Football Manager 2019 Official Feedback Thread

[jujigatame]

9 minutes ago, gavinski33 said:

I once stormed out of a meeting with my boss like this, many many moons ago, and found my way hampered by security doors and gates every hundred or so yards (it was the foot and mouth outbreak). Really diluted my explosive exit being stopped every couple of minutes and having my feet washed 

Ha! Sounds like a movie scene.

[jujigatame]

8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

For context, you played the bottom side with your table toppers.

As you put it: "that sort of result does make it feel like there are unseen attribute bonuses given to teams that can drastically alter the outcome of individual matches".  I can understand it may make you feel that way, honestly I do.

However if you really believe you could not have influenced that match to get the win yourself then I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Are there ME issues?  Yes.

Would any of those ME issues prevented you from getting a win?  No.

Is there something else coded into the game which might have prevented you getting a win?  lmfao no.

Those questions I asked above were of course rhetorical but designed to help you see how much is within your control.  I'm trying to help you here, but until you accept there are things you could have done differently to influence the outcome - and other influences are not somehow conspiring against you - I'm afraid your frustration will continue.  You could have won that match.

No, I know I could have won. In fact I bet if I replayed the match identically there's a great chance I'd have won. But their ability to score 4 goals on me despite City, Spurs, and Liverpool only being being able to score 2 combined makes it hard for me not to think the ME provided them with a combination of boosts that made them more potent attack wise, or my players more inept defensively, or both.

[CFuller]

22 minutes ago, jujigatame said:

Of course I didn't actually bother to answer all 12 of his questions.  I don't remember the answers to most of them pertaining to this particular match and it's not like it's worth anyone's time for me to go back and try to find all the answers.  Especially when I could replay the match with all the same choices and I'd probably have at least a 50% chance of winning.  The methods I use for tactics, man management, etc, are the same methods I've used over the last 8-9 years of FM and that have generally brought me success.  Not immediate "win everything first season" success, but slow, gradual success over many seasons.

Well, yes. You could probably have replayed the real-life Bournemouth vs Chelsea match from earlier this season, and Chelsea would have had at least a 50% chance of winning that. But Chelsea didn't win; in fact, they got smashed 4-0.

Freak results can - and do - happen in football, and indeed in all sport. Who foresaw Japan beating South Africa at the 2015 Rugby World Cup, for example?

As Herne has said above, there are many things you perhaps could have done differently to win that match you lost. FM isn't programmed to decide once in a while that it would be quite funny if the human-managed team lost to the out-of-form stragglers who couldn't score for toffee.

I've had similar experiences to you on FM19. Last season, my play-off-chasing Shrewsbury team lost 1-0 at home to Wycombe and Accrington and drew 0-0 with Port Vale (all of whom were relegated). In all three games, we were guilty of not knowing how to break stubborn opposition down, and in those first two games, we were punished by an injury-time set-piece and a devastating counter-attack respectively.

If I'd approached those games differently, maybe we would've been promoted automatically instead of losing in the Play-Off Semi Finals to piggin' Joey Barton and his Fleetwood mob. But it's football. It happens. You just need to live and learn.

Edited April 1, 2019 by CFuller

[gavinski33]

14 minutes ago, jujigatame said:

Ha! Sounds like a movie scene.

It was grim mate. The Lake District was cordoned off, there were piles of animals burning all over the place and everywhere was stinking. Lots of farmers became racehorse owners in mansions with the compo though, and loads and loads of low paid, unskilled workers became vegetarians (for a bit lol). I was defo in the latter ha

[warlock]

1 hour ago, jujigatame said:

So just wait a month or two and you won't have to deal with my BS ever again.

Why do we have to wait?

[Raymond85]

3 minuti fa, warlock ha scritto:

Why do we have to wait?

So he wins the Champions League before he quits, i presume

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, jujigatame said:

No, I know I could have won. In fact I bet if I replayed the match identically there's a great chance I'd have won. But their ability to score 4 goals on me despite City, Spurs, and Liverpool only being being able to score 2 combined makes it hard for me not to think the ME provided them with a combination of boosts that made them more potent attack wise, or my players more inept defensively, or both.

Then why not upload the match for SI to have a check? For instance, the match you won against Liverpool you admitted you might have been a tad lucky, as it wasn't goals from Play at all. What was going on against West Ham? I've never seen anything posted by you which indicates you'd do anything I would consider "Managing" much. This includes not even looking at the tiniest bit of context, like which Opposition West Ham played before, how THEY lost their games, or possibly considering that they may actually be at least a tiny bit competitive, given that they are playing on the same Level as your team. Whenever something happens you consider to be "weird", it's morale, home advantage, body language, etc.. Neither of which are cosmetic, but it's easy to fall for its impact if that's all that's ever much considered.

(tbh, you have been Posting this morale thing since at least FM 14). Not only is there no way to tell for SI where you are "struggling". If you are -- I am absolutely shocked that anyone would consider "quitting" a Management sim game since, gasp--- he's for the first time/s ever risking a sack at a club, in particular somebody who's never been that invested to begin with, or else he would never narrow the game down to a single piece of Input (morale, home/away, Body language, the ball being too Bouncy on that night, whatever may singlehandedly explain the result). It also may make them shy About how their AI operates, and how they tread it in the future, as obviously, it at least occasionally seems to make far better decisions than the game's playerbase. Whether that be due to a lack of Feedback, or else. And you're likely far from being alone.

2 hours ago, CFuller said:

Freak results can - and do - happen in football, and indeed in all sport. 

Bingo. It could be argued one of the keys in management is not overreacting to any of this -- plus being some able to notice patches of simply bad/good luck in the first place. In Football such results tend to be more common, as it's just too low scoring a Sport by design (silly men trying to hit a target protected by a guy who's the only one to allow his Hands, baffling!). That said, a match won by a side that had 4x fewer "shots" isn't necessarily a Freak result -- even in sequence (kinda the Analysis/Feedback FM lacks, btw). Which is doubly important as to FM also, as some AI approaches aren't fussed with getting much if any "shots" off at all. [If ever introduced, the AI should Benefit of it also, as else, meh, though… currently all the Analysis, stats and stuff seems obviously solely to our Advantage. If actually some used, that is.) 

https://www.theringer.com/soccer/2018/6/27/17511596/2018-world-cup-germany-south-korea-mexico-sweden-elimination

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Svenc

[Raymond85]

Sometimes your players just have a bad day and you lose. I just lost after a streak of 21 undefeated, where i had 63% possession but we just could not get shooting at goal, whatever we tried. And we let 2 in on the counter. It happens.... it's football.

