Football Manager 2020 January & February Transfer Updates Feedback Thread

[lzab]

20 minutes ago, Boydy9 said:

I've been playing this years game on and off since December and the more I've played the more I've come to the same conclusion as many others on here, the ME is boring, no need to list every reason why they are very well documented on the various feedback threads.

I've posted many times positively and on occasions been able to sometimes bypass the games shortcomings for a brief time but its come back again and again to boring and not enjoyable. To say that more and more people are playing and enjoying the game is inaccurate, they may be playing but I doubt the enjoyment levels are there.

I've kept revisiting the game and the forums hoping that things would be improved and I've just seen the update from Neil, I'm not surprised, this is at the end of a day a business. I am however disappointed. Reading between the lines the response seems to be :

 

"we know it's not great, we know there are issues but we can't fix them because we've got FM21 to develop and sell now. We can't acknowledge the games deficiencies because If we do we would need to try to fix them and we're busy keeping our jobs by starting on next years game which we hope we can make better. We know you lot will buy it anyway (or most of you) so that's that. Thanks for buying and we tried, onward and hopefully upward"

I think I am one who won't buy again, not next year certainly. The game takes a massive investment of time (424 hours for me since 1st December) but it's been less fun and more of a slog this year than any previous years I can remember, I can't see me going through this again. I may check into the forums around launch of FM21 and see what the feedback is like but it would take a massive positive swing in opinion to get me to buy again.

 

SI, from a player of over 25 years of every iteration of this game (including online which I loved) it's farewell and good luck, hopefully not goodbye forever.

I agree 100% with you....

[craiigman]

25 minutes ago, Boydy9 said:

I've been playing this years game on and off since December and the more I've played the more I've come to the same conclusion as many others on here, the ME is boring, no need to list every reason why they are very well documented on the various feedback threads.

I've posted many times positively and on occasions been able to sometimes bypass the games shortcomings for a brief time but its come back again and again to boring and not enjoyable. To say that more and more people are playing and enjoying the game is inaccurate, they may be playing but I doubt the enjoyment levels are there.

I've kept revisiting the game and the forums hoping that things would be improved and I've just seen the update from Neil, I'm not surprised, this is at the end of a day a business. I am however disappointed. Reading between the lines the response seems to be :

 

"we know it's not great, we know there are issues but we can't fix them because we've got FM21 to develop and sell now. We can't acknowledge the games deficiencies because If we do we would need to try to fix them and we're busy keeping our jobs by starting on next years game which we hope we can make better. We know you lot will buy it anyway (or most of you) so that's that. Thanks for buying and we tried, onward and hopefully upward"

I think I am one who won't buy again, not next year certainly. The game takes a massive investment of time (424 hours for me since 1st December) but it's been less fun and more of a slog this year than any previous years I can remember, I can't see me going through this again. I may check into the forums around launch of FM21 and see what the feedback is like but it would take a massive positive swing in opinion to get me to buy again.

 

SI, from a player of over 25 years of every iteration of this game (including online which I loved) it's farewell and good luck, hopefully not goodbye forever.

My concern is that’s what they told us for FM19 and those issues weren’t resolved in FM20, but we got new things that still aren’t bug free. For me the biggest win for FM21 would be no shiny new features, but a complete polish of FM20 with a real focus on ME improvements.

There are so many bugs reported in the bug forum that just don’t get attention because “it only affects a small number of players”. But also a bug that’s been there since forever like the columns resizing bug.

I love FM, I really do. But I lost faith in SI quite a long time ago. 

[CAE82]

I don’t know how transferable the ME are, but an option to choose which ME to use would get rid of a lot of this debate which happens every year.

Enjoy the ME from FM17? Fine, select it in FM20.

Would let managers play their tactics in different games.

Heck, even open-source the engine. The community do a much better job of graphics etc. What’s to say they wouldn’t make a better ME. 

[duff33]

21 hours ago, Hazpro said:

In my humble opinion yes.

Thanks, Hazpro; I've started a new save with Genoa and am running with two up front, will see how it goes 😁

[Tyburn]

1 hour ago, eencae said:

I don’t know how transferable the ME are, but an option to choose which ME to use would get rid of a lot of this debate which happens every year.

Enjoy the ME from FM17? Fine, select it in FM20.

Would let managers play their tactics in different games.

Heck, even open-source the engine. The community do a much better job of graphics etc. What’s to say they wouldn’t make a better ME. 

Seeing as the game outside of the ME and the ME are more linked than ever I highly doubt this is at all possible.

[ajw10]

One striker goal from my team in the last nine matches (18 goals). Every goal is pretty much from a set piece/cross or a long shot. Loads of wingers are scoring goals in the Premier League too. I cannot believe this is the finished product - striker movement has been an issue for two games now. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by ajw10

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, eencae said:

I don’t know how transferable the ME are, but an option to choose which ME to use would get rid of a lot of this debate which happens every year.

Enjoy the ME from FM17? Fine, select it in FM20.

Would let managers play their tactics in different games.

Heck, even open-source the engine. The community do a much better job of graphics etc. What’s to say they wouldn’t make a better ME. 

It cannot happen, both because of compatibility and because it would be an absolute nightmare for SI to track bugs. 

[Welshace]

14 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

The last few pages have probably summed up with communication is so difficult. Not matter what is said, Neil gets pulled apart, or his words get twisted to suit the agenda of those replying, or in some cases he gets deliberately misrepresented or abused, and a lot of it is coming from the same people who want more communication. Its a two way street, if this is going to be the reaction, why would they attempt more communication? If you're going to treat every post with cynicism to the point where they can't actually say what they're trying to say, then you can't have that communication. 

I'm absolutely not assuming this post was directed at my post in particular, i'm sure it wasn't .. but i wanted to clear up what i meant by my last few posts..

 

I'm completely satisfied with 95% of the game and have enjoyed the vast improvements the game as seen over the last few years in particular.. the work gone into it has been amazing..

