FM vs RL

[tacticsdude]

1 hour ago, masno said:

Real madrid never won anything when I was playing.
Juve Always get 3-4th place.
Barcelona always get really bad, Man city too

I play in Italy so I was looking at Juve. They finished 10th last season. Let me repeat that 'cause it looks like a typo, they finished 10th in the Serie A last season (2019-20), having brought in Benzema, Wanyama, Danilo and Alejandro Gomez. Meanwhile I won the Serie A on the same season with the likes of Younes Namli, Semi Ajayi, Sergio Ayala (vice-cap) and Gerard Gumbau (captain), all of them behind their PA by at least 10-15 points.

Look them up in your database and tell me if there's a universe in which my team should outperform a reinforced Juve by 9 league spots.

[forameuss]

11 hours ago, RinusFM said:

I think we need some independent group of people who test the quality of FM. Like ME, interface and others. If they, lets say, SI games don't surpass the test with a good result then these group can either fine SI games (money goes to charity), postpone release or even demand SI Games to be fully open to it's customers on the selling page at Steam. etc. 

I think this would be ideal to make sure SI Games won't slack it's quality cause of the monopoly-position.  

Wow.  Just...wow.

I won't cover the whole punishment angle, because that's absolutely ridiculous, but I will cover this idea of some "independent group".  How about you just don't buy at release, download the demo, decide if it's worth your money and then base your decision off that?  There can be no better party to judge over whether you think the game is good than you.  I've never understood this new fad of completely avoiding making your own decision, and forming second-hand opinions.  

 

10 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

I think the industry just needs more accurate reviews. It is the same problem with PES and FIFA, every year they release a new steamier pile of garbage, and they call it the best footy game ever made. Every year there are glaring, unrelenting, deep flaws in the mechanics, serious issues that make the game unplayable to the serious aficionado, but the gaming review sites take a 1-hr look at the graphics only long enough to make a "gameplay" Youtube video and give it a 9.5/10 the most realistic experience ever!

FM is harder to assess. I like to start my career in the second or third division, so by the time I feel I have certainty that the problems are the ME not my tactics+players, I've already sunk at least 50 hours into the game. At 300+ hours FM17 feels like I'm playing an indie game that ran out of budget early in the release cycle. Many things about FM are truly great, it is the most genuine management game I can remember playing. But at this point the ME is also truly a joke.

Perhaps the review should be:
FM17 is an outstanding management experience with some deep flaws that should not exist for a game with such history, and have become simply unforgivable this far into the franchise. Rating: 4/10. The serious aficionado should stay way clear and instead dust off an earlier version, the casual gamer wanting to spend less than 50 hours may find it fun and rewarding in spurts.

How do you define "accurate"?  Ones that agree with your own views?  Take the Match Engine - people have criticised it, as is absolutely their right, and others haven't seen as many problems.  People that look at it forensically will see more issues, but they'll be in the massive minority in the FM player base.  So what's the "accurate" review of that?  If they pile it on, are the ones that still find it enjoyable now lying or just wrong?  Take the user interface - pilloried by a lot of people, and I can see their point, but from my perspective, although they've made some curious changes, it's nowhere near as bad as some seem to claim.  Again, what's the "accurate" review in that case?  That you might like it, might not?  Who does that help?  Your example "review" isn't particularly accurate or objective.

Reviews are fluff pieces that represent the opinion of one person.  In FM's case, it's likely to be reviewed by someone that loves the game, or someone who just doesn't "get" it.  Again, the only opinion that really matters to you is your own, which can be formed with the free demo.  

[tacticsdude]

(Sorry for the length, I know this one is very ranty. Feel free to skip but I wanted to reply and set some context. I do love this game and I think if we want it to improve we must voice our opinions.)

 

49 minutes ago, forameuss said:

are the ones that still find it enjoyable now lying or just wrong?

Just wrong.

In seriousness, there's nothing wrong in liking an inferior product. But there's no need for it to be bad for people to enjoy it. The game might as well have a great ME and then we can all enjoy it, not just the those that are still in the early stages of learning tactics.

That's the main issue with your take on this. I've said the same thing to my fellow FIFA fans on those forums: if you enjoy it, great for you, have more fun for the rest of us. But that doesn't mean the game isn't poorly designed and way below standards, not just on what it could and should be, but compared against its own pedigree. If a previous year's ME was better, than why are we investing time and budget into traveling backwards?

 

49 minutes ago, forameuss said:

How do you define "accurate"?  Ones that agree with your own views?

That's a pretty sad take on it. How about read the rest of the paragraph. I said:
gaming review sites take a 1-hr look at the graphics only long enough to make a "gameplay" Youtube video and give it a 9.5/10

If you are reviewing a game that takes 50 hours to get the hang of, then you can't get a newbie to play 1 hour and make an assessment. At that stage all that person has been able to assess are the menus and the new haircuts. So that's exactly what they write about. "This years release has great haircuts, a new shine to the stadiums, and boy are those menus slick!"

An accurate review would make an effort to voice the opinion of someone who's actually played it enough to understand it. Maybe they don't get to 50 hours, but at least 1 weekend. This goes for all footy games. In 2017 I spent quite a while in the FIFA forums and a large portion of that community understood they were playing a flawed but fun game. There was no delusion that the game is epic and the mechanics are spot on.

A real review of FIFA 17 would read "in this game GKs are pointless because they all have glaring errors hard-coded into them, so don't bother working hard to get Buffon on your team when the average 82-rated GK is a smooth copycat. Also, the engine glorifies physicality but only of the agile variety, so don't hire the RL Serie A's goal scorer of the season because in FIFA that player is useless. Instead, look at the 4 or so STs that everyone else is using and get the same ones, they are quietly hard-coded to outperform everyone else. When in doubt, hire a player from Man U or Roma, those players have hidden attributes for some unknown reason (probably licenses?). And whatever you do, do not try to go out to play without a white bench, unless you are fixing to lose the game against a complete rookie."

This is not "like, my opinion". Those are the facts of the game and the people that have invested the hours can comfortably validate them. Even those that make a living off the game (esports pros) acknowledge and play accordingly.

 

49 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Take the Match Engine - people have criticised it, as is absolutely their right, and others haven't seen as many problems.

I don't want to minimize anyone's enjoyment of the game. If you like it as-is, great, please enjoy and ignore me.

For those of us that care about the game and would like to see it improved: the ME of FM17 is clearly inferior to years prior, in some cases by quite a distance. That's a fact, irrespective of who has the tactical skills to see it. I understand that not everyone comes here with decades of tactical analysis experience to start piecing the ME apart and find it distasteful. But for those of us that have been playing this game for many years and appreciate it for its complexity, the current state of affairs is disturbing and we are having a chat about it.

It wasn't on my first game of FIFA 17 that I discovered all the problems. the first few games were fun, exciting, promising, an invitation to learn more and figure out the details. It takes some playing, some getting into it, many hours of putting your team together and devising your tactics, many lost matches trying to engineer a better approach. For me that journey also included joining the community and working through all the frustrations on the forums. Only then you start realizing something things are not you, they are issues with the game and the thing itself is in many ways broken.

 

So to your point:
What about those that don't think the ME is broken, are they wrong?

They haven't gotten there yet. If they keep playing and learning tactics, eventually they'll see it. I don't necessarily wish that on anyone. Unless you are training to be a professional manager then there's no reason for you to get good enough to see the flaws. I honestly would wish on you that you keep enjoying it longer. But the simple answer is that the more you understand the beautiful game and FM, the more the issues will become clear and the game becomes near (or wholly) unplayable. I think that's the simple truth of it.

 

And to be clear, it is not because my tactical understanding makes me god-like, so I'm nitpicking a perfectly decent sim because it won't live up to my standard that I share only with Guardiola. In FM17, my last match against Barcelona they came out playing a defensive 451, completely conceded possession, didn't put a single shot on target, and let me have 67% possession. 67%. That means Barcelona (the worldwide tiki-taka standard bearer) had 3 shots total, 0 on target, 33% possession, with both Suarez and Neymar on the pitch.

I'm saying that at times the game sucks so badly that it is hard not to get an upset stomach and a rushing feeling of disappointment. I'm sure it can't take too much for others to see that the ME is not that good. I honestly don't think I'm being nitpicky here wanting Barcelona to dominate possession and look somewhat dangerous on the ball. Or for Juventus to be able to finish in a Euro spot consistently when left alone. If you read some of my earlier posts, I was consistently destroying Roma with a team barely worthy of the second division. At what point do we concede that the thing is just not right? Do we look the other way because scores of new players are finding their first couple careers exciting still?

[forameuss]

Your entire post basically reads like an utterly patronising VL "git gud" response.  So if you're enjoying the game, that's wonderful!  Pat on the head for you!  But you've clearly just not played enough.  Because if you had, how could you possibly like it?  It's unplaaaaaayable!  

[Tony Wright 747]

39 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

(Sorry for the length, I know this one is very ranty. Feel free to skip but I wanted to reply and set some context. I do love this game and I think if we want it to improve we must voice our opinions.)

 

Just wrong.

In seriousness, there's nothing wrong in liking an inferior product. But there's no need for it to be bad for people to enjoy it. The game might as well have a great ME and then we can all enjoy it, not just the those that are still in the early stages of learning tactics.

That's the main issue with your take on this. I've said the same thing to my fellow FIFA fans on those forums: if you enjoy it, great for you, have more fun for the rest of us. But that doesn't mean the game isn't poorly designed and way below standards, not just on what it could and should be, but compared against its own pedigree. If a previous year's ME was better, than why are we investing time and budget into traveling backwards?

 

That's a pretty sad take on it. How about read the rest of the paragraph. I said:
gaming review sites take a 1-hr look at the graphics only long enough to make a "gameplay" Youtube video and give it a 9.5/10

If you are reviewing a game that takes 50 hours to get the hang of, then you can't get a newbie to play 1 hour and make an assessment. At that stage all that person has been able to assess are the menus and the new haircuts. So that's exactly what they write about. "This years release has great haircuts, a new shine to the stadiums, and boy are those menus slick!"