[jujigatame]

5 hours ago, Svenc said:

tbh, you have been Posting this morale thing since at least FM 14). Not only is there no way to tell for SI where you are "struggling". If you are -- I am absolutely shocked that anyone would consider "quitting" a Management sim game since, gasp--- he's for the first time/s ever risking a sack at a club, in particular somebody who's never been that invested to begin with, or else he would never narrow the game down to a single piece of Input (morale, home/away, Body language, the ball being too Bouncy on that night, whatever may singlehandedly explain the result). It also may make them shy About how their AI operates, and how they tread it in the future, as obviously, it at least occasionally seems to make far better decisions than the game's playerbase. Whether that be due to a lack of Feedback, or else. And you're likely far from being alone.

I mean, in all reality, I'm not struggling that badly.  Since the one sack scare I had a few seasons in, I've been able to comfortably please the board in every season.  But I'm just not having much fun with the game.  I don't get the same enjoyment from watching the matches in the ME that I used to.  There's too much weird stuff that frustrates me or breaks immersion.  I'm playing more out of compulsion than for actual fun, and that's a problem.  I legitimately have a list of 50+ PC games that I'd love to play but haven't because I'm stuck in my FM loop, and that's why I decided this version of FM will be my last.

And trust me, I don't narrow the game to a single input.  I'm a software engineer so I know the ME is probably a very complex piece of code, maybe even too complex to manage, as that's how these things tend to get after several years of revisions.  But to me the fun is seeing the attributes play out onscreen in combination, and in this version of the ME I just don't feel like I get that.  It feels like there are too many unseen factors that can build on each other until you get the same player who fluffed everything in the last game suddenly gain the ability to accelerate the ball to near light speed and score on every shot he takes.  Maybe it's "realistic" in the statistical sense.  If you tell me it is, I believe you.  But it doesn't look or feel realistic when you're watching the matches.  And in a video game that counts for a lot.

[themadsheep2001]

8 hours ago, Svenc said:

Then why not upload the match for SI to have a check? For instance, the match you won against Liverpool you admitted you might have been a tad lucky, as it wasn't goals from Play at all. What was going on against West Ham? I've never seen anything posted by you which indicates you'd do anything I would consider "Managing" much. This includes not even looking at the tiniest bit of context, like which Opposition West Ham played before, how THEY lost their games, or possibly considering that they may actually be at least a tiny bit competitive, given that they are playing on the same Level as your team. Whenever something happens you consider to be "weird", it's morale, home advantage, body language, etc.. Neither of which are cosmetic, but it's easy to fall for its impact if that's all that's ever much considered.

(tbh, you have been Posting this morale thing since at least FM 14). Not only is there no way to tell for SI where you are "struggling". If you are -- I am absolutely shocked that anyone would consider "quitting" a Management sim game since, gasp--- he's for the first time/s ever risking a sack at a club, in particular somebody who's never been that invested to begin with, or else he would never narrow the game down to a single piece of Input (morale, home/away, Body language, the ball being too Bouncy on that night, whatever may singlehandedly explain the result). It also may make them shy About how their AI operates, and how they tread it in the future, as obviously, it at least occasionally seems to make far better decisions than the game's playerbase. Whether that be due to a lack of Feedback, or else. And you're likely far from being alone.

Bingo. It could be argued one of the keys in management is not overreacting to any of this -- plus being some able to notice patches of simply bad/good luck in the first place. In Football such results tend to be more common, as it's just too low scoring a Sport by design (silly men trying to hit a target protected by a guy who's the only one to allow his Hands, baffling!). That said, a match won by a side that had 4x fewer "shots" isn't necessarily a Freak result -- even in sequence (kinda the Analysis/Feedback FM lacks, btw). Which is doubly important as to FM also, as some AI approaches aren't fussed with getting much if any "shots" off at all. [If ever introduced, the AI should Benefit of it also, as else, meh, though… currently all the Analysis, stats and stuff seems obviously solely to our Advantage. If actually some used, that is.) 

https://www.theringer.com/soccer/2018/6/27/17511596/2018-world-cup-germany-south-korea-mexico-sweden-elimination

 

The bit about being outshot and winning is interesting because that's exactly what United did to Watford on the weekend. They were outshot by about 20 to 4 and won. 

But the same issues apply, if you view the game too narrowly you will end up removing factors you can influence, if not necessarily control. Which will make the game feel far more random than it is. We all play the same game: so why do others get far more from it than others? 

[mandella]

Please don't make me read the last 10 pages of this thread... So, how's the engine after that last big update? Any noticeable improvements?

Edited April 2, 2019 by mandella

[Federico]

Please don't make us repeat what has been said in the last 85 pages of this thread.

[seb999999]

The match engine is still pretty bad imo, also a thing that really annoys me are goal ratios for strikers from ai controlled teams, the amount of goals seem way to low, you'll be lucky to see guys like Messi or Ronaldo score over 0.5 a game, hope fm 20 will be better.

[Overmars]

On 31/03/2019 at 13:51, jujigatame said:

Crossing doesn't seem overpowered in this OP but it's still not perfect as wide players are super happy to pump a couple dozen crosses per match directly into defenders' legs.

Also deep crossing specifically may still be overpowered.  IRL this is a very low percentage move but in FM19 you see a pretty good number of goals from it.  Fullbacks are not very good at defending the back post.

I agree with both points.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a gamebreaker for me, but it does strain realism when the number of crosses attempted per match is often in the 40-60 range per team. EPL clubs average 15-20 attempts per match. That is an enormous difference that I hope will be adjusted in FM20. As is, crossing events are impacting the game twice as much as they do in real life.