I'm dissatisfied with one part of the game in particular, and didn't want to suggest that should invalid the whole game for me, it shouldn't .. alas it does, as it's a massive part of it.. I'm just a bit disillusioned by a comment from those who produce the game that seemed (important part) to suggest that the glaring issues ,that i assumed everyone could see (set pieces, central play etc) weren't issues at all. I've never been one to just jump on the pitchfork bandwagon beying for blood and my money back, and nor am i now, only saying that it's disappointing to find that two versions in a row have been lacking ME wise.

 

That said, long may the game continue improving and i imagine i'll be back putting the hours into the game that i love once the ME reaches a state where i'm comfortable with it.

[Tyburn]

For those still wondering ... just to highlight again that Lone ST’s can work well in FM20. Had him at Napoli also. Always played up front on his own. Sometimes as a CF, last two seasons mostly as an AF. He’s scored headers, he’s scored with his feet. He’s scored from pull backs, crosses, counters, through balls, a couple of corners, pens (a fair few in fairness last year). The guy, as we all know, is a machine! He did miss a crucial penalty in the Champions League final mind  Git.
 

I don’t post this for any other reason than to offer a little balance to the discussion.

[LucasBR]

8 minutes ago, Tyburn said:

For those still wondering ... just to highlight again that Lone ST’s can work well in FM20. Had him at Napoli also. Always played up front on his own. Sometimes as a CF, last two seasons mostly as an AF. He’s scored headers, he’s scored with his feet. He’s scored from pull backs, crosses, counters, through balls, a couple of corners, pens (a fair few in fairness last year). The guy, as we all know, is a machine! He did miss a crucial penalty in the Champions League final mind  Git.
 

I don’t post this for any other reason than to offer a little balance to the discussion.

What role are you using your wingers/midfielders?

[Tyburn]

Just now, LucasBR said:

What role are you using your wingers/midfielders?

Tactic posted on page 22 of this thread.

[KUBI]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb eencae:

I don’t know how transferable the ME are, but an option to choose which ME to use would get rid of a lot of this debate which happens every year.

Enjoy the ME from FM17? Fine, select it in FM20.

A lot of stability fixes for various computers and graphic cards are directly connected to the ME and 3D graphics. 

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, Welshace said:

I'm dissatisfied with one part of the game in particular, and didn't want to suggest that should invalid the whole game for me, it shouldn't .. alas it does, as it's a massive part of it.. I'm just a bit disillusioned by a comment from those who produce the game that seemed (important part) to suggest that the glaring issues ,that i assumed everyone could see (set pieces, central play etc) weren't issues at all

I agree with you wholeheartedly. To be fair it is hard (if not impossible) for FM to stand up and say "yes we have produced a bad ME this year, we are sorry". They are a company, and they kinda have to protect their product. Saying that would be bad for them. I would also find it worrying if they believed this, because it is difficult to believe that anyone with a detailed knowledge of the ME could watch games on comprehensive and think it is, well, good. If you look on the ME bug forum you will also find a bunch of the things we know are issues are listed as such. 

There is a wider problem here, which I am going to address head on (and actually would rather not do it on the forums, but lack another medium). What, exactly, is required in terms of feedback? How can those who are actually able to have reasoned discussion without resorting to slagging off the devs get their voices heard? I will be blunt here, it often feels like this is used as an excuse to hide from criticism and not give answers. I am fully aware that this is almost certainly not the case, but I am talking about perception. 

So to reiterate, what can I, as a passionate user, do? Because I do not see the point of rehashing the same stuff in threads like this anyway. It is 26 pages of people saying the same things and other users arguing that there are no problems at all. I ask because it feels mostly pointless to give any feedback or opinion here. Outside of posting on the tactics and editor forums, is there a point? 

[jc577]

15 hours ago, kiwityke1983 said:

1 - The board would just change its club philosophy to whatever I was playing anyway.

Indeed I’ve seen this too. In fact, my Brentford team were scoring so much from set pieces (default ones, no special set-up) that the board added ‘make the most of set-pieces’ or words to that affect, as part of the philosophy  Sums up FM20 tbh 

[janrzm]

2 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. To be fair it is hard (if not impossible) for FM to stand up and say "yes we have produced a bad ME this year, we are sorry". They are a company, and they kinda have to protect their product. Saying that would be bad for them. I would also find it worrying if they believed this, because it is difficult to believe that anyone with a detailed knowledge of the ME could watch games on comprehensive and think it is, well, good. If you look on the ME bug forum you will also find a bunch of the things we know are issues are listed as such. 

There is a wider problem here, which I am going to address head on (and actually would rather not do it on the forums, but lack another medium). What, exactly, is required in terms of feedback? How can those who are actually able to have reasoned discussion without resorting to slagging off the devs get their voices heard? I will be blunt here, it often feels like this is used as an excuse to hide from criticism and not give answers. I am fully aware that this is almost certainly not the case, but I am talking about perception. 

So to reiterate, what can I, as a passionate user, do? Because I do not see the point of rehashing the same stuff in threads like this anyway. It is 26 pages of people saying the same things and other users arguing that there are no problems at all. I ask because it feels mostly pointless to give any feedback or opinion here. Outside of posting on the tactics and editor forums, is there a point? 

First paragraph, I understand what you are saying but disagree slightly in that I actually do believe its possible to say "we fell short of our own standards and expectations". I believe there was a lot going on in SI over the course of last year especially with the move to Stadia. If, for one reason or another they didn't quite get to where they'd hoped I could live with that if a bit of humility was shown. Instead, to suggest everything is fine was a little insulting to those of us who see various elements of the ME as flawed, not to mention longstanding bugs and introducing new bugs with patches. Ultimately, it all smacked of a lack of resource/time and as we know, QC is the first thing effected.