An accurate review would make an effort to voice the opinion of someone who's actually played it enough to understand it. Maybe they don't get to 50 hours, but at least 1 weekend. This goes for all footy games. In 2017 I spent quite a while in the FIFA forums and a large portion of that community understood they were playing a flawed but fun game. There was no delusion that the game is epic and the mechanics are spot on.

A real review of FIFA 17 would read "in this game GKs are pointless because they all have glaring errors hard-coded into them, so don't bother working hard to get Buffon on your team when the average 82-rated GK is a smooth copycat. Also, the engine glorifies physicality but only of the agile variety, so don't hire the RL Serie A's goal scorer of the season because in FIFA that player is useless. Instead, look at the 4 or so STs that everyone else is using and get the same ones, they are quietly hard-coded to outperform everyone else. When in doubt, hire a player from Man U or Roma, those players have hidden attributes for some unknown reason (probably licenses?). And whatever you do, do not try to go out to play without a white bench, unless you are fixing to lose the game against a complete rookie."

This is not "like, my opinion". Those are the facts of the game and the people that have invested the hours can comfortably validate them. Even those that make a living off the game (esports pros) acknowledge and play accordingly.

 

I don't want to minimize anyone's enjoyment of the game. If you like it as-is, great, please enjoy and ignore me.

For those of us that care about the game and would like to see it improved: the ME of FM17 is clearly inferior to years prior, in some cases by quite a distance. That's a fact, irrespective of who has the tactical skills to see it. I understand that not everyone comes here with decades of tactical analysis experience to start piecing the ME apart and find it distasteful. But for those of us that have been playing this game for many years and appreciate it for its complexity, the current state of affairs is disturbing and we are having a chat about it.

It wasn't on my first game of FIFA 17 that I discovered all the problems. the first few games were fun, exciting, promising, an invitation to learn more and figure out the details. It takes some playing, some getting into it, many hours of putting your team together and devising your tactics, many lost matches trying to engineer a better approach. For me that journey also included joining the community and working through all the frustrations on the forums. Only then you start realizing something things are not you, they are issues with the game and the thing itself is in many ways broken.

 

So to your point:
What about those that don't think the ME is broken, are they wrong?

They haven't gotten there yet. If they keep playing and learning tactics, eventually they'll see it. I don't necessarily wish that on anyone. Unless you are training to be a professional manager then there's no reason for you to get good enough to see the flaws. I honestly would wish on you that you keep enjoying it longer. But the simple answer is that the more you understand the beautiful game and FM, the more the issues will become clear and the game becomes near (or wholly) unplayable. I think that's the simple truth of it.

 

And to be clear, it is not because my tactical understanding makes me god-like, so I'm nitpicking a perfectly decent sim because it won't live up to my standard that I share only with Guardiola. In FM17, my last match against Barcelona they came out playing a defensive 451, completely conceded possession, didn't put a single shot on target, and let me have 67% possession. 67%. That means Barcelona (the worldwide tiki-taka standard bearer) had 3 shots total, 0 on target, 33% possession, with both Suarez and Neymar on the pitch.

I'm saying that at times the game sucks so badly that it is hard not to get an upset stomach and a rushing feeling of disappointment. I'm sure it can't take too much for others to see that the ME is not that good. I honestly don't think I'm being nitpicky here wanting Barcelona to dominate possession and look somewhat dangerous on the ball. Or for Juventus to be able to finish in a Euro spot consistently when left alone. If you read some of my earlier posts, I was consistently destroying Roma with a team barely worthy of the second division. At what point do we concede that the thing is just not right? Do we look the other way because scores of new players are finding their first couple careers exciting still?

Very good post.  Commercial reviewers will almost always give a positive review, if not there's a real risk they will not be given the game to review in the future.  The ME is moving further and further away from real football.  If it carries on in this direction it will become a football "theamed" game and not a true football management simulation.  At the moment I fear for the game and since there is no credable alternative for football management simulations in general. 

[Dave1990]

SI is now interested on the disinterested player, the one that downloads tactics without meaning, the one that doesn't worry about the problems because doesn''t notice them. That is their market, no longer the fans of the old CM or PC Calcio, are the "new" that advances, that is idiots who want to win scudetto immediately in the first year with Benevento by reloading 200 games per season.
Reason for which the old fans recently criticize the game every year, while the positive opinions come especially from new fans who have not known the old managerial games.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, tacticsdude said:

For those of us that care about the game and would like to see it improved: the ME of FM17 is clearly inferior to years prior, in some cases by quite a distance. That's a fact, irrespective of who has the tactical skills to see it.

I don't really want to get too involved here, but I would like to pick up on this statement.

I'd suggest that rather than the ME being clearly inferior to prior years is a "fact" it's actually nothing more than your own opinion.  Personally I disagree with the assertion, but again that doesn't make it a "fact", just my opinion.  But then perhaps I don't have "the tactical skills to see it".

Is the ME perfect?  No.  Could it be improved?  Yes.  And I think I speak on behalf of pretty much everyone that uses this forum that we all care about the game and would like to see it improved.

[RinusFM]

2 hours ago, forameuss said:

Wow.  Just...wow.

I won't cover the whole punishment angle, because that's absolutely ridiculous, but I will cover this idea of some "independent group".  How about you just don't buy at release, download the demo, decide if it's worth your money and then base your decision off that?  There can be no better party to judge over whether you think the game is good than you.  I've never understood this new fad of completely avoiding making your own decision, and forming second-hand opinions.  

Yo, man. I've waited till December to buy it. I know I took a risk, cause the game is usually finished in Feb/March. But you can't deny FM is going downhill since it's peek of FM 2008 (2D). In 2009 they introduced 3D. In FM11 this 3D was finally reaching it's peak. And then it went downhill. Perhaps you could argue Fm12 or 13 was it's peak for 3D ME FM. But alright.

This year you can clearly see they introduced a new ME, dynamics and medical centre. The latter two are indeed welcome features, but the ME is not the best it was. To sum it up; weird long shots, 1vs1 are weird too, the pitches are too sterile, the seats are too sterile too, no ambience, celebrating is bugged, tiny stadiums have large crowd sounds, defender passing to keeper is always a corner, offside is not really offside most of the times. And after all the regenfaces are really bad this year, also they switch skincolours and have a lazy eye.

I still do enjoy my FM18 cause I know the game is flawed, but still has it's funfactor somewhere. Who cannot deny the rise of a zero club to a hero club  

However, in the end I think SI games really need to scratch is head and have to think what they are doing at the moment. With all these ME stuff and specially regenfaces I think they should have postponed this new ME and go back to old 2D faces. It's not bad to admit some new feature it's going to be 100% correct as intended. Then SI games could tell the customer honestly that the ME and 3D faces aren't what they want and they likely go dot the i's and release it in FM2019. While giving new and the old customers a lower FM18 price. 

Also I believe an independent group of FM enthusiastics could help SI games to watch over the quality of the game and it's features like a Rottweiler would do to it's own territory. It's just like I am going to my work. Day in day out. Routine will do it's job, but surely and slowly the quality of my work will decline. That's why I've colleague's, boss, wife, children, family to motivate me to do my best so we all can sleep better at night. 

[BigRoboCrouch]

14 hours ago, masno said:

The future is bright for FM at the moment,exactly because of the lack of the competition,they have time to think what they going to do,but the ME and the tactic part are obsolete.

If we are very lucky,this year we can get some nice things in the tactical screen. 

The future is bright???

ahahahahahah yeah sure! This year we got the dynamics screen and the medical center addition which are completely totally 100% useless “features”, and i don’t expect anything different from next year’s version.

[Seb Wassell]

29 minutes ago, BigRoboCrouch said:

the medical center addition which are completely totally 100% useless “features”

As someone who specifically worked on the Medical Centre I am disappointed to read this. What is it that makes it useless in your eyes and how would you like to see it improved?

[BigRoboCrouch]

2 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

As someone who specifically worked on the Medical Centre I am disappointed to read this. What is it that makes it useless in your eyes and how would you like to see it improved?

Eh, I want to specify that i like the way it is made graphically and how clean the info is presented, i have nothing against that.

But in my opinion it is ultimately an useless addition to the game, because 1) if i want to know for how long a player is injured i’ll just click the players profile directly, 2) I don’t care to know the injury risk % because if a player is fit (91-92+% fitness), and he’s my 1st choice for the role, i’ll play him everytime (not sure why I would ever bench him), and on the opposite side if a player has an orange injury (recovering from an injury) i’ll never play him until he has recovered.

And the same goes for the dynamics feature, I don’t need 5 different screens to know that if the team is doing well the players will like me, and that if I sell my top winger the other players will be unhappy.

Like I said, I got nothing with the work made behind these features, but i seriously don’t understand the decision to spend resources to include them , when there’s a bajillion other things that really matter and that are in serious need of improvement.

[Seb Wassell]

2 minutes ago, BigRoboCrouch said:

But in my opinion it is ultimately an useless addition to the game, because 1) if i want to know for how long a player is injured i’ll just click the players profile directly, 2) I don’t care to know the injury risk % because if a player is fit (91-92+% fitness) i’ll play him everytime (not sure why I would ever bench him) and on the opposite side if a player has an orange injury (recovering from an injury) i’ll never play him until he has recovered.

To respond to that directly - the feature was implemented partially in response to forum/social media feedback on "too many injuries".

It was found that often the perception of too many injuries was either a result of a lack of information presented to the User by the game or a lack of appreciation from the User for real-life injuries. As such, one of the main goals behind the implementation of the Medical Centre was to provide the User with more/better information from which to both understand why injuries are occurring and how to prevent/reduce these.
The risk that you mention is directly related to how likely it is that a player is going to get injured in the short term and as such taking this into consideration can improve your chances of avoiding injuries. The added detail to injury information/injury history in general is there to both provide the User with more tools from which to make decisions and to further educate the User on injuries, their causes and realistic expectations. Additionally we updated a number of injuries, introduced some new (mostly very short term) ones - in order to reflect a group of real life injuries that were not yet incorporated into FM - and fixed a bug with the correlation between training intensity and injury types. Along with a few other additions/changes, Sports Scientists were also made considerably more relevant within the new Medical Centre module.