[SpS_Zen]

Le 30/03/2019 à 02:44, BMNJohn a dit :

It's not really a bug per say, it's just standard behaviour within FM: staff don't have a thinking process, most interactions don't really flow well nor you can really figure out a logical thinking process to justify some of the reactions. It's not unique to FM and affects a lot of AIs, but because FM is so heavy on man management (and apparently still much lighter than real life), it's even more jarring when it happens. As I've mentioned before, promises have that issue as well. Obviously the first thing to remember is that AIs don't really exist: even the best "AIs" are excellent at learning and correcting their mistakes, but they don't actually think. They're essentially very complex flowcharts.

The second thing is that obviously if the AI was any good, you wouldn't win anything in FM, or in most games really: AIs are beating Starcraft pro players as well as pro chessmasters. Even if you didn't improve the tactical decisions, you'd just make the big teams actually use their extensive scouting network to spot every youngsters, stop taking the rep of the player in account so much so that they stop signing all the has-been no savvy human player would sign, loan out every youngster they poach to teams who actually can play them instead of letting them rot in the reserves or on the bench, and it would be just like real life where big clubs stay big bar any catastrophic failure.

Nevertheless, I do feel you when the AI has no remembrance or memory of what happened before, what conversations were had, or cannot explain anything useful. And I think it's more prevalent in the latest releases with the additional staff roles or player interactions: you have data analysts, but they don't truly analyse data: they churn it and throw it at you. It's up to you to analyse the data and make decisions upon it; so much for the usefulness of that staff member. Actually, I think in the latest iterations that the next opposition scout does a better job than a data analyst: gives you potential formation and mindset, something to work on for your match preparation.

There's also when your AssMan makes comments during matches and you wonder if you're watching the same game: it's just default stuff that he has in his database and will say those when a certain threshold is met. For example they'll comment on winning a lot of headers and suggest that you should cross more... except they're unable to see where the headers were won... or that your striker is 5'7"/170cm and that it's a dumb move (same goes with your squad hoofing it to Messi as if he's Peter Crouch). Or when your AssMan is able to create a squad report, but when it comes to advising you which formation to use they do not use the squad depth report they've compiled, defaulting to advising to use their favourite formation and mindset instead.

The AI doesn't feel organic or logical because it isn't: AIs don't truly exist, they're mostly a flowchart. A computer doesn't think. As such, you reach the point where the suspension of disbelief comes crashing. That's hard to deal with and improve, but it's obviously key to making the world of a video game like FM believable.

Sure, but you can expect better game mechanics from a 20 years franchise.

AI is what it is, and i have no major problem with it. I think the game mechanics could be easily improved in many ways to make the game more immersive and realistic. The player experience should be the main focus while having the will to make the game as realistic as possible. Right now, it feels like SI is making things more complicated, to advertise "we have complicated things, game is more realitic now". That's not how things work, more complicated doesnt mean its more realistic, and it's not because SI made FM Touch, that it's ok to neglect player experience in FM.

When SI cedes to players crying about injuries, they did a step back, not because they changed the injury frequency, but because they did it whitout letting a choice to the player, neglicting again player experience.

I want a FM as depth and complete as possible, and in the same time easily accessible with smart game mechanisms.

 

 

 

[Novem9]

17 минут назад, SpS_Zen сказал:

I want a FM as depth and complete as possible, and in the same time easily accessible with smart game mechanisms.

 

Agree. I want to play in deep game, but not to drown in tactic details like it a job. For me its an enjoyable activity for some evenings and Im not ready to deep challenges and research.

It is like an analogy with gearbox for me. You can take a manual transmission for full control and have professional advantage or you can take automatic transmission if you want to easy driving.

As a result, both cars drive the same way, the difference is in the details. I guess some gurus like Rashidi and Experienced Defender will use full control of FM anyway, but some user like me want to set basic settings and drink a tea while the game mechanics control details during game in keeping of my basic settings. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Novem9

[herne79]

36 minutes ago, SpS_Zen said:

I think the game mechanics could be easily improved in many ways to make the game more immersive and realistic.

There's a whole forum for you, start a new thread for each of those ways and SI will review them all .

https://community.sigames.com/forum/680-football-manager-feature-requests/

[Svenc]

16 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

The bit about being outshot and winning is interesting because that's exactly what United did to Watford on the weekend. They were outshot by about 20 to 4 and won. 

They also had the biggest chances of the match…

That a lot of the game's "match report" Feedback is based on shot Counts is Pretty bizarre, to say the least, as that's not even how the game's AI is coded. The notoriously "parking bus" approaches for instance… they don't care About shot volumes. They care About making shots difficult. Few Players even toy with such ideas (then again, if AI Plays defensively itself, which it arguably has Always far too often done, they would just encourage stalemates). I did for the lulz on a Prior release.   It's baffling. [Then again it really isn't considering how TV fluff Programmes have Always highlighted how "important" shot Counts and dominating them to Kingdom come would be]. I hugely sympathize with jujigatame here though, as the "chances" stats the game has aren't useful. At all. 

So, a big "Domination" of shots is often simply a byproduct of different tactical appraoches by both Teams (real Football or else). It's Pretty apparent that Solskjaer set up to counter attack (at home no less). Additionally -- as BTPs timelines indicate -- they can also be a byproduct of tactical shifts. E.g. an early lead (which Germany's opponents had in most of the Group stages at the WC) -- and then the trailing Team attacking more to get back into the game, whilst the leading Team might shut up shop completely to protect that lead. Even if a Player never does a Thing, the AI on this game has Always changed Things after Goals were scored.

That's not to say that results against the actual run of Play may never happen . :P  Far from it. As in individual Matches, anything goes (including streaks of incredibly finishing) -- the use of such data is better in the longer term. As in, if you would Keep on having the better chances, you may be more likely to win some more...

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Svenc

[Rashidi]

40 minutes ago, Svenc said:

That's not to say that results against the actual run of Play may never happen . :P  Far from it. As in individual Matches, anything goes (including streaks of incredibly finishing) -- the use of such data is better in the longer term. As in, if you would Keep on having the better chances, you may be more likely to win some more

Yeah true that, you will find that in a lot of this kind of analysis especially that which is presented in tabular form where they compare different teams, sides like burnley/leicester can have the biggest conversion rates for big chances, but they are struggling, precisely because they don't produce enough "raw chances". The same applies in FM, keep making better chances inside the box, and you will probably win. Problem is, you need to handle the reverse as well. How to prevent other sides from creating good chances against yourself.

