wazzaflow10

Yeah I mean that's the Treq's role though. He's not really looking to mark and it sounds like the AI decided to try and hit you on the counter. If it's that lopsided they probably have a choice of do we park the bus or go for route one. Are they typically a side that plays that as a counter attacking team? Either way the counter is definitely on if you lose possession given how high you're pushing. But I think we're back to teams pushing this high should really result in being threatened/punished more than they are if they're not fit or technically skilled enough to commit 9 men forward. It's still nice to see attacking play use the open space that would exist in a 4-4-2 but maybe its too much?

Think at the bottom they have further ME updates. Probably hard to classify what exactly they're changing at the moment which is why it hasn't been released yet. Could be anything from better marking to turning strikers down to substitution and rotation so teams aren't knackered by halftime imo. I'd think nerfing or boosting attributes would be a last resort solution to cover up a flaw they can't reasonably fix. The injury bug must have been a simpler fix i.e. some legacy code got left in or a value was turned down.

I dunno about that. If you were an extreme underdog or had strong counter attacking principles leaving 2 v 2 up top seems reasonably when the ball close to your own goal. Any quick change of possession and you've set yourself up for a potent counter. Really jus tthink it depends on how much defensive risk you're willing to take. It could be very beneficial to leave a DM alone if he's a poor passer or lacks flair. You'll probably spend a long time without the ball but its not the craziest thing ever. I'd be more concerned that my CB's aren't closer to the striker shooting especially when I have a numerical advantage in that strata.

Definitely worth reporting in either the match engine or animations bug forum that one.

What highlight level are you playing on? If you're playing with key or extended highlights the game isn't really going to show you an unremarkable throw in or corner where the defender headed or hoofed the ball clear of danger and the play gets bogged down in midfield as teams wrest for control of possession. Maybe there's a request that the ME selects a few more pure defensive highlights to balance out attacking ones just to keep you off balance on what to expect. But I'm sure people would complain "why is this a highlight?"

Seems like you're damned if its internal, damned if its external. Internal teams would be more familiar with the code/expectations of how the game should play but miss something fresh eyes would pick up on. In my experience QA devs tend to be on the more junior side (but not always) so you might get a little bit of deference to the full development team. Not sure how that works for you guys but I typically see the good QA devs move over to full developer roles so they get to work on new tasks rather than fixing/reviewing someone else's ideas. External teams give you fresh eyes but you have to spend a lot of time explaining why you did x,y,z and not a,b,c. Plus they're consultants at the end of the day and probably don't want to be too harsh so you continue using them in the future. There's always going to be bugs in software even with the most strenuous of stress tests. We can't even get VAR right in real life (I'm pretty sure the match officials call it a feature too!). Hoping you guys can give us a few tweaks soon to end this chapter of FM on a good note.

In FM23 the Premier League and La Liga (the only two i tested - multiple times taking an average of 4 seasons) there were not enough goals scored by away teams. It was almost comical how the game would make away teams miss open chances they'd otherwise score if they were home. Top of the table teams were regularly posting 10 goals or fewer conceded at home over a full season. I'm not disagreeing that the number of goals is maybe slightly on the high side in certain situations for FM24 but FM23 was not perfect by any imagination. I'd bet if they fix the OP throw in chances and reduce the number of corner to edge of box goals it would at least fix the amount scored. I'd hate to see them nerf scoring to the degree 1v1's become impossible or strikers start hitting the corner flags with clear cut chances.

I've always felt the core of scouting and transfer policy is easy because you have perfect information about every player's and staff member's attributes. I'd like a selectable option at startup (for people who don't want to play this way) to introduce some variation in the attributes your shown on a player/staff profile page. Nothing about the game would change under the hood with respect to the match engine. Actual player attributes would still be used so this is only affecting what we can observe. For a player observable attributes would be anchored mainly to a scout or coach's Judging Player Attributes rating with 1 being very inaccurate and 20 being very accurate (but not perfect). Additionally player form can influence the attributes. A player getting higher ratings would gradually improve and tie into a coach or scout's opinion of the player and their level. For instance when a coach says player X is now seen as a Premier League leading player the attributes should fall within the leading Premier League CA range (Just reiterating if the player's CA is actually a championship level that does not change for the purpose of the match engine. This is not a Dynamic PA discussion). Likewise if a player has a bad spell of form their attributes will gradually decline. Training rating also should have an influence similar to form. There could be other things that influence observable attributes but these I think are the main three. In the past the challenge I've had with this idea is it now creates a meta strategy of hoovering up scouts with high JPA. I have two separate ideas to prevent this. The first would be staff attributes are also subject to the same observable inaccuracies as player attributes. Factors that would influence a staff member's attributes would be chiefly based on reputation with secondary influence from a Director of Football's rating on staff attributes. So compiling a team of 20 JPA staff would be impossible. The second idea would require a revamp of scouting and how scouts view jobs. It would be creating a hierarchy below chief scout ranging from continental scout, regional scout, national scout, local scout. Established high rated scouts would expect to be continental or chief scouts limiting how many you could feasibly hire. A top level club would only have 3-4 continental level scouts while a league 2 team would have none. These scouts would be reviewing players you've shortlisted, marked as top targets, or asked to directly scout after receiving a recommendation from a lower level scout. They would not be assignable directly to a scouting focus. Scouts would also expect to be promoted as they improved their abilities and will seek opportunities outside of their current team to advance to the next tier with more pay and "responsibility". Curious if anyone has any thoughts or ideas to flesh this out more or offer alternate ways to reduce the amount of perfect information in the game to create a more dynamic/challenging world.