If this is not a feature you find useful, then fair enough - are there additions to the injury module that you would find useful? - but I strongly believe and hope that for many this feature is a useful addition to the game.

[Kelvinu]

Hey,

My two cents about Medical Center and Dynamics:

- There are good futures which improve the series? Surely yes.

- Are you disappointed that are additions to the game, while other old features do not behave properly/did not improve over series? Surely yes.

I also think that BigRoboCrouch is referring to this. Even there are more important features to be looked on and repaired, SI spend time on adding new features to the game, which is frustrating.

[Seb Wassell]

2 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

Hey,

My two cents about Medical Center and Dynamics:

- There are good futures which improve the series? Surely yes.

- Are you disappointed that are additions to the game, while other old features do not behave properly/did not improve over series? Surely yes.

I also think that BigRoboCrouch is referring to this. Even there are more important features to be looked on and repaired, SI spend time on adding new features to the game, which is frustrating.

This is probably a bit oversimplified, but allow me that for a moment:

Both the QA team and the Dev team have specific areas of the game on which they work, of course there is crossover, but in general a feature in one area, eg. the Medical Centre, does not directly take resources away from another area, eg. the Match Engine. Myself, for example, am dedicated to the training, injuries, finances, newgens, etc. side of the game, so my work on FM18's Medical Centre did not take a member of QA away from FM18's Match Engine. I think there may be a slight under-appreciation of how complicated even a small change to the ME can be, which may explain any perceived "slow" progress in this area compared to others, which could of course appear as if resources were being dedicated to one module at the expense of another, which I do not believe is the case.

[masno]

2 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

As someone who specifically worked on the Medical Centre I am disappointed to read this. What is it that makes it useless in your eyes and how would you like to see it improved?

Hey Seb,don't mind him,the medical center IMO was the best addition on FM18,my compliments to you for a great work.

 

3 hours ago, BigRoboCrouch said:

The future is bright???

ahahahahahah yeah sure! This year we got the dynamics screen and the medical center addition which are completely totally 100% useless “features”, and i don’t expect anything different from next year’s version.

Who can you say they are 100% useless?

Useless was the social media that don't interact with the player,you just look at it,but dynamics and medical center adds a lot on the gameplay. In RL you need to keep your players fine,they need to have friends in the club (social groups) and they need to have influence (hierarch),and they need to like you,this is man-management.

The medical center is helping plenty of players too,só I really don't see how it is useless.

[Seb Wassell]

4 minutes ago, masno said:

Hey Seb,don't mind him,the medical center IMO was the best addition on FM18,my compliments to you for a great work.

Thank you, appreciated. Certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved though, and we would love to hear suggestions on that.

[Kelvinu]

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

This is probably a bit oversimplified, but allow me that for a moment:

Both the QA team and the Dev team have specific areas of the game on which they work, of course there is crossover, but in general a feature in one area, eg. the Medical Centre, does not directly take resources away from another area, eg. the Match Engine. Myself, for example, am dedicated to the training, injuries, finances, newgens, etc. side of the game, so my work on FM18's Medical Centre did not take a member of QA away from FM18's Match Engine. I think there may be a slight under-appreciation of how complicated even a small change to the ME can be, which may explain any perceived "slow" progress in this area compared to others, which could of course appear as if resources were being dedicated to one module at the expense of another, which I do not believe is the case.

I am a Project Manager myself if that counts. I'm sure that we're talking about dev team (we're not saying that bugs are not found, just not resolved at the speed people would want) being a bit small here and their focus point, which the community would want to be hardening the current series for the next series over developing new features. Which would lead to some frustration but that could be avoided by some methods. The point is allocating more people to work on found bugs or setting up old features' tasks more prioritized over others.

 

Thank you, appreciated. Certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved though, and we would love to hear suggestions on that.

This could also lead to frustration due to the current situation. People would feel that we're at the time we must fully focus on the current build rather than think about what we can add extra.

[Tony Wright 747]

2 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

This is probably a bit oversimplified, but allow me that for a moment:

Both the QA team and the Dev team have specific areas of the game on which they work, of course there is crossover, but in general a feature in one area, eg. the Medical Centre, does not directly take resources away from another area, eg. the Match Engine. Myself, for example, am dedicated to the training, injuries, finances, newgens, etc. side of the game, so my work on FM18's Medical Centre did not take a member of QA away from FM18's Match Engine. I think there may be a slight under-appreciation of how complicated even a small change to the ME can be, which may explain any perceived "slow" progress in this area compared to others, which could of course appear as if resources were being dedicated to one module at the expense of another, which I do not believe is the case.

Slow progress on the ME is acceptable, an ME that is worse than you have had in previous releases less so.

[tacticsdude]

8 hours ago, herne79 said:

I don't really want to get too involved here, but I would like to pick up on this statement.

I'd suggest that rather than the ME being clearly inferior to prior years is a "fact" it's actually nothing more than your own opinion.  Personally I disagree with the assertion, but again that doesn't make it a "fact", just my opinion.  But then perhaps I don't have "the tactical skills to see it".

Is the ME perfect?  No.  Could it be improved?  Yes.  And I think I speak on behalf of pretty much everyone that uses this forum that we all care about the game and would like to see it improved.

I wasn't suggesting that people don't care about improving the game. I meant that people who are already happy with the game may not want to go down the rabbit whole with me in discussing the specifics of what I think make FM17 unplayable. If you like the game as-is there may not be a positive side to joining me on my journey. At best I'll sound like I'm ranting, at worst you'll start seeing the flaws I point out. So if you like the game, enjoy it and ignore me. I'm not trying to be patronizing, that's really my position as a friend. The game is for having fun. If you are already there then you win.

Opinion vs fact: I believe the sky is blue. That's my opinion, and also a fact. Where do we draw the line between opinion and fact? I believe there's a standard of proof. Can I prove the sky is blue (on a non-gray day)? Yes, look up.

The FM17 ME is poor. I believe this is a fact but, outside of those who already agree with me, I understand it is on me to make a clear case. Let me try by starting with what I think is more obvious:

The Barcelona Issue
Do you agree with me that a team with the CA to sit bottom-mid table should not be able to control 67% possession against Barcelona? I'm not arguing about beating them occasionally. But even when PSG scored 4 goals against them in 2017, they did so with only 43% possession. On the next match of the series when Barcelona scored 6 goals, they had 71% possession.

So if you agree with me that Barcelona is clearly a team designed to control possession (and if you don't agree please go take a look at their history and stats), then this reveals some pretty serious symptoms of ME problems:
- Barcelona is not being represented accurately
- A team with far more skilled players should not be overpowered to this extent regardless of tactics
- The ME was watching the situation happen and never corrected
etc

If you take some time to think on it, it means that Barcelona went out with a defensive formation reserved for second div teams planning to lose (this would never happen to a big team, they never go out to just defend). Barcelona sat on their half and conceded possession, which is the exact opposite of their RL playing philosophy. Even when they were losing they either did not try to adjust and go more aggressive, or even worse, they did try to adjust and failed against my god-like tactics skills. All I did was tell my team to retain possession and play short, Barcelona did the rest by falling back to their side, refusing to press, making few efforts to tackle, and showing no creativity in attack- the opposite of how Barcelona plays.

 

Specific ME Problems
There are issues with the ME that I find to be glaring problems that make it unplayable. Not small stuff open to interpretation, but truly large problems that should have kept the game from release until solved.

- The middle space issue: there's this super weird thing that players in the middle stay compact while wide players hold to the sides, leaving huge spaces in between. This creates all sorts of problems and prevents decent attack and defense. In attack teams can't move the ball around in the center because the midfielders are on each other's breath. In defense the ball goes right through the midfield line because the midfielders won't close the gaps. I like playing a 3-midfielder line but if I put them in line like I want to play them, they'll just stand there at near arm's length telling each other camp stories. I've resorted to playing with one CDM which at least makes one of them fall back a bit, so I just have 2 midfielders holding hands while the other tries to make himself available, albeit not where I want him on the pitch.

- Lack of creative attack: There's something seriously off with play build up in the final third. If you build at mid to low speed, you realize that players don't have the ability to creative incisiveness in the final third against a fully-formed defense. They lack creative line-breaking passes, and they don't make incisive runs. Instead they mostly move the ball around laterally, while forwards make telegraphed jogs, and midfielders are incapable of moving/turning quickly enough to find/create passing lanes. This is much of why teams like Barcelona don't look the part, and coaches like Guardiola don't do well in FM. Teams that build from the back using discipline, then attack in the final third relying on the danger of individual skills cannot find joy in FM, because the ME doesn't have enough creative play and incisive runs in it. So there's not enough individual skill to make that danger. Messi is not dangerous because he won't pass incisively. Neymar is not dangerous because he won't run into channels. Suarez doesn't threaten in a dangerous spot because the ball is simply not coming.

- The AI is toothless tactically: It can't adapt, it doesn't read your game and try to compensate well enough. It doesn't seem to think about space, or exploiting deficiencies. If you make a modest effort to look at space and the small battles across the pitch, you are already ahead of the AI's tactical skill and will easily overpower it. Brainy coaches like Guardiola have no hope of being represented at all. And why is it that the AI never thinks of pressing? Honestly, half the time it would disarm my 'bottom-mid table team' if it just pressed the ball. But it won't press, it won't fill in gaps, it won't adapt to my style and it won't correct the mistakes it is making.  So I go out there with an inferior team every time, without having done any opposition research or bothering at all to customize my tactics to the opposition, and with a couple of tweaks here and there during the match the points are in the bag. I'm not only not doing research, not planning for the game, not making roster selections to exploit the opponent, I'm not even bothering to play my best 11 anymore. A lazy 'just show up and play' approach is enough to beat this AI even with youngsters.

- It is beyond easy. Easy would be to have to plan your tactics, to customize for each game, and then finding joy most of the time against similar-size opposition. That would be easy because IRL even if you try your best to do your homework you are bound to run into tactical problems and have bad games because there's a person on the other end doing the exact same thing trying to get one over you. But in FM17 you don't even have to do any of that. Forget the opponent, don't change a thing, don't even bother playing your best 11, use the same ME-breaking tactics over and over and you'll find joy most of the time. What do we call that? Easy is not the word. It is certainly not football. If there's no challenge, if it doesn't react as the game goes on, if you don't have to sit there stressing about the details, giving it your all and still often coming back empty-handed frustrated at having lost control and not knowing where you went wrong, then it is not a "simulator" of the beautiful game.