[Svenc]

9 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Yeah true that, you will find that in a lot of this kind of analysis especially that which is presented in tabular form where they compare different teams, sides like burnley/leicester can have the biggest conversion rates for big chances, but they are struggling, precisely because they don't produce enough "raw chances". The same applies in FM, keep making better chances inside the box, and you will probably win. Problem is, you need to handle the reverse as well. How to prevent other sides from creating good chances against yourself.

I've had some of my most enjoyable saves when counter attacking the hell out of the AI. They would dominate the shot Counts by as high as four times the shots, but what does that matter if it was mostly fluff -- plus it kept on dropping the pants with each further Goal conceded more aggressively to the Point that not even ist attacking Corners were protected anymore ?   Additionally, I actually raged on These boards on I think early FM15ish, was due to a couple engine related defensive issues it was almost impossible to sit Deep and reduce the Opposition to Long shots /and or set piece based Approaches. 

That's the Thing though. A subjective eye and playing experience has Always  massively trumped any of SI's Feedback/data. I think you did a "Chance Quality" model yourself to gauge this? 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Svenc

[BMNJohn]

9 hours ago, SpS_Zen said:

Sure, but you can expect better game mechanics from a 20 years franchise.

AI is what it is, and i have no major problem with it. I think the game mechanics could be easily improved in many ways to make the game more immersive and realistic. The player experience should be the main focus while having the will to make the game as realistic as possible. Right now, it feels like SI is making things more complicated, to advertise "we have complicated things, game is more realitic now". That's not how things work, more complicated doesnt mean its more realistic, and it's not because SI made FM Touch, that it's ok to neglect player experience in FM.

When SI cedes to players crying about injuries, they did a step back, not because they changed the injury frequency, but because they did it whitout letting a choice to the player, neglicting again player experience.

I want a FM as depth and complete as possible, and in the same time easily accessible with smart game mechanisms.

Oh I absolutely agree. "Tougher AI" isn't necessarily the objective, because making the game tough isn't hard. However, "believable" and "consistent" is what I'd look for. I'd say "consistent" is on track; just not the believable part of it!  In all fairness, AFAIK it's harder to achieve. As for complexity, I usually oppose it to depth. Especially when it comes to the recent scouting and training revamp: it's complex, but it's not really deep. I actually do agree those modules needed changes, but not those changes. For scouting, it felt more like the playing ground was levelled on par with the AI teams: it still mostly works the same as before under the cover, but if you don't pay for the packages, you don't find anything. Also, and it's something I've asked and discussed somewhere else on this forum, your scouts do make daily updates to their reports, the option to check what they've uncovered after a couple of days just was taken away. I mean by that just ask a scout to scout a player "until full knowledge". They won't report until they have full knowledge, but if you wait a day or two after issuing the instruction and manually go to the scouting centre, you will see they did gather a report; they just won't tell you. And more often than not you should manually check it out because you may waste time on players which after a couple of days of scouting are clearly not worth the time.

As for training... There are tons of options but to get it (and not even actually master it mind you) you need to look at this thread:

So two parts, one post each and an almost 20 minutes video trying to sum it up. And of course if you didn't come to the forums, you'd have no idea what to do with any of it. It drives me insane you can drop that into a game. Not even for me personally as a seasoned player (albeit no expert), but for the people who are much more casual about it and won't think or won't know about the forums, or simply don't speak English well enough (or at all!) to consult those guides. Why would you want a nearly 20 minutes video just to set up a training guide. That's not depth, that's complexity: the pool is miles wide but 3ft deep. It's absurdly overwhelming. I admit I just don't like it and threw my hands in the air and left it to the AssMan... although in good FM AI fashion I may need to take over because it's been a dozen of games where I need to practice defensive set-pieces, that my AssMan noticed the same thing during matches but obviously never proposed to schedule a training session in that regard, mostly favouring their own tactical mindset. Much like with tactics: advise you their favourite tactic regardless of whether you have the squad for it or not.

I think I'm rambling indiscriminately at this point since I don't actually plan those posts, so please bear with me.

Edited April 3, 2019 by BMNJohn

[Rashidi]

3 hours ago, Svenc said:

I think you did a "Chance Quality" model yourself to gauge this? 

Yeah i still use my SIBOT model to analyse games, now its actually more intuitive cos its embedded in my psyche when i want to create a tactic. At present i am using a system called Liquid 4123 where i really don't know who is going to score, it can be any one of 3-4 players who will arrive in a box.

In this image Gaitan has the ball and he is going to play it across defence or carry the ball which he does from the wider position into a central area which is hallmark of my system this pulls 4 players out of position on FM19, this wide to inside running is what City were doing with Sane and Sterling, and i have managed to make it work with my average outfit, but a team that has the right attributes. When Gaitan gets there he can strike at goal or he can release the player who you can see charging into the space between defenders.

Second image here the encircled player has the ball, he can play it wide or what he actually does ( cos the role dicates)ar he turns his back lays it to a player who then plays it through for the player who is coming from the wider left position to score. Each one of the plays started out wide before ending with the assist to pull teams apart. I now relish facing teams who play stacked defences. I still think this is not good defending in FM19, its way too easy to pull defences apart to create this kind of swarm attacks. My team is playing on positive mentality but able to achieve numerical advantages across the pitch, more so against teams defending.

I actually used my own SIBOT analysis here on my system. I create a  decent number of chances, but i know for every 3 inside the box i get one goal. Twas interesting that you mentioned analysis cos i was watching a derby county fc video on their backroom tactical analysis team, and one of their analysts was explaining, how the analytical side of the game really only became a valued part of match preparation in the last 8 years or so. Football Manager currently has all the information available, the question is this...how can this be made easier for the average gamer? One who is not aware of the technical analysis within the game? The issue then becomes what to include, how to analyse. And this is way too much information for the game to present. The only real information SI need to add to the current information we are getting is : Total number of shots inside the box, Total number of Shots from open play and people can go use that information. It really is the only information we need. Its a right royal pain in the ass to go through each and every game and count each shot inside the box that is not a header or not from a set piece.