Is it possible to modify this skin to instead of fully attribute-less to have inaccurate attributes based on your scout/coach's judging player ability (i.e. 1 is very inaccurate 20 is very accurate) or is that too far under the hood for skinning?

Question I've had for a while. For PI's if you tell a player to mark a specific position what does that actually do? Does it create zonal coverage or just tell the player to mark the opposition that is in that position if there is one?

Man City Good luck overachieving when you're already at the top.

My best position was CB and I played it until I was 16. I am 5'6. Besides if you play 3 at the back you could get away with someone shorter if you played them as a Libero. It might be unconventional but the game would be boring if players could only be comprised of a small set of templates. This guy is like a shorter version of Cruyff probably play him like that.

I went back and looked at FM 20 and 21 to see the dev cycle. There were release day updates although both games were released closer to the end of the month. That kind of coincides with their pre-winter update patch that has been happening the last few years. Some of the issues may have been known and worked on prior to beta release in 20 and 21. I can understand people thinking things will be changed for release but 3 weeks is not nearly enough time to review, test/reproduce, fix, QA fix, merge, QA merge, and release for a game of this scale and complexity. I'd like to think they're targeting a late Nov/early Dec patch for the high priority items. I think the beta is invaluable research time for them to get a large swath of user behavior feedback to prioritize bugs much sooner and ensure the game is working as intended upon release. I'd hate for them to stop a beta release because a few people here use it as an opportunity to take cheap shots at the developers while contributing nothing in terms of concrete feedback or bug reports.

Why not? Maybe the keeper was expecting a cross or it got deflected and he was wrong footed? There's been loads of goals scored in 24 where I've gone how did that go in? only to see it was deflected and the keeper had no chance. This might be a 1 in 1000 shot but it not like it should never happen. If every AI player plays perfectly nothing will happen.

I prefer Chris Waddle's version of this quote from World Cup 98

Yeah there's always the ME interpretation of what is it trying to show you. I've found the beta version so far to be super encouraging in getting my team to position themselves on the ball how I want. Defensively I think you have to get creative with man marking to account for the areas where players can pop up now. I often find myself taking one winger and marking an IWB or DM's to rebalance the central midfield. I don't know if that would work well IRL but it keeps a defender free to react to breakdowns or quick changes of possession (i.e. outlet). I do wish you'd see more fluid switching of marks/passing off attackers as the ball moves from flank to flank.

Pretty sure they're looking for developers if you want to try your hand at fixing it.

Well it just makes the pre-match tunnel questions more exciting when you reply "goals change games whenever they're scored" Yeah that's what I figured but anything more detailed? It makes it harder to fix imo for them because its not just turning the conversion down across the board. And to reply to the other thread - Hoping for a patch today that says "oops positioning/concentration attribute wasn't factored in correctly in the ME" players will now be more cognizant of defensive duties and not abandon the middle of the park.

Any idea why the Bundesliga(s) are negative? Seems like Bundesliga 2 is actually in line with # of goals even if conversion is high.

I agree. I don't think it's an attacking issue as much as its a defensive awareness issue. When teams play a narrow 4-3-2-1 or 4-3-1-2 and overload the middle the defensive team does not pick up the front three effectively at all. I don't want them to nerf attacking play. Just make players follow their mark much better or be more aware of who they should be marking (especially if they are told to man mark a player/position).

Wow Pep made it all the way to 2043! Did you run this on full detail or QME?

I think its more the ones that occur around the box. They turn into little one-twos and defenders don't mark or track runs very well despite having a numerical advantage. It's definitely been logged for the past 2-3 iterations though its progressed from a throw-in > pass back > cross > goal to at least a few passes before a player streaks across the edge of the area unchallenged. If they made the defenders look more competent I think it'd be less of an issue even if the outcomes remain.

Its your tactics, mate. (/s in case it's not obvious)

My personal favorite of this is the Man Utd board unhappy at how many scouts you have when the game starts and won't approve more so you slowly lose scouts as they retire. I have no idea why it wouldn't let you keep the same number of scouts the real life board approves.