Second paragraph, man do I agree with that. I'd picked up on it over the last month or so.  I'm 100% sure its not a deliberate ploy but to me it's very evident that the priority is to address poor posters and that deflects from resolving issues and more meaningful dialogues. So I too would be really keen on seeing how that line of communication can be protected and improved.

I'm spending longer thinking about this game than I am playing it this release. Like many, I may feel frustrated with this release but am in no way ready to give up on improving this game.

[Novem9]

As I delete game I can't check this myself, but one member from our local community wrote about a lot of injures in 20.4

Can somebody approve this anomaly or this is just coincidence for him?

[FrazT]

There have been no changes to the injuries module in either of the latest updates, so it is coincidence.

[Maradonna]

Quote

I've brought this up many times. I had a journeyman save, I took over some team 19th in Spain and like 7 pts off of safety. 10 games in I'd won way more than I'd lost and we were safe. All of a sudden my players "can't get past my lack of experience", morale drops and it is impossible to win from then on. It is not "my tactics". Plenty of people have agreed with me on this. We are allowed opinions. I am sure SI could tone down the effect of morale by 20%. 

11 hours ago, Travis Bickle said:

Because I've just stated the evidence above. If I still had the save I'd share it. If SI don't feel it is a problem fair. I am expressing a strong opinion of mine as a paying customer. 

The issue is you havent provided any evidence at all. Thats what I meant with 80% of feedback is garbage. You havent provided any reasonable data. Nor did you collected enough data to paint a conclusive picture (this is where multiple people provide little data and in summary it becomes conclusive). Do you know how much the morale drop really affected the outcome of your games? What is the baseline you are comparing it to (P.S: make a save game after morale drops and play it several times. Than play it several time with the morale before the drop)? And more importantly, how much of an effect in moral is realistic? Tbh nobody knows that, its a total subjective figure we can't really quantify, which is an issue to this specific problem. Thus how did you conclude to reduce the moral effect by 20%?

Yes, you are allowed to your opinion. Does SI has to take the actions you recommend? Absolutely not. Even if plenty people agreed with you. Whatever plenty means in this context. You are not the only customer.

[rp1966]

2 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

As I delete game I can't check this myself, but one member from our local community wrote about a lot of injures in 20.4

Can somebody approve this anomaly or this is just coincidence for him?

Seems the same as last couple of versions - quite a lot of minor 1-3 day injuries that can be frequent for certain players, a few mid-term injuries 1week-1 month and the occasional long term (usually cruciate) that keeps a player out for the bulk of the season. Injury rates feel pretty realistic. 

 

[Tyburn]

Personally, although a vocal supporter of this years release, I have never said that FM20 is without faults. In fact I’ve been very careful to continually state that of course there are issues. As with every release. We and SI are of course aware of this. I’ve said it before but SI will never be completely happy with a release. They are happy with the ME right now. This is based on what is possible. Not that it’s a finished article.

I completely agree that better dialogue should and could be had between the loyal fanbase and SI. The problems arise when neither group are listening to the other. Points maybe heard but are they being listened to? We as fans believe we are not being heard because issues appear to not be addressed, or SI seems to refuse to acknowledge them. This I believe is NOT true. SI will often come out and say “thank you for pointing this out to us, we are aware of this issue”. That is acknowledgment. If they sort it out immediately is something else. They simply cannot be expected to deal with all issues straight away. An element of patience is required, and when I say patience I’m thinking in terms of 3 years potentially before something could get around to being addressed. Of course when SI say they have acknowledged an issue it doesn’t mean they agree with it actually being one. It may never be worked on. It’s their game. They can move it in whichever direction they choose. Or they simply cannot change it at all because of how the game is designed, and lets face it the design of FM is absolutely superb otherwise none of us would be here.

Again, in them coming out and saying they are happy with the ME that doesn’t mean they don’t acknowledge that it still has issues. It’s simply that it’s fine for now and what they needed to achieve.

From the other perspective, highlighted by Neil in his ‘bombshell’ post, SI receive a huge amount of issues and criticism every year from us vocal fans. He inter-mated that a lot of it, as frustrating as it may be, is not going to be on their agenda at this moment in time. Fans need to follow the procedures put in place to be heard. There are only so many times, infinite it seems, that they can say that those procedures are the best way to have our issues and concerns addressed. Yet here we are continuing to bang our heads against walls with feedback that does nothing for anyone. Other than stir up frustration, on both sides. Believing that these procedures are the best way forward is another matter but these are the procedures of the moment and they need to be followed.

I very much like the idea of a locked thread where dialogue of what is top of SI’s agenda, that can be fairly regularly updated, so we the fans can get some understanding of what is being worked on. A ‘what we’re currently working on’ noticeboard type of thing. Of course SI do not need to do this, or it simply may not be possible as agendas switch and change. The list maybe enormous, however I believe it would help with the feedback thread not being clogged up with repetitive basic hate posts, and or, the same issues being raised over and over again.

As long as we can be as constructive as possible in our dialogue it will be heard. But basic “ME broken” posts will never get a response other than ignore. As Neil highlighted.

For a lot of us we’ve been playing the series since the CM days. I remember vocally years and years ago making a few suggestions to SI on features I think the game should incorporate. Simple things like goal of the month. Hooray. It’s of course now in the game. We are being heard. We just need to listen to each other a little more.

And again, we need to be patient.

[Neil Brock]

8 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

What, exactly, is required in terms of feedback? How can those who are actually able to have reasoned discussion without resorting to slagging off the devs get their voices heard? 

So to reiterate, what can I, as a passionate user, do? Because I do not see the point of rehashing the same stuff in threads like this anyway. It is 26 pages of people saying the same things and other users arguing that there are no problems at all. I ask because it feels mostly pointless to give any feedback or opinion here. Outside of posting on the tactics and editor forums, is there a point? 

In regards to feedback, we've made this thread the focal point to post and it'll get read by members of SI staff and our moderating team.