[SpS_Zen]

Il y a 16 heures, herne79 a dit :

There's a whole forum for you, start a new thread for each of those ways and SI will review them all .

https://community.sigames.com/forum/680-football-manager-feature-requests/

I already did 6 suggestions few months ago, small ones, easy to implement. Then what? See you in 1 year too see if there is any progress? 

 

 

[Svenc]

6 hours ago, Rashidi said:

And this is way too much information for the game to present. The only real information SI need to add to the current information we are getting is : Total number of shots inside the box, Total number of Shots from open play and people can go use that information. It really is the only information we need. Its a right royal pain in the ass to go through each and every game and count each shot inside the box that is not a header or not from a set piece.

Absolutely. I actually did a meme in the past for Releases past. Shots off set pieces in the box are also oftenly blocked due to the massive amount of bodies in the box.Don't Forget the other end too though… shots off counter attacks/breaks etc in particular considering how many Players set up with barely any defenses at all (in-game not punished that regularly arguably, due to AI and engine limitations). I'd be also  awesome to have league averages here collected, so that Players can check and compare. Perhaps even a graphical Chart, where you can check whether Things Change during the Course of a Season or generally over time -- considering the AI's tactical dynamicism, how each AI has different traits and how they eventually adapt to each team's rising or sinking Reputation. Some increase of set piece based Approaches etc. is to be expected some against more cautious Opposition, after all, whilst the amount of easy breaks diminishes. (2nd Season / 2nd half of a Season Syndrome).




Anyway, 'tis true. If a Forward keeps on having space and better shots, he'll eventually score some. It doesn't matter what he had for dinner, what his morale is, or anything. He may have a match where he can't hit a cow's arse off 7 attempts per match (up 12+), Ronaldo style. But in-game, that won't persist. Actually, even finishing related Attributes are a bit overrated (which is actually also in line with Football Analysis -- the Chance is far more important than the Player who has it, which is not to say that there are no differences at all). :P I'll repeat this and I'm going to repeat this until the dawn of time: Any Player who is in amassively scoring slump he's completely puzzled about has Always judged his chances all wrong (not that hard considering how often TV pundits yell "HES GOTTA SCORE" at like everything every Weekend) -- or has encountered something that slipped testing. That said, few of them consider Basic Things such as that if a Forward barely averages 3 attempts per match (which is something you can check in the game already), it may be a bit unreasonable to expect he'd never have any "streaks".

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Svenc

[Novem9]

9 часов назад, BMNJohn сказал:

They won't report until they have full knowledge, but if you wait a day or two after issuing the instruction and manually go to the scouting centre, you will see they did gather a report; they just won't tell you

You can change it in staff settings. Last right menu where you can set details of loan etc. As default its 1 week. So if your scout already has a full report, he will inform you later, as a week done

[Novem9]

9 часов назад, BMNJohn сказал:

"consistent" is what I'd look for

I'm not a big fan of FM19 but consistent exactly is better in compare of FM18 and FM17 (dont remember older versions). Guardiola is not fired in few 18 months in every save at least. I always check top7 leagues in my saves and in FM19 its more realistic. Also I checked few AI games like Porto lose cupgame vs some low team and Porto had the same strikers issue which we discuss there. Some issues with young coaches still there - Goncharenko from CSKA Moscow can create nice team from poor players, as he did it before in BATE, but in FM he still poor, but Nagelsmann finally is good. Hope for next improves in FM20

[Federico]

1 ora fa, SpS_Zen ha scritto:

I already did 6 suggestions few months ago, small ones, easy to implement. Then what? See you in 1 year too see if there is any progress? 

 

 

Maybe, if they consider your suggestions worth enough.

Nobody has a particularly priority here, and sorry but this includes you too.

I hope you didn't expect them to be tweaked/fixed the day after just because you think they are "easy to implement" ( I assume you're a developer to state something like this).

[herne79]

2 hours ago, SpS_Zen said:

I already did 6 suggestions few months ago, small ones, easy to implement. Then what? See you in 1 year too see if there is any progress? 

 

 

The process is explained in the pinned thread at the top of that forum :

 

[ajt]

23 hours ago, seb999999 said:

also a thing that really annoys me are goal ratios for strikers from ai controlled teams, the amount of goals seem way to low, you'll be lucky to see guys like Messi or Ronaldo score over 0.5 a game, hope fm 20 will be better.

i always keep track of the scoring of players like icardi, kane, messi, lewandoski and the top leagues, and having played for over 1000 hours I'm not sure I have ever had a season where the scoring for top players is ever realistic. just started a save with AC Milan and in 2018/19 messi had 19 in 33 , kane had 15 in 34 , lewandoski 17 in 33. messi hasn't scored fewer than 20 goals since the 2007-08 season. I know there was a thread on here about it, but sadly I forgot to save it so I can't find it now.

Edited April 3, 2019 by ajt

[BMNJohn]

2 hours ago, Novem9 said:

You can change it in staff settings. Last right menu where you can set details of loan etc. As default its 1 week. So if your scout already has a full report, he will inform you later, as a week done

I simply don't necessarily want their full report. I want them to tell me what they know right now to see if it's worth even scratching beyond the surface, which is different and not what the setting influences, and that without going manually in the report. I don't think I was clear enough with that. It's kinda the way it used to work: you'd ask for their opinion after a day (which for players who were featured on TV is what I think is realistic), and they'd give you what they know on the player instead of waiting for a week or a match; that is, unless my memory betrays me. Sometimes asking the report after a match is even worse if there's a break: the scout will gather info, but won't give you that info after the following match... which can be weeks or months away! I simply want more flexibility with the option, especially when discussing players from leagues/countries the club and staff already have knowledge about or that were "(as) seen on TV!". I wouldn't mind if they were mistaken mind you (which they already could be anyway).

