviour

Won away 0:5 and the commentaries were in my favor from start. You'll get used to guess the final result from reading the first 10 minutes of commentaries. If you believe otherwise, well, what can I do.

There are still people playing that believe this is the ultimate in internet football management and they fail to realize that this is not a complicated game. If it was complicated, you would think that they would have graphics at least. Not only that, but you would think that they could or would have done certain upgrades or changes to the game to make it more realistic or believeable.

They still have not differentiated stats or skills between GK and outfield players. WHY? That itself is one of the biggest faults in this game and it is just a simple thing! No stats on amount of saves and shots on net for a GK, but we track goals and assists? That is a fundamental aspect of the real game but they dont feel the need to port that into a "realistic football management simulation"???

This is an easy fix, or at least it should be, and it is just a result of careless programming, and plainly intentional (see what I did there?) It shows you that they are only in this for the $$$ and they care little about the small stuff that is fundamentally important.

Kudos, Nordeus! over 3 years and you cant fix something so simple and important.