 

Those are the most glaring issues I can think of right now. I could go on with other topics but I think these are the easiest to see and probably the most telling ones when I say that the ME is seriously flawed and prevents me from playing a single decent match when trying to approach it like real football.

If you think this is just my opinion, then try it out before dismissing it. Download a slow-build middle-control tactic and use it as-is, see if the AI can do anything to stop it. See if your players can produce creative play in the final third. And watch the central midfielders as they play in each other's space all game.

 

[masno]

After reading all the discussion on this thread and the @El Payaso thread I got on a conclusion.

One of the staffs need to give a answer about FM future. What They are aiming.

I world trully feel better if one of them get here and said "We have plans for the ME,but will get until FM21 to get here", because We would know what They are trying to achieve,or a simple "The ME is not our priority right know,We are purinha FM on other patch,you will have to wait"

This would help a lot, everyone would stop saying things like "lack of competition".

I want to support FM,I want to buy it every year so you can continue on the great work with the better footbsll simulator We got,but I need to know what project I Am supporting,If you guys are looking for getting the manager part ahead before get deep on the tactical/ME,them I would be happy to continue buying and telling people about it,knowing your plans. 

If one Staff could point out the direction you guys want FM to take,I would appreciat this,as a costumer that support your work and want to buy your game,but if you can't,then point this too,so We at least know that you guys Care about it.

Thank you guys anyway for reading this.

[forameuss]

2 hours ago, masno said:

After reading all the discussion on this thread and the @El Payaso thread I got on a conclusion.

One of the staffs need to give a answer about FM future. What They are aiming.

I world trully feel better if one of them get here and said "We have plans for the ME,but will get until FM21 to get here", because We would know what They are trying to achieve,or a simple "The ME is not our priority right know,We are purinha FM on other patch,you will have to wait"

This would help a lot, everyone would stop saying things like "lack of competition".

I want to support FM,I want to buy it every year so you can continue on the great work with the better footbsll simulator We got,but I need to know what project I Am supporting,If you guys are looking for getting the manager part ahead before get deep on the tactical/ME,them I would be happy to continue buying and telling people about it,knowing your plans. 

If one Staff could point out the direction you guys want FM to take,I would appreciat this,as a costumer that support your work and want to buy your game,but if you can't,then point this too,so We at least know that you guys Care about it.

Thank you guys anyway for reading this.

 

Most of this is just untrue.  Nothing they could do would stop the saltiness, and I guarantee nothing would stop people trotting out the incredibly lightweight "lack of competition" argument.  Them giving a window into their roadmap is effectively just a placebo - what if they tell you in 3 editions time they want to have x feature and it doesn't appear?  There are plenty of valid reasons why that could happen.  They don't even tell you when the next update will be in case it slips, so what makes you think it's a good idea for them to tell you long term plans that are almost certain to slip?

 

17 hours ago, RinusFM said:

Yo, man. I've waited till December to buy it. I know I took a risk, cause the game is usually finished in Feb/March. But you can't deny FM is going downhill since it's peek of FM 2008 (2D). In 2009 they introduced 3D. In FM11 this 3D was finally reaching it's peak. And then it went downhill. Perhaps you could argue Fm12 or 13 was it's peak for 3D ME FM. But alright.

This year you can clearly see they introduced a new ME, dynamics and medical centre. The latter two are indeed welcome features, but the ME is not the best it was. To sum it up; weird long shots, 1vs1 are weird too, the pitches are too sterile, the seats are too sterile too, no ambience, celebrating is bugged, tiny stadiums have large crowd sounds, defender passing to keeper is always a corner, offside is not really offside most of the times. And after all the regenfaces are really bad this year, also they switch skincolours and have a lazy eye.

I still do enjoy my FM18 cause I know the game is flawed, but still has it's funfactor somewhere. Who cannot deny the rise of a zero club to a hero club  

However, in the end I think SI games really need to scratch is head and have to think what they are doing at the moment. With all these ME stuff and specially regenfaces I think they should have postponed this new ME and go back to old 2D faces. It's not bad to admit some new feature it's going to be 100% correct as intended. Then SI games could tell the customer honestly that the ME and 3D faces aren't what they want and they likely go dot the i's and release it in FM2019. While giving new and the old customers a lower FM18 price. 

Also I believe an independent group of FM enthusiastics could help SI games to watch over the quality of the game and it's features like a Rottweiler would do to it's own territory. It's just like I am going to my work. Day in day out. Routine will do it's job, but surely and slowly the quality of my work will decline. That's why I've colleague's, boss, wife, children, family to motivate me to do my best so we all can sleep better at night. 

I can absolutely deny it.  I'm enjoying the ME far more than I did for FM17 and FM16, and probably more than FM15 (which was the last edition I put much time into at all).  

Your independent group idea remains terrible.  The consumers are the independent group.  You're acting like the vast majority of people who buy the game are furious about how dreadful it is, but are still buying anyway.   Is it really that hard to believe that people are actually enjoying the game?  That they either don't notice or don't particularly care about any of the "problems" you bring up?

Finally, you talk like SI should be basing the direction they go on the say-so of salty customers.  If FM was to have every aspect that people have complained about over the years, then it would be a mess of toggleable buttons, fluff features and either hideously complex or overly simplified management (because both are regularly asked for).  It's their product, and they're going to continue to mould it in their image.  Much like any product, if that image doesn't represent what you want, then you're free to exercise your right to not buy it.  I don't see any problem with that relationship other than the "But I want it to be like I waaaaaaaant!"

[herne79]

8 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

The Barcelona Issue

You're confusing an issue with how AI managers set up their teams with an ME issue.  The two things are very different.  If the team was set up differently by the AI, the team would be quite capable of achieving high Barcelona-type possession figures.

8 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

The middle space issue:

This is (was) a well known issue in FM17.  Central midfielders tending to stay narrow while wingers tended to stay wide.  SI acknowledged this and it's well documented.  However what is also well documented (and largely ignored) is that the issue was far from game breaking (SI's words not mine, although I happen to agree).  Personally I quite happily used a 4-4-2 for long periods in FM17 without issue.  Did I notice these gaps?  Yes, but my teams were still defensively sound.  However other people seemingly weren't able or willing to successfully use such systems and FM18 has made general improvements in this area.  It's also worth mentioning why this issue even materialised in FM17, and what was happening with the so-called over powered fullbacks from FM16.

8 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

Lack of creative attack:

If you are finding something is seriously off I'd suggest you visit the Tactics forum and ask for help.  It's perfectly possible to use a system that builds up play at mid to low speed and be successful.  A combination of creative players, creative roles, off the ball running, creating space and tactical instructions will help you out.

8 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

The AI is toothless tactically:

Again, not an ME issue.  If the AI isn't sufficiently adapting, then lets improve the AI.  Of course on the flip side to this you'll also find plenty of threads created about mid-season crashes in form due to the AI adapting, AI teams changing after half time to make astonishing comebacks and accusations of the AI "learning" our systems (which is a myth).  There can of course be improvements, but the AI is far from "toothless".

8 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

It is beyond easy

This is something I don't understand.  You say downloading and using "ME breaking" tactics is beyond easy.  ok fair enough, but my response would be - then don't use them.  You can choose not to, nothing is forcing you to use them.  Set up your own system.  If you're having problems doing that, visit the Tactics forum.  Many people don't use these game breaking tactics and enjoy themselves immensely playing the game.

 

8 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

If you think this is just my opinion, then try it out before dismissing it. Download a slow-build middle-control tactic and use it as-is

I don't doubt that some downloaded tactics are rubbish.  Personally I never download tactics and build my own systems - including successful slow-build systems.  I don't wish to dismiss anything you say, and I do suggest you visit the Tactics forum to ask for help as just because you have so-far been unable to achieve certain things doesn't mean to say you can't.

Anyway, TL;DR - if you believe the FM17 ME to be poor then it's a shame you haven't been able to find the enjoyment in the game that you obviously want and it's understandable why you might approach FM18 with some caution.  Personally I very much enjoyed FM17 but have been largely disappointed by the UI / Ux of FM18.  As far as the Match Engine goes, there can always be improvements - even SI say this - and I find that whilst I believe that overall the ME improves with each iteration, other specific issues tend to crop up as well.  For example in FM18 I don't like seeing all the long balls from 4th division defenders who turn into Bonnucci / Pirlo clones which result in goals a little too frequently.

However, I do also believe that having read your posts in this and other threads you might be able to find additional help or get some new ideas if you visit the Tactics forum. That may not solve everything, but it might help.

[tacticsdude]

We are not on the same page. Somewhere along I've misrepresented myself and you think I'm asking for tactics help.

 

19 minutes ago, herne79 said:

If you are finding something is seriously off I'd suggest you visit the Tactics forum and ask for help.

Not at all. This game is beyond easy. I can trample FM 17 while eating cookies and watching a movie, and paying attention to the movie instead of FM, while developing my youth players and going into team depth just to make it interesting. Without adapting my tactics pre-match, playing a random striker, and messing with the roles just to have something to do. I hope that's clear enough. And I'm not exaggerating either - that's how I play league games... except the cookies, can't have too many cookies.

 

22 minutes ago, herne79 said:

[Re: middle gaps] ...my teams were still defensively sound.

My teams are very defensively sound. I just locked Barcelona out of having a single shot on target and held them to 33% possession (please see that post). I'm not complaining about inability to defend. I'm saying FM itself is incapable of putting up a fight. I'm saying the gaps in the middle make it too easy for me to cut right through the opponent. You say some of this stuff is not ME just AI issues because the if the AI were wiser then the ME is capable of handling better play. I think you are missing the point there. It is the ME that is making that gap in the middle.