However would say the best way of having a reasoned discussion with devs is to constantly post insightful opinions (and yes, these can be critical if reasoned and constructive) and raise issues via our bugs forum. From those the best posters are invited to join our private external testing team who get earlier access to the game than anyone outside the studio. Within this setup there is more of an opportunity to discuss the game in greater detail, especially prior to release of a forthcoming game. 

We've got a host of team members across coding, QA, production and design who regularly read and post on these forums. You speak about getting "voices heard" - it may not always be the case that we respond to posts but that has no bearing on whether a post is read. We're constantly reading and analysing opinions both here and across various other aspects of the community. 

[Travis Bickle]

 

5 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

In regards to feedback, we've made this thread the focal point to post and it'll get read by members of SI staff and our moderating team.

However would say the best way of having a reasoned discussion with devs is to constantly post insightful opinions (and yes, these can be critical if reasoned and constructive) and raise issues via our bugs forum. From those the best posters are invited to join our private external testing team who get earlier access to the game than anyone outside the studio. Within this setup there is more of an opportunity to discuss the game in greater detail, especially prior to release of a forthcoming game. 

We've got a host of team members across coding, QA, production and design who regularly read and post on these forums. You speak about getting "voices heard" - it may not always be the case that we respond to posts but that has no bearing on whether a post is read. We're constantly reading and analysing opinions both here and across various other aspects of the community. 

I think this is a very reasonable post and I'd cite this to all of those who say "yeah but provide EVIDENCE". If the guys at SI are simply reading constructive opinions then I feel that raising your opinions, in a constructive way, is helpful even if we are going to be anally scientific about it. 

[sporadicsmiles]

17 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

In regards to feedback, we've made this thread the focal point to post and it'll get read by members of SI staff and our moderating team.

However would say the best way of having a reasoned discussion with devs is to constantly post insightful opinions (and yes, these can be critical if reasoned and constructive) and raise issues via our bugs forum. From those the best posters are invited to join our private external testing team who get earlier access to the game than anyone outside the studio. Within this setup there is more of an opportunity to discuss the game in greater detail, especially prior to release of a forthcoming game. 

We've got a host of team members across coding, QA, production and design who regularly read and post on these forums. You speak about getting "voices heard" - it may not always be the case that we respond to posts but that has no bearing on whether a post is read. We're constantly reading and analysing opinions both here and across various other aspects of the community. 

Thanks for the reply. It is sometimes just nice to have things explained a little bit more. Apologies for banging on about this. 

[Juego de Posicion]

Decided to try the latest update to see if their had been any improvements to the match engine. Optimistic thinking on my behalf, giving the extreme troubles the match engines has faced over the last 5 years or so. Can't remember the last time I genuinely enjoyed an FM due to constant imbalances and bugs. FM is an immersive game in theory that is sadly nearly always spoiled by a poor match engine.

Pretty stunned and disappointed by the extreme lack of central play, through balls and striker/winger movements (runs in behind, dropping off, peeling away, anything remotely dynamic) in established possession in the opponent final third. Doesn't seem to make a difference if you use attack or support duties and regardless of which roles you choose for your front 3, they will just sit extremely narrow and not move at all in the final third. The only thing resembling a through ball in the final third comes in the form of a ball to an outside, onrushing full back for a cross - which would be fine if this wasn't the only form of penetrating attack available to be created; in a dynamic and varied attack, this should be an option, just not the same repetitive one all the time.

It seems as though the lack of central play and penetrating through balls in established possession in the final third has gone backwards to the extreme dark old days of the horror that was FM19 - and that is so bad, I couldn't give a worse criticism if I tried.

I leave myself scratching my head, wondering why I still bother with this game. The development team really should put a hold on all other features until they finally get a handle on how to create a decent match engine. It is pure utter madness to buy this game straight out of the box anymore and really will require fabulous future match engine reviews and all necessary patches/updates installed before I'd ever consider spending money on this again. At this rate of development, I honestly don't expect this to occur before Football Manager 2030.

[dave7867]

3 hours ago, Tyburn said:

Personally, although a vocal supporter of this years release, I have never said that FM20 is without faults. In fact I’ve been very careful to continually state that of course there are issues. As with every release. We and SI are of course aware of this. I’ve said it before but SI will never be completely happy with a release. They are happy with the ME right now. This is based on what is possible. Not that it’s a finished article.

I completely agree that better dialogue should and could be had between the loyal fanbase and SI. The problems arise when neither group are listening to the other. Points maybe heard but are they being listened to? We as fans believe we are not being heard because issues appear to not be addressed, or SI seems to refuse to acknowledge them. This I believe is NOT true. SI will often come out and say “thank you for pointing this out to us, we are aware of this issue”. That is acknowledgment. If they sort it out immediately is something else. They simply cannot be expected to deal with all issues straight away. An element of patience is required, and when I say patience I’m thinking in terms of 3 years potentially before something could get around to being addressed. Of course when SI say they have acknowledged an issue it doesn’t mean they agree with it actually being one. It may never be worked on. It’s their game. They can move it in whichever direction they choose. Or they simply cannot change it at all because of how the game is designed, and lets face it the design of FM is absolutely superb otherwise none of us would be here.

Again, in them coming out and saying they are happy with the ME that doesn’t mean they don’t acknowledge that it still has issues. It’s simply that it’s fine for now and what they needed to achieve.

From the other perspective, highlighted by Neil in his ‘bombshell’ post, SI receive a huge amount of issues and criticism every year from us vocal fans. He inter-mated that a lot of it, as frustrating as it may be, is not going to be on their agenda at this moment in time. Fans need to follow the procedures put in place to be heard. There are only so many times, infinite it seems, that they can say that those procedures are the best way to have our issues and concerns addressed. Yet here we are continuing to bang our heads against walls with feedback that does nothing for anyone. Other than stir up frustration, on both sides. Believing that these procedures are the best way forward is another matter but these are the procedures of the moment and they need to be followed.