1 hour ago, Novem9 said:

I'm not a big fan of FM19 but consistent exactly is better in compare of FM18 and FM17 (dont remember older versions). Guardiola is not fired in few 18 months in every save at least. I always check top7 leagues in my saves and in FM19 its more realistic. Also I checked few AI games like Porto lose cupgame vs some low team and Porto had the same strikers issue which we discuss there. Some issues with young coaches still there - Goncharenko from CSKA Moscow can create nice team from poor players, as he did it before in BATE, but in FM he still poor, but Nagelsmann finally is good. Hope for next improves in FM20

That was clarified in the following sentence: Guardiola getting sacked within 18 months every time is by definition "consistent". It's however hardly "believable".

Edited April 3, 2019 by BMNJohn

[Novem9]

@BMNJohn Looks like you didnt understand my both messages. You can set 'short report only' and Guardiola NOT getting sacked in FM19 like in prev FM versions

[BMNJohn]

5 hours ago, Novem9 said:

@BMNJohn Looks like you didnt understand my both messages. You can set 'short report only'

I quite honestly do do not know where to find the option you're talking about. I hope you're not talking about this, because that's not what I want, nor what I was talking about.

 

5 hours ago, Novem9 said:

[...] Guardiola NOT getting sacked in FM19 like in prev FM versions

Doesn't match what you've quoted from me as you've quoted the part talking about consistency, not the part about believability; which is why I specifically replied to this. Guardiola not getting sacked every 10 months is more "believable" relative to real life, not necessarily more "consistent" (which hinges on other factors). So yeah, I don't get why you've written this considering what you've quoted. But anyway, let's move on.

Edited April 3, 2019 by BMNJohn

[Svenc]

11 hours ago, ajt said:

i always keep track of the scoring of players like icardi, kane, messi, lewandoski and the top leagues, and having played for over 1000 hours I'm not sure I have ever had a season where the scoring for top players is ever realistic. just started a save with AC Milan and in 2018/19 messi had 19 in 33 , kane had 15 in 34 , lewandoski 17 in 33. messi hasn't scored fewer than 20 goals since the 2007-08 season. I know there was a thread on here about it, but sadly I forgot to save it so I can't find it now.

Part of that is ME related, part of that also AI limitations. AI never build Teams around Players, it's just not in their ability to do such. As such, whereas Kane, Messi, Ronaldo et all average 5+ shots per match (Ronaldo actually 7 in his entire Career), for the AI the shots are Always Pretty evenly spread across the front line.



There's no Forward in (real) Football alike who consistently every Season averages About a Goal per match, but who has fewer shots than ca. 5. We'Ve had threads in the past where Players "showed the AI how to Play, or rather score like Messi. In each of them he was averaging multitude attempts to begin with.

Maybe some of this shouldn't be tactical. But then it's hard to argue against the influence of tactics, when it is well known that entire strike partnerships had been often build around funneling attacks towards, say, CR7. E.g. Benzema at Real Madrid, probably one of the most colossaly misunderstood "Forward" on his Level in recent years. His prime Job was dropping Deep and making space for Ronaldo's runs. This even Show/ed statistically, as he barely averaged 2 attempts per match , not even a third of Ronaldo's. That said, back on Fm 2015ish, where the top Dribblers averaged (statistically) up to 10 dribbles per match, the AI benefited of this for sure. You'd just needed to field the likes of Hazard, they'd run rings around defenses Pretty regularly. As a consequence, the AI had no Problems with scoring, nor Performing in their leagues.

One of the worst AI performances in recent years was Guardiola on Fm 2016, oft struggling to score 60 goals p. Season with one of the then most domestically dominating squads in the db (Bayern). And yes, it was his tactics. A balance Needs to be struck in the coming Releases, I guess…. I'd actually start with taking all the "nonsense" out you can still put into the UI, personally, and Limit "tactical decisions" to "sensible Football decisions", as opposed to potentially harmful and nonsensical Micro tweaks. However, at SI HQ I'd also run Tests with AI. It's debatable whether a) "parking bus" Teams as to FM don't do it a bit drastically and b) far, far too regularly. If you would simply edit every AI Manager to prefer top heavy formations, and give him attacking traits, you'd already see an increase in Goals (Prior Releases anyhow).

Edited April 3, 2019 by Svenc

[BigV]

Hey guys sorry if this is off topic and is a feedback thread so I'll split it up- Playing as Manchester United

After moving from fm17 to 19 the scouting has changed alot and adapting is a struggle but an acceptance at this stage but i've noticed some stuff that could be better or at least back to old ways.

First of all I don't understand how there's an option for until full knowledge or by how many weeks to scout works, I get that it happens in real life but if you look after a couple days the scout has already near enough hit the 60% mark or higher (which is decent enough to make a decision for me and imho) so why did they take away the speed at which knowledge reports come in in a lack of a shorter time frame lets say 3 days- took away a good tool that was easy and could find wonderkids/unknown players which is very very hard to find using the scouting tools at disposal as appose to real life knowledge and research/downloaded shortlists etc.

Another issue I can't understand is the manager manually picking regions/nations/teams is much harder to find players appose to your chief scout. I have something like 30 plus scouts and when scouting a particular nations (england, spain, portuagal, italy, netherlands, belguim, brazil, argentina- all of these I would send at LEAST 1 scout) you'd expect to find a large base of players quite quickly much like in FM17 however I noticed you get it at the time rates given but with less players and well known players regardless of the specific changes made for example age, position etc. Seems like sending lets say 2 scouts to spain under default headings will give you a result of about 20 players a season which to me seems unrealistic. Maybe there's a realistic middle ground of having way too many in fm 17 and wayy to less in fm19 that there's balance in the middle?? 

Carrying on from above, it seems you have to be specific to what you want- position, age barrier etc. It's an annoyance when a big team like United scout the ends of the earth to find players and having so little come out and having to change/make new instructions very frequently which hinders all aspect of what you want in the overall search.

Chief scouts although seems better in getting quicker results, most players are very well known and recycled reports. Having a list of nations where you want scouted should not mean they all scout these lands in whatever order and create the same player reports, the AI should at least be "smart enough" to send scouts to their best scout knowledge or the list bar the 1st given to enhance feedback on reports. I understand that they "go to matches to watch players" but the level they come back with small amounts make it hard to find players unless you google them and cheat your way through.