There's nothing in the tactics that says "check this box if you want your midfielders to leave a huge gap so that the midfield line becomes incapacitated from its defensive duties". The AI is not checking that box by mistake. It is the ME doing it. And the attacking problem (lack of creativity) is not the AI either, it is the ME that interprets player skills and styles into toothless passes. There's nothing in the tactics screen that says "click here if you want to prevent your creative players from creating scoring chances". I've managed Argentina for 2 years and Messi doesn't play like the real Messi, he doesn't do the unexpected, he doesn't create magical passes and open up channels. It is not the tactics, I didn't single him out and ask him to play like a meek rookie. Neymar is not failing his runs against my rookie RB because of AI bad tactics. The ME is making him run poorly and straight into my RB with 10 tacking skill (BTW the kid got 100% tackling on that match, using his 10 tacking to teach Neymar a thorough lesson).

Ultimately that's not Neymar, that's not Messi. The real problem is that the ME is incapable of reproducing the real playing skills and styles, and the AI is certainly not picking up the slack by making clever adjustments to improve their chances. Both the ME and AI are greatly flawed.

 

33 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You say downloading and using "ME breaking" tactics is beyond easy.  ok fair enough, but my response would be - then don't use them.

I'm not using any downloaded tactics. I'm a tactics enthusiast. One of the main reasons I buy FM is to roll up my sleeves and hammer at some tactics. My suggestion was:
If anyone thinks I'm being harsh on FM17, and you just don't see what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could help illustrate this for yourself by starting a new save to apply a downloaded tactic and just watch that play for a few matches.

 

38 minutes ago, herne79 said:

because you have so-far been unable to achieve certain things doesn't mean to say you can't.

This is an important one. There are tons of things you plain and simple CANNOT do with FM's tactics interface. How can you waste time while also playing a fast attacking style (Atletico Madrid)? Simply not possible.

How can you defend 451 using flat lines, but attack 433 with wide wingers?

How do you tell the team to build with discipline, but attack quickly and incisively once they reach the last third (Bayern Munich)?

How can you tell a winger to switch constantly between cutting inside and going wide for a cross (to be more unpredictable)? (you can't, only one at a time per role)

How do you tell your winger to dial back the runs to wait for better chances? You can't, you have to switch the role and force him out of runs altogether.

How do you tell your FB to overlap inside sometimes? (you guessed it)

That's just off the top of my head. Plenty of other examples in these threads. And these are not small things. For instance, the wide attackers (wingers, playmakers, etc) are too rigid in their roles and simply unreal. I don't want to use words that sound like insults, but to me their playing style is simply [insert word that means being able to make the same mistake 10 times in a row without a thought for trying to do things a bit differently the next time over]. That alone makes the game unplayable as a sim.

Think about it. Say you have De Bruyne and you are setting up your tactics. Instead of being able to say "hey Kevin, start in the middle and do that wonderful thing you do of being all over the pitch and looking dangerous and creative ranging from CAM to SS to wide for crosses." That's what I'd love to say to him. That's probably similar to what Guardiola says to him. In FM17, if at any point you want him to attempt a few crosses, this is what you say in FM tactics: "Hey Kevin, play very wide on the wing and insist mindlessly on running full blast up the sideline for a cross. Don't bother coming back down to defend. Never ever try to move inwards."

[herne79]

45 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

We are not on the same page. Somewhere along I've misrepresented myself and you think I'm asking for tactics help.

Not at all.  I think that based on some of your previous posts you have confused AI issues with ME issues and it's important to understand the difference between the two.  I also think you have in some instances confused fact with opinion.

Are there tactical limitations, room for improvement and bugs?  Yes there are - that's a "fact".  But to go on and say the ME is worse than previous iterations is opinion not fact, which was your original assertion.  I've merely picked up on that and also replied to your specific examples to say why (for example) you seem to confuse AI issues with ME issues.  You provided these examples to support your statement that it's a poor ME when some of those examples are not ME related.

I'm not denying there are issues, just trying to clarify things.

[tacticsdude]

I do appreciate where you are coming from.

I think that's been raised a few times, the debate over facts vs opinion. I know for a fact that the FM11 ME was far less troublesome than the 17 ME. It is said there was an issue with collisions, but I don't remember experiencing that and I certainly did not exploit it. Winning games on that engine was work and the games looked good. I think it was surely easier than winning games IRL as a pro manager, but it wasn't a cakewalk like it is on FM17.

So we disagree on whether my comments are opinions or facts. I guess it is a matter of perspective. There's a circle of a dozen or so experienced FM players in this forum that would probably agree that most of the stuff I'm saying are demonstrated facts (there are many threads in this forum highlighting various of the issues I brought up and many more). Those who don't see it or disagree will regard them as opinions. Be that as it may (it is ultimately unimportant), at least my comments are out and I hope they contribute advance the series one way or another. I hope any developers reading won't take offense to my bluntness, and do find use in the testing and documenting I've done.

And I think we disagree about what's ME and what is AI. Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me, it is the game itself that's broken and I'm less worried about the individual modules that carry the blame as I am interested in seeing all of it become better as a whole. I hope that by shedding light on specific issues, it helps someone somewhere look closer at the what & where of issues and start solving them for future versions.

I appreciate that you (and all that have contributed) take a step forward to join this conversation. Whether we agree on what's opinion and what's flaw of the ME or an issue of AI, the point is that we are getting to these topics and possibly doing some good. I'm sure I could slow down and say many things nicer/more cleanly, but I spend my days managing software projects, testing and documenting, so it is hard to spend my leisure hours putting the same amount of detail towards a game that I pay to play

[Carninho]

I think this could be a generation issue, or just unrealistic expectations of 'computer/video games' these days.

Having grown up with sensible soccer and kick off, playing fifa or pes always amazes me now with how far these games have come. back in those days you would see a new football game on the market every month or two, and 99% were garbage. but you had to pay your £20 to find that out (gazza's super soccer sticking out as being particularly  sh*te ).

same with management games. I'd play championship manager alongside premier manager, and loads of others i cant remember the names of. Over time all the others fell away and you have a choice of FM or nothing. The alternative games I see people playing are basically old versions of FM but with an up to date database, or fifa/pes' management mode. The fact that FM is the only one left standing should tell you that its bloody hard to make a game these days, so dont blame SI if you dont like FM. Its not their duty to represent all football management in a computer game format. 

Basically what I'm saying is they dont work for us. we are lucky to have a FM18, 17, 16..... for the £30 FM costs me each year I get so much value for money, FFS its 8p a day to play FM! How many console games are released only for a shed load of DLC to follow, with the sole intention of screwing the people that bought the game for more and more money.

yes the match engine inst perfect but it hardly makes the game unplayable.  I need to stop myself from moaning on about this, and but yes its annoying when a game in released with some heavy bugs, but having played FM since day one, i know that whichever team it is of guys it is running the show that they fix any bugs asap. No edition of FM has ever been unplayable. or in my opinion been anything but value for money.

FM cant be, nor will ever be 'perfect'. Its just that its our only decent option if we want to play a football management game.

Don't b*tch at SI because you dont think its good enough, just be grateful that you have a game to play full stop. If yo don't like it, play the free demo and don't buy it. Or get behind an indie football management game developer?

 

[forameuss]

30 minutes ago, Carninho said:

I think this could be a generation issue, or just unrealistic expectations of 'computer/video games' these days.

Having grown up with sensible soccer and kick off, playing fifa or pes always amazes me now with how far these games have come. back in those days you would see a new football game on the market every month or two, and 99% were garbage. but you had to pay your £20 to find that out (gazza's super soccer sticking out as being particularly  sh*te ).

same with management games. I'd play championship manager alongside premier manager, and loads of others i cant remember the names of. Over time all the others fell away and you have a choice of FM or nothing. The alternative games I see people playing are basically old versions of FM but with an up to date database, or fifa/pes' management mode. The fact that FM is the only one left standing should tell you that its bloody hard to make a game these days, so dont blame SI if you dont like FM. Its not their duty to represent all football management in a computer game format. 

Basically what I'm saying is they dont work for us. we are lucky to have a FM18, 17, 16..... for the £30 FM costs me each year I get so much value for money, FFS its 8p a day to play FM! How many console games are released only for a shed load of DLC to follow, with the sole intention of screwing the people that bought the game for more and more money.

yes the match engine inst perfect but it hardly makes the game unplayable.  I need to stop myself from moaning on about this, and but yes its annoying when a game in released with some heavy bugs, but having played FM since day one, i know that whichever team it is of guys it is running the show that they fix any bugs asap. No edition of FM has ever been unplayable. or in my opinion been anything but value for money.

FM cant be, nor will ever be 'perfect'. Its just that its our only decent option if we want to play a football management game.

Don't b*tch at SI because you dont think its good enough, just be grateful that you have a game to play full stop. If yo don't like it, play the free demo and don't buy it. Or get behind an indie football management game developer?

 

While you're absolutely correct, that last bolded bit is going to get jumped all over by the more salty.

[akkm]

6 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

I do appreciate where you are coming from.

I think that's been raised a few times, the debate over facts vs opinion. I know for a fact that the FM11 ME was far less troublesome than the 17 ME. It is said there was an issue with collisions, but I don't remember experiencing that and I certainly did not exploit it. Winning games on that engine was work and the games looked good. I think it was surely easier than winning games IRL as a pro manager, but it wasn't a cakewalk like it is on FM17.

So we disagree on whether my comments are opinions or facts. I guess it is a matter of perspective. There's a circle of a dozen or so experienced FM players in this forum that would probably agree that most of the stuff I'm saying are demonstrated facts (there are many threads in this forum highlighting various of the issues I brought up and many more). Those who don't see it or disagree will regard them as opinions. Be that as it may (it is ultimately unimportant), at least my comments are out and I hope they contribute advance the series one way or another. I hope any developers reading won't take offense to my bluntness, and do find use in the testing and documenting I've done.

And I think we disagree about what's ME and what is AI. Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me, it is the game itself that's broken and I'm less worried about the individual modules that carry the blame as I am interested in seeing all of it become better as a whole. I hope that by shedding light on specific issues, it helps someone somewhere look closer at the what & where of issues and start solving them for future versions.