I very much like the idea of a locked thread where dialogue of what is top of SI’s agenda, that can be fairly regularly updated, so we the fans can get some understanding of what is being worked on. A ‘what we’re currently working on’ noticeboard type of thing. Of course SI do not need to do this, or it simply may not be possible as agendas switch and change. The list maybe enormous, however I believe it would help with the feedback thread not being clogged up with repetitive basic hate posts, and or, the same issues being raised over and over again.

As long as we can be as constructive as possible in our dialogue it will be heard. But basic “ME broken” posts will never get a response other than ignore. As Neil highlighted.

For a lot of us we’ve been playing the series since the CM days. I remember vocally years and years ago making a few suggestions to SI on features I think the game should incorporate. Simple things like goal of the month. Hooray. It’s of course now in the game. We are being heard. We just need to listen to each other a little more.

And again, we need to be patient.

how patient do you expect people to be?  june -july 

[Tyburn]

1 hour ago, dave7867 said:

how patient do you expect people to be?  june -july 

I have no expectations at all.

[sporadicsmiles]

Back on to actual feedback. Is anyone else experiencing the game hanging for a good 10-20 seconds at times? For example I just added a manager and it took around 20 seconds to proceed to the next screen. I notice this every now and then when clicking around. 

I wonder if this is an FM thing, or a my computer thing. 

[Tyburn]

4 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Back on to actual feedback. Is anyone else experiencing the game hanging for a good 10-20 seconds at times? For example I just added a manager and it took around 20 seconds to proceed to the next screen. I notice this every now and then when clicking around. 

I wonder if this is an FM thing, or a my computer thing. 

It always hangs for around 5 secs for me in player search when changing search criteria but I can accept that to be pc related. Haven’t noticed it elsewhere.

[Nathozz]

Same as Tyburn - my PC only ever hangs on player searching or attribute selection. Been like that for me for years though so I've just dealt with it.

[Novem9]

Specially for evidence reinstall FM and simulate a season without management of any team:

1. England has the equal count of goals, but top10 scores in 10% less. Conclusion - strikers score less, all team more
2. Spain in FM score more 1.63%, but best one is less on 31% (Messi, which score in testsave 19 goals). Top10 less in 8%
3. Italy. General goals of teams smaller in 18%. Best one scored more, but despite this top10 less in 6%
4. Germany. Smaller in 12%, but top10 and best one are equal. Need to check a balance of goals between strikers and other (how?)

Issue which I noticed as impression are confirmed by stats. Best strikers score smaller in compare of IRL. This could be link with the issue about a lot of goals from set-pieces and less goals from combinations.
There are no need a special gadget to notice how many chances are missed by strikers. 

I have a savefile if you want to see this.

 

Concerning freekicks and corners. I found a stats in game about this, but this is stats about direct shot only right? No take into account goals after corner/fk and few touches after this? 

 

upd - Real stats from season 18/19 for sure, no 19/20

Edited March 8, 2020 by Novem9

[Lucas]

Always useful to see what kinds of experiences people are getting in their own games, but just to clarify these kinds of stats are something we look at daily across our QA team (and are more detailed than this). 

13 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

Spain in FM score more 1.63%, but best one is less on 31% (Messi, which score in testsave 19 goals).

I can never forget the FM where people raised complaints Messi was scoring too much, right before IRL he started breaking all those records for goals scored  

[Novem9]

3 минуты назад, Lucas сказал:

these kinds of stats are something we look at daily across our QA team

Is it mean that you don't see wrong stats in your daily tests for strikers and other positions?

I see it every time when I loaded my saves, for me and AI. I want to play the same edtion as yours in this way

4 минуты назад, Lucas сказал:

(and are more detailed than this).

I created this by watching first half of Chelsea - Everton without payment, I would be very surprised if QA Team has equal of this

7 минут назад, Lucas сказал:

I can never forget the FM where people raised complaints Messi was scoring too much, right before IRL he started breaking all those records for goals scored

How is this related? I need to wait a season and if it will be low-scoring IRL so I will found FM20 much better than now?

[Lucas]

6 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

Is it mean that you don't see wrong stats in your daily tests for strikers and other positions?

I see it every time when I loaded my saves, for me and AI. I want to play the same edtion as yours in this way

I created this by watching first half of Chelsea - Everton without payment, I would be very surprised if QA Team has equal of this

There's always going to be variations in tests, specifically depending on the "Detail Level" settings you've set for the tests you are running. 

Other than simply explaining this is something we are constantly doing and reviewing, it's not possible for me to comment in relation to your own tests. 

8 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

How is this related? I need to wait a season and if it will be low-scoring IRL so I will found FM20 much better than now?

Over at least a season is a good start to draw some initial thoughts. Again though like I said, this is something we do across the team. We apply this to all leagues in the game and have reference to real life figures as well. Not just for goals scored, but all sorts of statistics in the match engine. 

Should bear in mind though there isn't an exact science, and sometimes some of the feedback such as a player overscoring, might end up happening in real life anyway  

It's a delicate balancing act and something we're always constantly working on. If you've taken the time to provide PKMs and examples then that helps most going forward, with things to prioritise etc that people are seeing most so we can address issues in future updates and versions of the game.

[Toonrock]

On 07/03/2020 at 15:49, Lucas said:

You've posted it multiple times already. It's not really adding anything to the discussion to be spamming it so it's been removed. 

Yes, and still it found curiosity from people (since it got downloaded several times). So hardly spamming nor is it irrelevant.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Toonrock

[Wavelberry]

I gave it a shot and enjoyed the Beta but post then the style of play in the ME has not been fun to watch for me. Changes to styles of play that I wanted to do weren't really visible in the ME and all the goals etc looked the same. For me this ME just doesn't pass the eye test and hasn't for the majority of this edition and ultimately, because of the way I play, I haven't been able to enjoy it. Lots of the changes outside of the ME have been great and I do look forward to seeing how they progress next year but I have shelved it and gone back to FM18, which obviously has its flaws, but I could always get the football I wanted out of my players (eventually).