If anyone has any tips or even against what I said that would be greatly appreciated, thanks.  

[Preveza]

On 03/04/2019 at 02:30, Novem9 said:

Agree. I want to play in deep game, but not to drown in tactic details like it a job. For me its an enjoyable activity for some evenings and Im not ready to deep challenges and research.

It is like an analogy with gearbox for me. You can take a manual transmission for full control and have professional advantage or you can take automatic transmission if you want to easy driving.

As a result, both cars drive the same way, the difference is in the details. I guess some gurus like Rashidi and Experienced Defender will use full control of FM anyway, but some user like me want to set basic settings and drink a tea while the game mechanics control details during game in keeping of my basic settings. 

FM Touch. You want a deep game, without wanting to do research you say? You want a deep game but see it as a casual activity at night? FM TOUCH. I will say it again. FM Touch. You wont get the full FM experience toned down just for you. You are not that special

You want to drink tea and want the game too seem 'easier'. FM Touch. Stop sooking

Again, FM Touch

[alian62]

2 hours ago, Preveza said:

FM Touch. You want a deep game, without wanting to do research you say? You want a deep game but see it as a casual activity at night? FM TOUCH. I will say it again. FM Touch. You wont get the full FM experience toned down just for you. You are not that special

You want to drink tea and want the game too seem 'easier'. FM Touch. Stop sooking

Again, FM Touch

Problem with FM Touch is there's no Pre Editor

[Novem9]

5 часов назад, Preveza сказал:

FM Touch. You want a deep game, without wanting to do research you say? You want a deep game but see it as a casual activity at night? FM TOUCH. I will say it again. FM Touch. You wont get the full FM experience toned down just for you. You are not that special

You want to drink tea and want the game too seem 'easier'. FM Touch. Stop sooking

Again, FM Touch

I told about ME, no management. Your repeat 'FM touch' looks just stupid

Edited April 4, 2019 by Novem9

[Martin#2]

On 01/04/2019 at 20:51, Svenc said:

 As said, "headers" are never counted a Chance.

 

Headers are counted as a chance in FM, even as a clear cut chance, I have a tall regen who is dominant in the air and his headers have been counted as CCC a number of times. 

[Svenc]

Actually, a part of the problem with the "tactical" side of FM is that they attempt at coding a tactical engine but then have to consider that not everybody cares as deeply About the subject to begin with. [At least at the current Level of tactical assistant Managers available.] Hence, actually, the game has Always actually rewarded fairly common sense -- and the AI is tad "limited". I don't consider myself a tactical nut at all -- it was actually FM and the tactical debates about it that initially made me at least a tad more curious About the subject to begin with. 

To draw an analogy (a bit cheeky); it's a bit like those developers of open world Exploration games (Skyrim, Fallout 3/4, etc.) who design their games around in-game GPS (and quest Compass), so that you can't possibly get lost anymore even in your own pockets (killing much sense and Purpose of having open explorable Worlds in the first place).

What unites them both is that they're generally successful of Course.  

Edited April 4, 2019 by Svenc

[SD]

The AI is overly eager train players to new position without any obvious benefit.

This isn't a one-off situation, but rather something I've noticed consistently save upon save.

And because of the way CA works, this leads to players regressing at the peak of their careers or young players stagnating for years, because the AI manager decided Kane needs to play AML/AMR or Dele needs to learn every position on the pitch.

This tendency is further exacerbated by the fact positional ability is a lot harder to lose than to gain. Under the current rules someone like Sergio Ramos would still be a natural RB 10 years since he last played RB.

And while these are some of the more egregious examples, it's one of the factors that contribute to the AI falling behind the human player at player development.

[enigmatic]

5 hours ago, SD said:

The AI is overly eager train players to new position without any obvious benefit.

This isn't a one-off situation, but rather something I've noticed consistently save upon save.

And because of the way CA works, this leads to players regressing at the peak of their careers or young players stagnating for years, because the AI manager decided Kane needs to play AML/AMR or Dele needs to learn every position on the pitch.

This tendency is further exacerbated by the fact positional ability is a lot harder to lose than to gain. Under the current rules someone like Sergio Ramos would still be a natural RB 10 years since he last played RB.

And while these are some of the more egregious examples, it's one of the factors that contribute to the AI falling behind the human player at player development.

That seems to be balanced to a large degree by positions being (excessively, arguably) difficult to learn for players with low versatility. Newgens often start with 3 or more positions but never get anywhere near the positional versatility of, say Trent Alexander-Arnold or James Milner, or even your run of the mill German fullback. And some of the decisions it makes like retraining ageing wingbacks as DMs are downright sensible! A lot of positional retraining involves little or no attribute reweighting too

tbh I notice the opposite factor more: somebody I've been interested in loses their accomplished status in a position I'm interested in playing them in because the AI's focused their training on the other side of the pitch and SI thinks players with slightly below average versatility forget to play left midfield as quickly as you learn to play on the right.

[Overmars]

28 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

tbh I notice the opposite factor more: somebody I've been interested in loses their accomplished status in a position I'm interested in playing them in because the AI's focused their training on the other side of the pitch and SI thinks players with slightly below average versatility forget to play left midfield as quickly as you learn to play on the right.

I do really dislike that change, especially when it's for very similar positions such as MC and DM.

[rjferguson90]

On 31/03/2019 at 02:22, rjferguson90 said:

Just looked at all the games I played in January (6 - one friendly, two cup games and three league games) and the woodwork has been hit 9 times, 8 of them by my team. I drew two of the matches and won the other four so this isn't out of rage, but it just seems completely ridiculous; I've never known a streak of a team hitting the bar in that many consecutive games in real life. Are we acknowledging that there is an issue with this?

Edit > Just went back and checked December too (6 games - five in the league, one in the cup). In 12 games in the last two months my team only hasn't hit the woodwork in a match once - a cup game against a much bigger opposition where we had far less of the ball than usual. That's in over 90% of my games in that period. Woodwork was hit 18 times in 12 matches (including opposition hitting the woodwork too). 