I appreciate that you (and all that have contributed) take a step forward to join this conversation. Whether we agree on what's opinion and what's flaw of the ME or an issue of AI, the point is that we are getting to these topics and possibly doing some good. I'm sure I could slow down and say many things nicer/more cleanly, but I spend my days managing software projects, testing and documenting, so it is hard to spend my leisure hours putting the same amount of detail towards a game that I pay to play

Whether something is an opinion or a fact is not a matter of perspective...this is the kind of insular bias which has enabled the rise of the likes of trump where people indulge their biases to ignore actual facts as essentially their minds cannot process something which proves them wrong and attempt to 'nebulise' the issue introducing a 'perspective' on things...essentially going down that road is an attempt 'to make yourself feel good about yourself'...the increasing prominence, necessity and enabling of this in recent years is a whole different discussion but for the current discussion...a fact has nothing to do with perspective...that is fallacious.

Also that others agree on something doesn't make it a fact...that may just mean they all wrong and in the 'earth is flat' brigade

Some of your comments on FM absolutely have merit (and as it happens I agree with some of them) but once you enter the realm of suggesting facts/opinions are a matter of perspective the impact of your comments may be diluted credibility wise

 

[Carninho]

23 minutes ago, akkm said:

Whether something is an opinion or a fact is not a matter of perspective...this is the kind of insular bias which has enabled the rise of the likes of trump where people indulge their biases to ignore actual facts as essentially their minds cannot process something which proves them wrong and attempt to 'nebulise' the issue introducing a 'perspective' on things...essentially going down that road is an attempt 'to make yourself feel good about yourself'...the increasing prominence, necessity and enabling of this in recent years is a whole different discussion but for the current discussion...a fact has nothing to do with perspective...that is fallacious.

Also that others agree on something doesn't make it a fact...that may just mean they all wrong and in the 'earth is flat' brigade

Some of your comments on FM absolutely have merit (and as it happens I agree with some of them) but once you enter the realm of suggesting facts/opinions are a matter of perspective the impact of your comments may be diluted credibility wise

 

odd.

[tacticsdude]

59 minutes ago, akkm said:

Whether something is an opinion or a fact is not a matter of perspective...

It is 100% a matter of perspective particularly in complex topics. A fact is an idea that has been proven, but with a complex subject the listener may not agree that the issue has been proven to satisfaction. There's only so many times I can point at Juve coming in 10th in the league, or Barcelona being incapable of retaining possession, in the end some people may see that as sufficient evidence while others may dismiss it as being down to some odd factor and simply not evidence of a problem with the game.

And for the record, I do believe this stuff is proven, by me and many others, to more than a sufficient degree to call facts. The whole thing about me accepting that it is a matter of perspective for many of the readers is just an attempt to be nice, because what I really think is that those who can't see it and won't be bothered to check and compare notes from other threads then they are not having this argument at the same level. Taking the argument forward would require someone rebutting my points so we can have at the details.

 

59 minutes ago, akkm said:

Also that others agree on something doesn't make it a fact...that may just mean they all wrong

(If a bunch of people agree on something that happens to be wrong, then that's not a fact, that's a misconception. )

It is a community. It doesn't matter that you identify a fact about the game in your save having played 1000 hours. It is only a global fact once the community agrees, because if not your factual ideas just sit there withering away on page 2 or 3 of some forgotten thread in a forum. So textbook factual 'facts' are not all-powerful on their own. They are only real when the community breaths life into them by embracing them. And we are not there yet. This is like the 5th mention of my 'facts' just being my opinions, so clearly, the community is reading the results of my analysis and many still dismissing it as simply biased opinions. I'm either not being clear enough, or there's something wrong with my views, or people are entrenched in their views and can't see the merit in my ideas.

I think it is refreshingly the opposite of what you suggest:

59 minutes ago, akkm said:

where people indulge their biases to ignore actual facts

I think on this thread they are doing the opposite. The are looking at my evidence with skepticism and holding back from embracing my ideas until further proof solidifies the concepts. I'm disappointed that I haven't made a stronger case, but I appreciate that the community's perspective on this stuff is still being developed. I'd rather people agree with me on solid footing when we finally get there (or prove me wrong it I'm mistaken).

 

59 minutes ago, akkm said:

Some of your comments on FM absolutely have merit (and as it happens I agree with some of them) but once you enter the realm of suggesting facts/opinions are a matter of perspective the impact of your comments may be diluted credibility wise

I accept that I can't establish facts on my own. I may think it has been proven, a couple dozen seasoned FM players may think they are facts, but clearly many more see them as opinions (unproven, too complex to delve into, just one man's analysis). Ultimate if I'm going to affect change then it only matters that OTHER people see it as solid evidence, because I'm not the one that's going to be altering the game's code.

Whether I'm right or wrong (and I clearly believe I'm right), it only counts if the people here can validate my views and agree with me. And there are many that won't get there. For me, there's no point in creating discord beyond where we are now. We are just having a chat on a forum. I don't want to minimize those that disagree with me without offering their own rebuttal. In this open chat space everyone is entitled to their skepticism without burden to present a counter argument. And if you think my embracing of those views is diluting my argument, well I think that's on you more than me.

[akkm]

29 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

It is 100% a matter of perspective particularly in complex topics. A fact is an idea that has been proven, but with a complex subject the listener may not agree that the issue has been proven to satisfaction. There's only so many times I can point at Juve coming in 10th in the league, or Barcelona being incapable of retaining possession, in the end some people may see that as sufficient evidence while others may dismiss it as being down to some odd factor and simply not evidence of a problem with the game.

And for the record, I do believe this stuff is proven, by me and many others, to more than a sufficient degree to call facts. The whole thing about me accepting that it is a matter of perspective for many of the readers is just an attempt to be nice, because what I really think is that those who can't see it and won't be bothered to check and compare notes from other threads then they are not having this argument at the same level. Taking the argument forward would require someone rebutting my points so we can have at the details.

 

(If a bunch of people agree on something that happens to be wrong, then that's not a fact, that's a misconception. )

It is a community. It doesn't matter that you identify a fact about the game in your save having played 1000 hours. It is only a global fact once the community agrees, because if not your factual ideas just sit there withering away on page 2 or 3 of some forgotten thread in a forum. So textbook factual 'facts' are not all-powerful on their own. They are only real when the community breaths life into them by embracing them. And we are not there yet. This is like the 5th mention of my 'facts' just being my opinions, so clearly, the community is reading the results of my analysis and many still dismissing it as simply biased opinions. I'm either not being clear enough, or there's something wrong with my views, or people are entrenched in their views and can't see the merit in my ideas.

I think it is refreshingly the opposite of what you suggest:

I think on this thread they are doing the opposite. The are looking at my evidence with skepticism and holding back from embracing my ideas until further proof solidifies the concepts. I'm disappointed that I haven't made a stronger case, but I appreciate that the community's perspective on this stuff is still being developed. I'd rather people agree with me on solid footing when we finally get there (or prove me wrong it I'm mistaken).

 

I accept that I can't establish facts on my own. I may think it has been proven, a couple dozen seasoned FM players may think they are facts, but clearly many more see them as opinions (unproven, too complex to delve into, just one man's analysis). Ultimate if I'm going to affect change then it only matters that OTHER people see it as solid evidence, because I'm not the one that's going to be altering the game's code.

Whether I'm right or wrong (and I clearly believe I'm right), it only counts if the people here can validate my views and agree with me. And there are many that won't get there. For me, there's no point in creating discord beyond where we are now. We are just having a chat on a forum. I don't want to minimize those that disagree with me without offering their own rebuttal. In this open chat space everyone is entitled to their skepticism without burden to present a counter argument. And if you think my embracing of those views is diluting my argument, well I think that's on you more than me.

You misunderstood my post in a spectacular way...so that's all on you !!!

I didn't mention anything about your 'facts' being opinions...that is just a certain bias/perspective on your part interpreting that to be the case kicking in with a vengeance as indicated by your spirited defence of something I hadn't even alluded to so relax lol...I guess you're still on 4 mentions of your facts vs your opinions

I wasn't talking about your opinion re FM at all...as I said I actually agree with most of it (nearly all of it actually from a footballing perspective ). Many have posted similarly in the past so it's good that you're getting there and beginning to identify the issues and you're catching up. So no need to keep going over and over again in what you're saying which is fairly obvious especially where I wasn't even talking about your take on FM footballing issues which I agree with anyway lol. Haven't seen anything original there from you so not sure why you see it almost as a personal crusade in stating what is obvious to many to elicit change...by the way you're trying to effect change not 'affect' change .

 

My point was about perspective/fact...

9 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

So we disagree on whether my comments are opinions or facts. I guess it is a matter of perspective.

You seem a little confused yourself above...and that's me being nice ...you acknowledge that a fact is something that has been proven so where you fall down is where you introduce 'perspective' into things...it's 100% incorrect to suggest 'It is 100% a matter of perspective particularly in complex topics'...if something has been proven as a fact then the complexity of a subject is academic to whether it's a fact or not...also if something is a fact whether the listener agrees or not that an issue has been proven to their satisfaction is also academic to it being a fact...so again your logic is fundamentally flawed there as well

And when you actually start to talk of facts and perspective incorrectly the way you do you are diluting the presentation of your own argument...you just haven't realised it yet...funnily its like what you say above re people reading your ideas on FM and they don't get it yet...in the instance of facts Vs perspective...that's precisely where you are on it...you just don't get it yet. The penny will either drop for you or it won't. As I agree with most of your issues re FM I think it's good to have more voices on it the so it's better to not have any dilution of it by any misconception on your part of facts VS perspective...it will be for the betterment of the ideas which you talk of which many have agreed on and posted on long ago. 

 

Again your example of the community agreeing on something is you not grasping things...people in a community agreeing on something is not the genesis of a fact. By that logic people in a cult who agree on something implies that which they agree on constitutes a fact...of course not...but they agree on something therefore it is...that's nonsensical logic....you could re read your paragraph on the community thing from the perspective of a cult writing it and it would fit lol

 

 

As I say...your views (and those before you who've posted similarly) on FM and what it simulates or not from a footballing viewpoint is something I happen to agree with for the most part so once you jettison your needy fact/perspective 'issues' then those ideas will be more impactful and resonate more with those who read them...you may not see that and may not get there with the penny dropping...but whether you get there or not is not relevant

 

And I assume you're not implying the concepts you talk of footballing wise are complex as they're not...coding those concepts in a way in which they manifest themselves in FM which is comparable to real world football is the complex bit

[RBKalle]

Soooo much stuff to talk about...