One thing I might do next year is a bit more due diligence on the ME before buying. I have always pre-ordered and never regretted it as I always get a lot of joy out of FM and a lot of hours for ma moneh but with other things battling for my time and the changes outside the ME not really being big enough to make me feel FM18 is too far behind I can continue to play that and see what the lie of the land is next Christmas.

[TheInvisibleMan]

16 hours ago, Tyburn said:

For those still wondering ... just to highlight again that Lone ST’s can work well in FM20. Had him at Napoli also. Always played up front on his own. Sometimes as a CF, last two seasons mostly as an AF. He’s scored headers, he’s scored with his feet. He’s scored from pull backs, crosses, counters, through balls, a couple of corners, pens (a fair few in fairness last year). The guy, as we all know, is a machine! He did miss a crucial penalty in the Champions League final mind  Git.
 

I don’t post this for any other reason than to offer a little balance to the discussion.

How much of this was played on 20.4 though? 

I felt like there was an issue at the very start of the game, which then got fixed, but is now back to being an issue again.

I could post screenshots from my game of strikers doing very well too but they’d mostly be from 20.2 & 20.3 I think. I had Jordi Hiwula hit over 30 goals for my Coventry team in League 1 playing upfront on his own. As soon as I’ve updated to 20.4 though, they’re suddenly just not involved anymore. 

[kiwityke1983]

1 hour ago, Novem9 said:

Specially for evidence reinstall FM and simulate a season without management of any team:

1. England has the equal count of goals, but top10 scores in 10% less. Conclusion - strikers score less, all team more
2. Spain in FM score more 1.63%, but best one is less on 31% (Messi, which score in testsave 19 goals). Top10 less in 8%
3. Italy. General goals of teams smaller in 18%. Best one scored more, but despite this top10 less in 6%
4. Germany. Smaller in 12%, but top10 and best one are equal. Need to check a balance of goals between strikers and other (how?)

Issue which I noticed as impression are confirmed by stats. Best strikers score smaller in compare of IRL. This could be link with the issue about a lot of goals from set-pieces and less goals from combinations.
There are no need a special gadget to notice how many chances are missed by strikers. 

I have a savefile if you want to see this.

 

Concerning freekicks and corners. I found a stats in game about this, but this is stats about direct shot only right? No take into account goals after corner/fk and few touches after this? 

 

upd - Real stats from season 18/19 for sure, no 19/20

I've said before in the bugs forum that the ME does a great job of mirroring real life statistics but the way it chooses to to do that does not replicate real life football. Or football that feels real. Or football that feels as a result of your tactical choices. 

By this I mean I often get the sneaking suspicion that my striker has just missed 7 CCC's because if he didn't we'd be smashing the real world statistics every season and the ME can't have that. I pretty much always play very attacking football and have always accepted this comes with defensive risks as in I know we will get hammered occasionally. That never really happened in FM20. I'd average about 1.7-2 goals per game and the AI would average 0.5-07. This was pretty much within 0.2 goals either way constantly over numerous seasons. It always felt artificially forced and never a natural result of my tactical setup. (its also possibly because the AI in FM20 thinks ultra-defensive is literally it's only choice). 

In FM18 I'm currently averaging around 3 goals per game and conceding 1.5 goals per game. Exactly what I'd expect from my style of tactics. It feels much more dynamic and natural and a result of my tactical choices. (Birmingham in second have by far the best defence conceding less than a goal a game but barely scoring more than a goal a game). 

This feeling of not really having much impact, that lack of dynamism. The feeling of this is just playing to achieve some real world stat rather than creating a genuine footballing universe is why FM20 is no longer installed on my computer. 

* I fully accept that the above could well just be faulty perception on my part, but I've played enough games in enough leagues with enough different formations and styles and very much always had this feeling with all of them. 

[Nathozz]

 

Nice little play and through ball. Is that Sonny Graham or De Bruyne? 

 

[rp1966]

52 minutes ago, kiwityke1983 said:

I've said before in the bugs forum that the ME does a great job of mirroring real life statistics but the way it chooses to to do that does not replicate real life football. Or football that feels real. Or football that feels as a result of your tactical choices. 

By this I mean I often get the sneaking suspicion that my striker has just missed 7 CCC's because if he didn't we'd be smashing the real world statistics every season and the ME can't have that. I pretty much always play very attacking football and have always accepted this comes with defensive risks as in I know we will get hammered occasionally. That never really happened in FM20. I'd average about 1.7-2 goals per game and the AI would average 0.5-07. This was pretty much within 0.2 goals either way constantly over numerous seasons. It always felt artificially forced and never a natural result of my tactical setup. (its also possibly because the AI in FM20 thinks ultra-defensive is literally it's only choice). 

In FM18 I'm currently averaging around 3 goals per game and conceding 1.5 goals per game. Exactly what I'd expect from my style of tactics. It feels much more dynamic and natural and a result of my tactical choices. (Birmingham in second have by far the best defence conceding less than a goal a game but barely scoring more than a goal a game). 

This feeling of not really having much impact, that lack of dynamism. The feeling of this is just playing to achieve some real world stat rather than creating a genuine footballing universe is why FM20 is no longer installed on my computer. 

* I fully accept that the above could well just be faulty perception on my part, but I've played enough games in enough leagues with enough different formations and styles and very much always had this feeling with all of them. 

This pretty much mirrors my feelings about scorelines.  The outcome of any game should be entirely an emergent phenomenon, but it often feels that there are artificial constraints in place to stop outcomes getting too far from RL averages rather than being true to what has happened on the pitch.  