I welcome anyone to try to convince me this isn't an ME issue.

Edit 2 > Investigated further and checked all my league games only this season (20 played out of 34). My team has hit the woodwork 18 times in 20 league games. I'm playing in the Portuguese second division and can't statistical data for it, but this season in the English Premier League, Chelsea top the charts with hitting the woodwork 19 times in 30 games, and the league average is just shy of 11. I would be very interested to see what the longest consecutive game streaks of hitting the woodwork are too, but I don't think that data exists. Regardless, at the moment I'm on course to finish the league campaign with hitting the bar around 30 to 31 times in 34 games, and whilst I can't be bothered to go back and check previous seasons, I feel like I hit the bar most games no matter what team and league I play in, so this isn't just a fluke season.

 

Haven't played for a few days and then first game back... completely ridiculous.

[Martin#2]

16 hours ago, SD said:

The AI is overly eager train players to new position without any obvious benefit.

This isn't a one-off situation, but rather something I've noticed consistently save upon save.

And because of the way CA works, this leads to players regressing at the peak of their careers or young players stagnating for years, because the AI manager decided Kane needs to play AML/AMR or Dele needs to learn every position on the pitch.

This tendency is further exacerbated by the fact positional ability is a lot harder to lose than to gain. Under the current rules someone like Sergio Ramos would still be a natural RB 10 years since he last played RB.

And while these are some of the more egregious examples, it's one of the factors that contribute to the AI falling behind the human player at player development.

The AI has an overall problem when it comes to training. I am in 2026 and I rarely see a newgen trained as an inside forward. All I am seeing are wingers all over the place with wicked pace and crossing stats but poor finishing and composure.

I guess that unless I train my players as inside forwards since babies I will not be able to continue with my current tactics as I rely on wide players with good finishing.

It is also hard to find ball playing defenders because AI trains everyone, judging by the stats, as limited defenders.

It goes contrary to modern trends.

Attribute distribution has also been a problem for years. I see a lot of great newgen players killed by one or two attribute flaws. Example: Dribbling, flair, pace etc. 15+ but technique 10. Or great vision, dribbling and technique but flair 3.

Jumping reach I don´t understand. I have a player who is 195 cm tall and his reach is 14. With this height, even if he cant jump particularly high, his reach must be better. And it is not an isolated case.

[BigV]

5 hours ago, Martin#2 said:

I am in 2026 and I rarely see a newgen trained as an inside forward. All I am seeing are wingers all over the place with wicked pace and crossing stats but poor finishing and composure.

Happened for most years, they're very rare would've thought it's different by now. I think I got one IF in my 1st season but im sure it's slightly increased than previous years. 

 

5 hours ago, Martin#2 said:

Jumping reach I don´t understand. I have a player who is 195 cm tall and his reach is 14. With this height, even if he cant jump particularly high, his reach must be better. And it is not an isolated case.

His jumping reach is basically how high he can jump, just because his reach his low doesn't mean his height can't effect it. Having someone as tall as him is good even with 14 jumping reach because his height is a positive. Say if someone is smaller at like 5ft 6 and had a jumping reach of 16/17 he'd be similar heights to your 6ft 3 player jumping at 14 maybe even lower. 

His height is basically giving him a decision to jump less as he's taller but if and when he does his height plus jump reach will work together to either head  the ball or miss out- more or less win the ball 90% of the time deciding on stats but it is slightly weird that jump reach is low for a taller person

[Jack Joyce]

5 minutes ago, BigV said:

Happened for most years, they're very rare would've thought it's different by now. I think I got one IF in my 1st season but im sure it's slightly increased than previous years. 

 

His jumping reach is basically how high he can jump, just because his reach his low doesn't mean his height can't effect it. Having someone as tall as him is good even with 14 jumping reach because his height is a positive. Say if someone is smaller at like 5ft 6 and had a jumping reach of 16/17 he'd be similar heights to your 6ft 3 player jumping at 14 maybe even lower. 

His height is basically giving him a decision to jump less as he's taller but if and when he does his height plus jump reach will work together to either head  the ball or miss out- more or less win the ball 90% of the time deciding on stats but it is slightly weird that jump reach is low for a taller person

This is a common misconception. Jumping already takes in to account the player's height, so 14 for a 6 ft or 5ft player would be the same maximum height reached when jumping.

[johnhughthom]

I'm pretty sure that's not what the in game advice on loading screens says Jack.

[SD]

2 minutes ago, BigV said:

His jumping reach is basically how high he can jump, just because his reach his low doesn't mean his height can't effect it. Having someone as tall as him is good even with 14 jumping reach because his height is a positive. Say if someone is smaller at like 5ft 6 and had a jumping reach of 16/17 he'd be similar heights to your 6ft 3 player jumping at 14 maybe even lower. 

His height is basically giving him a decision to jump less as he's taller but if and when he does his height plus jump reach will work together to either head  the ball or miss out- more or less win the ball 90% of the time deciding on stats but it is slightly weird that jump reach is low for a taller person

If I understood jumping reach correctly, the value is normalized for all heights, in that a 5ft5 player with 11 jumping will jump just as high as a 6ft5 player with 11 jumping.

That doesn't mean height is not an advantage, because players will not always be able to jump, such as when turning or during a physical duel, and in those instances a player's height is what dictates aerial reach.

Furthermore, I'm speculating here, but a shorter player even if he can jump a certain height, he may need to exert more effort to do that so his balance, strength or heading accuracy may suffer.

[SD]

Just now, johnhughthom said:

I'm pretty sure that's not what the in game advice on loading screens says Jack.

Myself I understood that loading tip to mean something along the lines of this.

1 minute ago, SD said:

That doesn't mean height is not an advantage, because players will not always be able to jump, such as when turning or during a physical duel, and in those instances a player's height is what dictates aerial reach.

 

[Jack Joyce]

1 minute ago, johnhughthom said:

I'm pretty sure that's not what the in game advice on loading screens says Jack.

The tooltip for jumping reach says: "This attribute reflects the highest point that a player can reach with his head, often influenced by a player's height".

Think of jumping reach as the highest point you reach when jumping, not the distance your feet go off the ground.