Comparing FM to FIFA/PES doens't make sense. Those are basically a glorified highlight reel of a match. 90 minutes compressed into 6-8 minutes of actual gameplay, so there can't be much room for the 80+ minutes of "nothing" that happen between highlights. Also, as the user is controlling the players, it must have immediate reward and influence on the mini-match.

In FM, even if we watch on Key highlights (roughly the equivalent of a FIFA match), we expect the football to be realistic, or at least in line with our tactical choices and with the abilities of the players. And since our input is by proxy, we wonder what goes wrong so often.

It's as if in FIFA you press "pass" and the player decides to shoot instead, or the pass goes in a completely different direction...

(BTW; the least said about defending in FIFA/PES, the better)

 

@tacticsdude is maybe a bit too extreme, but I do think plenty of things he pointed out have a lot of merit and can't simply dismissed as "opinions" or, another old familiar refrain "anecdotal evidence".

The tactical quirks of the ME are evident also in AI v AI games, so there goes the "it's your tactic" or generally speaking the human input. If Barça don't play tiki-taka, Guardiola's teams can't keep possession and he gets sacked, if Benevento can easily stay up playing offensive 4-2-3-1, in leagues with no human-controlled clubs, it means the game is deviating way too much from reality and it's not even our fault or influx.

My team can play the exact opposite of what I envisioned, and it can be completely due to my lack of tactical skills and understanding. But when the AI's formation/gameplan provides awful examples of defending, positioning, buildup etc, all of that goes beyong my ineptitude.

Whether people can find it game-breaking, moderately annoying, tolerable or just fine IS a matter of opinion. However, that'd not even happen, at least not to such an extent. I mean, if crossing and wide play got so many fixes throughout iterations and patches, and STILL it's not truly solved, it means people who were reporting and complaining weren't nitpicking or making up stuff...

 

@Carninho

I grew up on horrendous arcade games where you could only score from set positions, so the likes of The Manager, Sensible Soccer, Premier Manager, CM2 and PcCalcio were heaven to me... That doesn't mean I should accept FM's long-lasting issues because I used to play and enjoy older, buggier, games.

It's exactly BECAUSE of the past that I'm disappointed FM has stagnated and even regressed to an extent...  Should I gladly accept that, say, sloppy building quality in a Mercedes just because when I was 18 I drove an old Corolla, and well, you know, even a relatively mediocre Mercedes is better than a crummy Toyota?

 

[akkm]

@RBKalle

 

I agree there on your distinction of finding game breaking/interpreting what is enjoyable as opinion/personal perspective Vs actual issues like crossing/width...you're spot on

[masno]

31 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Soooo much stuff to talk about...

Comparing FM to FIFA/PES doens't make sense. Those are basically a glorified highlight reel of a match. 90 minutes compressed into 6-8 minutes of actual gameplay, so there can't be much room for the 80+ minutes of "nothing" that happen between highlights. Also, as the user is controlling the players, it must have immediate reward and influence on the mini-match.

In FM, even if we watch on Key highlights (roughly the equivalent of a FIFA match), we expect the football to be realistic, or at least in line with our tactical choices and with the abilities of the players. And since our input is by proxy, we wonder what goes wrong so often.

It's as if in FIFA you press "pass" and the player decides to shoot instead, or the pass goes in a completely different direction...

(BTW; the least said about defending in FIFA/PES, the better)

 

 

It wasn't my intention saying fifa was better,because I know it isn't,my intention was to say fifa have skill moves and dribbles,and the players seen to protect the ball when someone try to tackle,things that are "important" on RL football. Importance of skill move/dribbles: It reduce the confidence of the defender when the attacker do it correctly, or reduce the confidence of the attacker when the defender manages to stay with the ball,why? Because the one who fails always will be a step back when face the one who did it. (I'm saying this because I already saw some cases like that). Skill move/dribbles are not that important,but I like to see on RL,It would be good on FM too.

38 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

 

 

The tactical quirks of the ME are evident also in AI v AI games, so there goes the "it's your tactic" or generally speaking the human input. If Barça don't play tiki-taka, Guardiola's teams can't keep possession and he gets sacked, if Benevento can easily stay up playing offensive 4-2-3-1, in leagues with no human-controlled clubs, it means the game is deviating way too much from reality and it's not even our fault or influx.

My team can play the exact opposite of what I envisioned, and it can be completely due to my lack of tactical skills and understanding. But when the AI's formation/gameplan provides awful examples of defending, positioning, buildup etc, all of that goes beyong my ineptitude.

Whether people can find it game-breaking, moderately annoying, tolerable or just fine IS a matter of opinion. However, that'd not even happen, at least not to such an extent. I mean, if crossing and wide play got so many fixes throughout iterations and patches, and STILL it's not truly solved, it means people who were reporting and complaining weren't nitpicking or making up stuff...

 

 

This is the great point why I say this ME is broken, when I saw Barça out of the CL spot,City with Guardiola underperforming, and I received a job request from Juve because they were on 5th place,then I realize something is quite wrong. Some big teams seen to struggle a lot, but when a player grab those teams, they are simple invicible.

Today I was playing FM 17,and one mid-table team was on 3th on the brazilian league,and they sold their 3 best players on the mid of the seaspn,and didn't got anyone on their places,I was scouting them,and they aren't unhappy. That was a terrible decision by the AI,and never a RL team would do that.

[HUNT3R]

3 hours ago, masno said:

This is the great point why I say this ME is broken, when I saw Barça out of the CL spot,City with Guardiola underperforming, and I received a job request from Juve because they were on 5th place,then I realize something is quite wrong. Some big teams seen to struggle a lot, but when a player grab those teams, they are simple invicible.

As has been pointed out - this is most likely not even a ME thing, but more AI and how they set up that can improve.

[herne79]

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

As has been pointed out - this is most likely not even a ME thing, but more AI and how they set up that can improve.

Exactly.  Barcelona being given as an example of how the ME is poor or even "broken" because they don't play a possession game is simply inaccurate.

The ME is perfectly capable of playing with a possession style of football so long as we or the AI managers tell it to by our tactical choices.  If AI Barcelona - whether it's user vs AI or AI vs AI - doesn't get much possession it's because the AI Barcelona manager hasn't set up their tactical system in that manner.  Therefore it's an area that needs AI improvement, not ME.  The ME will only churn out what we or the AI input (other bugs and limitations not withstanding).  There are numerous threads in the Tactics forum about setting up possession tactics and even specific Barcelona possession tactics.  The ME will give us (or the AI) possession, but only if we (or the AI) tell it to.

I'll even go further by saying that if a human manager with a (comparatively) low quality team can outplay and beat an AI Barcelona, that again would show a potentially worrying aspect of AI ability, rather than ME (and our own unfair advantage over the AI).  Or if AI Barcelona is hovering around mid table - again, not an ME issue.

Now none of that is to say what does get output by the ME (and to bring this back to the OP) will be perfectly akin to real life.  It won't.  But we can simulate and use different styles of play that will at least resemble football.

Of course all of this may come across as splitting hairs - an issue is an issue after all and some may think AI or ME is irrelevant.  #sortitoutSI.  But if we're going down the road of saying the ME is poor / broken then it'll help if we properly identify and separate ME issues from other issues.  It'll help SI in narrowing down community feedback and it'll help other users in their understanding of the game.

[Kelvinu]

38 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Exactly.  Barcelona being given as an example of how the ME is poor or even "broken" because they don't play a possession game is simply inaccurate.

The ME is perfectly capable of playing with a possession style of football so long as we or the AI managers tell it to by our tactical choices.  If AI Barcelona - whether it's user vs AI or AI vs AI - doesn't get much possession it's because the AI Barcelona manager hasn't set up their tactical system in that manner.  Therefore it's an area that needs AI improvement, not ME.  The ME will only churn out what we or the AI input (other bugs and limitations not withstanding).  There are numerous threads in the Tactics forum about setting up possession tactics and even specific Barcelona possession tactics.  The ME will give us (or the AI) possession, but only if we (or the AI) tell it to.

I'll even go further by saying that if a human manager with a (comparatively) low quality team can outplay and beat an AI Barcelona, that again would show a potentially worrying aspect of AI ability, rather than ME (and our own unfair advantage over the AI).  Or if AI Barcelona is hovering around mid table - again, not an ME issue.

Now none of that is to say what does get output by the ME (and to bring this back to the OP) will be perfectly akin to real life.  It won't.  But we can simulate and use different styles of play that will at least resemble football.

Of course all of this may come across as splitting hairs - an issue is an issue after all and some may think AI or ME is irrelevant.  #sortitoutSI.  But if we're going down the road of saying the ME is poor / broken then it'll help if we properly identify and separate ME issues from other issues.  It'll help SI in narrowing down community feedback and it'll help other users in their understanding of the game.

Don't you think that transferring the issue owner to AI is pretty childish? How we customers have to know whether that is AI or ME's fault? We do only see one thing: Barcelona is bad replicated in the game as they do not behave as they do IRL. Arguing whether is AI or ME's fault is like discussing whether it's Dev's or Testers fault that ME is buggy, which is, again, irrelevant. It's SI's game and they have to assure that Barcelona's current and future head coach AI apply a possession philosophy so they reflect reality. How SI does that is irrelevant.

[forameuss]

2 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

Don't you think that transferring the issue owner to AI is pretty childish? How we customers have to know whether that is AI or ME's fault? We do only see one thing: Barcelona is bad replicated in the game as they do not behave as they do IRL. Arguing whether is AI or ME's fault is like discussing whether it's Dev's or Testers fault that ME is buggy, which is, again, irrelevant. It's SI's game and they have to assure that Barcelona's current and future head coach AI apply a possession philosophy so they reflect reality. How SI does that is irrelevant.