The trouble is SI are trying to satisfy two conflicting audiences - those who focus on how the individual game plays, who want what they are seeing as good chances to be scored at a rate commensurate with the quality of those chances, and those who look at the overall stats and complain whenever it starts getting a few %age points away from points or goal tallies of the RL league they are comparing with.

Personally, I think the stats obsessives are going to end up killing the game.  The moment you press continue for the very first time in a game you enter an alternative football universe. You literally cannot play a season in FM that matches the teams in the real world because even if you set no transfers in the first window it still allows loans, and most AI teams will take advantage. That's before probability has its way with match results, injuries and manager sackings. 

The expectation should be for 'pretty close to IRL' in the first season, and increasing drift thereafter.

Ultimately it comes down to how realistically did each individual game play out and that is where we have a problem at the moment, because there is a disconnect between quality of chances and chances taken. Where that is coming from is where the forum goes round in circles of speculation. But statistical averages and comparisons with the real world will only allow you a 'ballpark' guide to whether you're getting things right. Averages and league level stats can hide a lot of anomalous behaviour in the ME for the individual games that make up those higher level stats.

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by rp1966

[Gegenklaus]

24 minutes ago, Nathozz said:

 

Nice little play and through ball. Is that Sonny Graham or De Bruyne? 

 

Fantastic. Great goal. A great example of a third man run. Lovely. 

[dannyfc]

6 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

In regards to feedback, we've made this thread the focal point to post and it'll get read by members of SI staff and our moderating team.

Neil, does that mean this thread is predominantly how the developers gage the reception of the ME? 

If not, beyond the developers own assessment, how do you judge this?

What I don't understand is you specifically mentioned the criticism here represents a small minority, which is fair in terms of absolute numbers, but you could also argue you it's a decent sample size and representative of the wider user base. 

From a business point of view I understand sales, active users, and review scores will always be the main metric of how successful an iteration will be. However I think it's fair to say that isn't always the best indicator of quality or customer loyalty.

I'm sympathetic in the sense that generally customer feedback is always overwhelming negative, and it can be difficult to remove the signal noise of people that would never be truly satisfied.

But as a football fan I just can't get my head around how anyone could genuinely watch the ME and feel it's a good representation of the game. The game as a package definitely isn't 'broken', but compared to previous years on the pitch it's undeniably a huge regression. The lack of central play, absence of 1-2s, zero physicality, poor striker movement, the over reliance on crosses, long-shots and set-pieces to balance out scorelines. 

For me, what would be great is almost a developer blog that could discuss these issues and give more transparency of the on-going work under the hood to address this. I think a lot of the fanbase would be more content if there was an acknowledgement that the issues raised are being worked on, rather than a perception that its 'good enough' to generate the required sales figure.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lucas]

1 minute ago, dannyfc said:

Neil, does that mean this thread is predominantly how the developers gage the reception of the ME? 

If not, beyond the developers own assessment, how do you judge this?

Predominantly with regards to the forum. We use the thread to gauge the reception of the whole game, not just the match engine. 

We also do judge reception based on many other sources as well (including internal discussions and things of that nature), but in the main when looking for feedback on the forum, this is the thread we tend to look at. 

Likewise for bugs, the place we look for those to deal with them is the bugs forum.

It just means that these places are where you can sure that a post is read by a member of the team, whereas elsewhere that's less likely because there's a lot of activity and we are not able to read every post in every thread. 

[danstam]

Watching the Manchester derby, is it really that dissimilar to the type of play people are describing on FM? Man Utd defend the central spaces, forcing City to constantly pass the ball wide where there is space, often resulting in an aimless cross; there isn't exactly a tonne of central play except for when Man Utd have space on the counter, which you absolutely see on FM. And a set piece goal to boot.

My gripe isn't so much with the people complaining about what they see on FM, because it's largely accurate. Rather, I disagree that FM isn't real football in its current state, because it seems to reflect real life football quite well, except for perhaps excessive chance creation and such on FM. I'm just not sure where people find frequent real-life examples of teams cutting through the centre of the pitch like butter when the opponents are parking the bus. This logically only happens when there is lots of space to play through, either on the counter or in an end-to-end game between two attack-minded/aggressive pressing teams.

[dannyfc]

1 minute ago, Lucas said:

Predominantly with regards to the forum. We use the thread to gauge the reception of the whole game, not just the match engine. 

We also do judge reception based on many other sources as well (including internal discussions and things of that nature), but in the main when looking for feedback on the forum, this is the thread we tend to look at. 

Likewise for bugs, the place we look for those to deal with them is the bugs forum.

It just means that these places are where you can sure that a post is read by a member of the team, whereas elsewhere that's less likely because there's a lot of activity and we are not able to read every post in every thread. 

Thanks Lucas - but how does that reconcile with the previous post by Neil that acknowledged the heightened criticism in this thread yet dismisses it as a minority?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't get how it can simultaneously be the primary source of feedback, while also not being indicative of the wider userbase. 

 

[Demosisto]

8 minutes ago, danstam said:

Watching the Manchester derby, is it really that dissimilar to the type of play people are describing on FM? Man Utd defend the central spaces, forcing City to constantly pass the ball wide where there is space, often resulting in an aimless cross; there isn't exactly a tonne of central play except for when Man Utd have space on the counter, which you absolutely see on FM. And a set piece goal to boot.

My gripe isn't so much with the people complaining about what they see on FM, because it's largely accurate. Rather, I disagree that FM isn't real football in its current state, because it seems to reflect real life football quite well, except for perhaps excessive chance creation and such on FM. I'm just not sure where people find frequent real-life examples of teams cutting through the centre of the pitch like butter when the opponents are parking the bus. This logically only happens when there is lots of space to play through, either on the counter or in an end-to-end game between two attack-minded/aggressive pressing teams.

The difference is in FM20, Man City would have had 10+ shots by now to show for their possession, when in reality they've only had one. Crosses are far more effective in the ME and also Man City would rain down long shots from outside the box. 

Also if you saw how threatening Man U are on the break today, it's because the midfield four pushed forward and capitalised on the spaces left by the City defense, and occasional mistake. Also they look vulnerable to through balls for Martial to run on to. All of the aforementioned I never see in the ME simply because the defending is too organised and flawless in the game at the moment, and complete lack of movement and creativity in the final third. 

EDIT: Martial has had 3 shots in 45 minutes, I barely see my strikers get more than one shot (that's not a header) in 90 minutes in the game.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Demosisto

[Lucas]

5 minutes ago, dannyfc said:

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't get how it can simultaneously be the primary source of feedback, while also not being indicative of the wider userbase. 

 

Primary Source of Feedback on the forum, as I said: 

5 minutes ago, dannyfc said:

Predominantly with regards to the forum. We use the thread to gauge the reception of the whole game, not just the match engine. 

We also do judge reception based on many other sources as well (including internal discussions and things of that nature), but in the main when looking for feedback on the forum, this is the thread we tend to look at. 

That doesn't mean we take the feedback as being representative of the wider audience, because this place is just one segment of that. For that, is where we judge reception based on many other sources as well. Reviews, social media, surveys etc are just examples of other channels we look at as well.

[danstam]

6 minutes ago, Demosisto said:

The difference is in FM20, Man City would have had 10+ shots by now to show for their possession, when in reality they've only had one. Crosses are far more effective in the ME and also Man City would rain down long shots from outside the box. 

Also if you saw how threatening Man U are on the break today, it's because the midfield four pushed forward and capitalised on the spaces left by the City defense, and occasional mistake. Also they look vulnerable to through balls for Martial to run on to. All of the aforementioned I never see in the ME simply because the defending is too organised and flawless in the game at the moment, and complete lack of movement and creativity in the final third. 

EDIT: Martial has had 3 shots in 45 minutes, I barely see my strikers get more than one shot (that's not a header) in 90 minutes in the game.

I agree partially, I think this is why gegenpressing tactics are so overpowered, because using this style I think you can create space the way Man Utd have using this style in the game (even though I wouldn't describe Man Utd as gegenpressing irl). There's definitely too many shots in the game. I think individual attributes in this game are definitely more important than ever before, because for example playing as Chelsea Abraham fits the advanced forward role really well in terms of attributes and he scores tonnes of goals and gets lots of chances in my game, but Batshuayi, who lacks key attributes in off-the-ball movement and such can barely get a sniff in the game. I just disagree that there is a complete lack of movement and creativity, but it is arguably too hard to achieve in the game. With a good advanced forward you can definitely get good striker movement though (I've also had unusually great success with target men, and they can score a lot with their feet and even get in behind). 

I personally think the more realistic the game gets, the better. But there is a real question as to whether this should be the goal. After all, most football matches irl can be described as boring.

[Deisler26]

Noticed a heck of a lot more driver crashes of FM20 with this new update.

I'm kinda anal about my graphics driver updates and I check everytime I turn the laptop on.

But I've had 5 crashes so far since 20.4

[majesticeternity]

29 minutes ago, danstam said:

My gripe isn't so much with the people complaining about what they see on FM, because it's largely accurate. Rather, I disagree that FM isn't real football in its current state, because it seems to reflect real life football quite well, except for perhaps excessive chance creation and such on FM. I'm just not sure where people find frequent real-life examples of teams cutting through the centre of the pitch like butter when the opponents are parking the bus. This logically only happens when there is lots of space to play through, either on the counter or in an end-to-end game between two attack-minded/aggressive pressing teams.

I agree, and this is really what I was trying to point out in my post before. It really is a decent ME in representing football on the whole. 

I think the problem lies more in the lack of variation in play styles and tactics on the AI side. When 90% of teams play narrow and deep(if not attacking), or with the same formation, it gets boring and central play is hardly ever available. 

When most AI managers play 1 of 3 tactics, and generally have poor ability to adapt in match, it then becomes a repeat feeling of playing the same game over and over. Thus the many “it’s boring, I have no passion to play” comments. 

But using my Smarter AI mod, where formations are much more varied, Ai makes more use of 3 strikers, scout opponents better, and managers constantly adapt in match, it’s a great game I can’t wait to play. 

Don’t get me wrong, SI has let everyone down to varying extents, and the issues with the ME and other areas of the game are proven and disappointing. 

But some changes in variation can do a world of good to help some enjoy the game more. Scouting teams becomes important, so I can prepare for an odd formation, or feel the impending doom of 3 strikers when I’m the weak team. I have to pay attention during the match, to see that they’ve done their research too, and are marking my winger with the most assists, or that 35 mins in, they’ve switched from 3 defenders to 5 and pushed players back to defend us. Or that at 80mins, they’re losing and pushing for a goal, so put wingers, fullbacks, and added 3 strikers to attack. Or see they’ve kept on their best player, a fullback on a yellow card at 55% energy in OT. They’ve instead subbed on a striker, searching for a goal. I instruct my players to play down the side of their tired fullback to push for a mistake or red card. But they’re on to me, and move him to Defensive midfielder, and sub on a fresh fullback.  

I get games with set pieces, others with just crosses, others with pressing, others with sitting back, many games with central play, beautiful through balls, one-twos, spins and tricks, some with balls over the top, some playing through the middle, or overlapping fullbacks, or a packed defense, with a low tempo and direct play, tiki taka, all out attack, etc. it’s a different game every time and it’s a joy. 

[Touristas3]

3 hours ago, Lucas said:

It's a delicate balancing act and something we're always constantly working on. If you've taken the time to provide PKMs and examples then that helps most going forward, with things to prioritise etc that people are seeing most so we can address issues in future updates and versions of the game.

@Lucas, are there any specific stats that you would say are way off RL and we should keep an eye on?

Your top3 priorities for example to achieve better correlation in the future.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Touristas3