No, it absolutely is not.  Assigning where blame lies is exactly what the development team would need to do, and I fail to see why a mod suggesting it is such a bad thing.  It's also not even remotely similar to discussing whose fault a bug is, especially with that simplistic view.

They also don't have to "assure" anything of the sort like you describe.  I'd wager that a large number of users have far more pressing things they care about in-game than whether one single club's philosophy is represented accurately in-game.  

[HUNT3R]

8 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

How we customers have to know whether that is AI or ME's fault? 

This was the point of Herne's post. Making the difference clearer to the customer. Herne gave everyone more information, but instead he's being called childish. Hardly fair.

[herne79]

41 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

Don't you think that transferring the issue owner to AI is pretty childish? How we customers have to know whether that is AI or ME's fault? We do only see one thing: Barcelona is bad replicated in the game as they do not behave as they do IRL. Arguing whether is AI or ME's fault is like discussing whether it's Dev's or Testers fault that ME is buggy, which is, again, irrelevant. It's SI's game and they have to assure that Barcelona's current and future head coach AI apply a possession philosophy so they reflect reality. How SI does that is irrelevant.

Read my final paragraph.  The one that starts "Of course all of this may come across as splitting hairs - an issue is an issue after all and some may think AI or ME is irrelevant."

Clearly you're one of the people who absolutely do think ME or AI is irrelevant which is exactly why I made the comment.  So yeh, you don't need to know whether an issue is AI, ME or something else entirely.  But in a discussion thread, which is what this is, many different points of view will be put forward and hopefully with reasons attached, which is what I (and others) are attempting to do.  So you don't need to know anything. but if you understand the points being discussed you'll hopefully see things in a different light which may improve your enjoyment of the game and how things work.

Of course you don't have to get involved with any of that, entirely your choice.  You're right - SI make the game, we just want it fixed, don't care where the blame lies.  Not a problem with that at all.  But if you do choose that path, probably best not to then go accusing someone of being childish just because they're discussing a different perspective - a perspective that replies to very specific points previously raised.

[RBKalle]

5 ore fa, HUNT3R ha scritto:

As has been pointed out - this is most likely not even a ME thing, but more AI and how they set up that can improve.

But if the AI tactics (and plenty of human-made ones) look like they should be able to give the desired results in terms of possession, buildup, style etc, and that doesn't happen, is it still only an AI setup problem?

For the Nth time, there currently are football scenarios that either can't be properly replicated or avoided in the ME, no matter how much we tinker with tactics. Stuff that, conversely, AI managers can't do, so our eventual workaround to, say, exploitable wide areas or lack of CB pressure/marking, will only give us an "unfair" advantage over the AI, which is stuck with a bunch of less effective tactics.

Is FM-Guardiola underperforming and playing completely different football compared to RL-Guardiola because:

a) the AI tactical setup is wrong
b) the AI tactical setup has instructions that the ME doesn't handle well
c) the ME limitations/quirks don't allow for that particular set of instructions to work at all

Option A is the one that has been used to disprove most claims by users, because it's the easiest (and, honestly, the most reasonable) explaination for HUMAN MANAGERS' stuggles. Also due to poor feedback in-game and by FM's lingo that has been creating confusion for ages.

B and C obviously mean it's also a ME issue...

 

BTW, can't it also be a mixture of "some tactical instructions don't work well in the ME, so let's nerf them so the ME's limitations aren't exposed too much"? Otherwise, it means that AI managers and AI tactics are as flawed as some of the stuff human managers have been blamed for years!

It'd be very ironic and funny if it turned out most of our complaints can be summed up with "it's the AI's tactics!"

 

[Kelvinu]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

Read my final paragraph.  The one that starts "Of course all of this may come across as splitting hairs - an issue is an issue after all and some may think AI or ME is irrelevant."

Clearly you're one of the people who absolutely do think ME or AI is irrelevant which is exactly why I made the comment.  So yeh, you don't need to know whether an issue is AI, ME or something else entirely.  But in a discussion thread, which is what this is, many different points of view will be put forward and hopefully with reasons attached, which is what I (and others) are attempting to do.  So you don't need to know anything. but if you understand the points being discussed you'll hopefully see things in a different light which may improve your enjoyment of the game and how things work.

Of course you don't have to get involved with any of that, entirely your choice.  You're right - SI make the game, we just want it fixed, don't care where the blame lies.  Not a problem with that at all.  But if you do choose that path, probably best not to then go accusing someone of being childish just because they're discussing a different perspective - a perspective that replies to very specific points previously raised.

There is a repeated attitude of defending SI and telling users they have no idea what they're talking. I have a problem with that.  And that's another reason why there's a communication issue between SI and its customers. You, and other Mods are the first person they face when they post in this forum. Even if you don't agree this, you're seen as part of the team. You should know that.

Furthermore, deviating from an issue just because the customer did not accurately reported it's not the way to keep the customer pleased. And you should do that as part of your job. We and you pay for this game and once you find something it's not right, you expect the one you're contacting to do whatever its in their power to fix that. What you do is to deviate from the issue calling it not entirely correct which its seen as finding excuses.

2 hours ago, forameuss said:

No, it absolutely is not.  Assigning where blame lies is exactly what the development team would need to do, and I fail to see why a mod suggesting it is such a bad thing.  It's also not even remotely similar to discussing whose fault a bug is, especially with that simplistic view.

They also don't have to "assure" anything of the sort like you describe.  I'd wager that a large number of users have far more pressing things they care about in-game than whether one single club's philosophy is represented accurately in-game.  

I wonder which are these pressing things when you buy the game and want to test its viability as a while. You might be right, they might be thinking which team shape to use in their try to replicate the Arrigo Sacchi's philosophy. Sarcasm.

[Kelvinu]

I am one of those who care about the game no less than you. At the same time I want to improve how the other players see this game and how SI treats this game. In a business where you're the main powerhorse and have no other challenger on the same level, your rate to grow as a company is slower. Thats why its customers need to be the ones that cover this missing part by using critique whenever the quality do not grow or even stall.

We should demand more when in a poll questioning the favorite series the main voted answer its not the current series, but the one developed 5 years ago.

[Marius_R]

I wouldn`t take that vote too seriously or as a benchmark, because  people have personal preferences due to the game being easier, having played that edition longer or having their most enjoyable save ever whilst playing that edition. In my view, FM12 is leading in that poll because every edition since FM12, the game has gotten more complex and more challenging for the casual FM player or the ones that weren`t that much into the tactics and man management, whilst the FM12 AI was very easy to beat. 

[Tony Wright 747]

37 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

I am one of those who care about the game no less than you. At the same time I want to improve how the other players see this game and how SI treats this game. In a business where you're the main powerhorse and have no other challenger on the same level, your rate to grow as a company is slower. Thats why its customers need to be the ones that cover this missing part by using critique whenever the quality do not grow or even stall.

We should demand more when in a poll questioning the favorite series the main voted answer its not the current series, but the one developed 5 years ago.

You have hit the nail right on the head with this post, in two paragraphs when I an others needed much more

[themadsheep2001]

17 minutes ago, Marius_R said:

I wouldn`t take that vote too seriously or as a benchmark, because  people have personal preferences due to the game being easier, having played that edition longer or having their most enjoyable save ever whilst playing that edition. In my view, FM12 is leading in that poll because every edition since FM12, the game has gotten more complex and more challenging for the casual FM player or the ones that weren`t that much into the tactics and man management, whilst the FM12 AI was very easy to beat. 

Exactly; favourite =/= best. 

[forameuss]

56 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

Furthermore, deviating from an issue just because the customer did not accurately reported it's not the way to keep the customer pleased. And you should do that as part of your job. We and you pay for this game and once you find something it's not right, you expect the one you're contacting to do whatever its in their power to fix that. What you do is to deviate from the issue calling it not entirely correct which its seen as finding excuses.

So, if a customer does not accurately report an issue, what are SI supposed to do?  You do realise that they actually need reproducible cases to fix things, don't you?  Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean the developers can wave some magic wand and fix everything just because someone's put up a screenshot and a rant.  

56 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

I wonder which are these pressing things when you buy the game and want to test its viability as a while. You might be right, they might be thinking which team shape to use in their try to replicate the Arrigo Sacchi's philosophy. Sarcasm.

I could list several.  Do you really think that they'd be dancing in the streets when FM18 was announced if the headline feature was "it's ok guys, Barcelona now keep possession a bit more".  Because apparently that's their sole duty or something... 

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Exactly; favourite =/= best. 

And even if it was, it's a tiny subset of users, with the majority of said users being salty and harking back to how things were totally so much better in the past.  I expect when FM22 drops, a few people will be talking about how they'll never leave their FM18 save behind, and things were so much better back then.

[themadsheep2001]

18 minutes ago, forameuss said:

So, if a customer does not accurately report an issue, what are SI supposed to do?  You do realise that they actually need reproducible cases to fix things, don't you?  Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean the developers can wave some magic wand and fix everything just because someone's put up a screenshot and a rant.  

I could list several.  Do you really think that they'd be dancing in the streets when FM18 was announced if the headline feature was "it's ok guys, Barcelona now keep possession a bit more".  Because apparently that's their sole duty or something... 

And even if it was, it's a tiny subset of users, with the majority of said users being salty and harking back to how things were totally so much better in the past.  I expect when FM22 drops, a few people will be talking about how they'll never leave their FM18 save behind, and things were so much better back then.

This thread started as "FM v RL", if people are being objective, at no point should FM12 (or indeed any FM before that) be used as a high mark in the debate,

[forameuss]

5 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

This thread started as "FM v RL", if people are being objective, at no point should FM12 (or indeed any FM before that) be used as a high mark in the debate,

Shouldn't, but probably will continue to be.

[Tony Wright 747]

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

This thread started as "FM v RL", if people are being objective, at no point should FM12 (or indeed any FM before that) be used as a high mark in the debate,

Lots of people believe that FM12 was the closest the game has come to RL football and that since then the game has gone in the opposite direction albeit perhaps not itentially..  If that is not your opinion or anyones elses is fine, but it is the opinion of that poster as it is my own, so if that is the case there is no reason that it should not be part of this debate