TheHuss
-
Posts
128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by TheHuss
-
-
This game is really infuriating. Just when I think I've come to terms with the things that I should just accept don't work, I get this... It seems like the most unimportant and clear-cut goals are checked by VAR. However, Manchester Derby, a goal that looked off to me in real time, and not even a check. I've used a ridiculously thick line to show just how clearly this is off-side according to the in-game engine. Why wasn't this off-side? Why was their no VAR check? Issues like this makes me understand why some users think there's in-game scripting, and once again makes me wonder how much users can actually do to make a difference in-game...
3 -
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, akkm said:Isn't he saying he didn't buy it for 3 years then bought into SI's 'false' promises and marketing drive re fm24. So that's an example where a person did exercise willpower and not buy it for several years then bought it last year (not sure how he felt about it) and then was won over by what appears to be a rather cynical effort by SI to convince people they had changed their recent ways but in essence, didn't really all.
I'm 100% in agreement with you on the not buying it is ultimate message of course. I do get your point and I'm all for personal responsibility, but fortunately or unfortunatetly that's not how the world works.
Re the demo...for sure good it's there but how many are aware of it...how many actually download it and whilst it is admirable SI offer it in the first place I'm sure they have the stats of how many download the demo.
Then can they track of those who downloaded it...how many bought the game/didn't buy the game. So if the numbers that didn't buy the game were low...do they see it as worthwhile as it translates to sales. Would they take the demo down if they found it many didn't buy after trying the demo.
It may well work in their favour to offer the demo sales wise.
Also isn't player/club development one of the complaints that crops up...a 6 month demo would be inconclusive on that.
Its certainly worth a look though and I've done that myself in the past.
The other thing of course the demo would have a specific match engine in it. One year I downloaded it...it wasn't the release engine when I downloaded it as the demo wasn't updated in time/synched with release engine. On top of this the match engine is subject to quite large changes in playing styles over the yearly cycle so if one bought it based on match engine in demo and it changes in the yearly cycle this undermines the demo in terms of match engine consistency on exposure to the demo...ie you're not getting what you were able to test initially on the demo.
Either way 2 things (or more) can be true at one time...there can be a demo available to test for a user and SI could change their ways in their yearly cycle anyway. On top of that what was the need to go down the road of what could be deemed a cycnical marketing ploy this year...particularly reading miles blog with the holding hands up on fm23 stuff.
I mean SI didn't roll out the marketing spiel this year to improve human rights, solve world hunger or end all wars did they. Thats not exactly the purpose of a marketing for a video game.
It was a clear effort to assure people who had become cynical with SIs recent efforts that they acknowledged things weren't as good as they could have been before and intimating that things would improve from there but as many have pointed out that hasn't happened. So its absolutely understandable people will react as they have done this year. SI spiel/marketing is an effort to influence people's decisions and elements of this year's was to affect their willpower in terms of disarming them to buy a product they had grown cycnical of.
Providing a demo shouldn't be a green light or excuse to embark on a cycle that has continued in recent years and say ah its ok SI...there's a demo...its not on you it's the customers that are to blame. Thats a tad cynical to say the least.
Having a go at someone who bought the game but excusing SI for elements Miles himself acknowledged weren't as good as they could have been isn't particularly helpful as I'm sure you well know.
Its akin (however loosely 🙂) to cynical efforts by the fossil fuel industries to put responsibility and helping with climate change back on individuals to take responsibility off them and knowing well its not realistic at individual level. Same as leveling it at individuals re buying FM and taking onus off SI to get their own ducks in a row and themselves in order.
Like what happens then...same as with climate change...sure some individuals will act but won't be enough to effect change to climate with everything fossil fuel industry is doing anyway...so fossil fuel will continue to do as they do without changing their behaviour improve things.
Similarly not enough customers will choose not to buy FM to effect change on SI policies and therefore SI will continue to do as they do without changing things to improve.The demo certainly isn't going to cause enough people to test it out and not buy to cause SI to change.
I acknowledge buying a product to enjoy is a choice versus a need for energy but its more the context of cynically putting onus back on customer when it's not a realistic proposition for enough to act to change and make SI change as a result.
Again 2 things can be true at one time...if everyone stopped buying the game that's a message SI will absolutely stand up and listen to and act on it. ..but also SI recent practices and this years cycnical efforts can be called out.
Plus what is that saying about SI anyway...once they get the cash they're happy to continue down the path of a lesser offering and only if enough stop buying it they'll act...not a great reflection of them is it
This is an excellent and balanced take on the situation. The demo is no panacea, same as early access in the past, so often things are changed by the developers with no real option to opt in or out of the updates that the demo or early access/Beta that is rather enjoyable changes into something frustratingly buggy.
Another issue is that some problems only crop up after a couple of seasons. If SI assure customers that issues like newgens, AI squad building, a balanced transfer market, youth and nation reputations etc have been fixed, a potential customer plays the demo and enjoys those six months, or whatever it is these days ,and then decides to pay full-price for the game on the basis of promises by the developers and then finds out that the promises weren't fulfilled... What is the customer's recourse then? SI and Sega have the customer's hard-earned money and the customer potentially has a product that was bought under false pretenses. Nobody can think this is fair? What is the solution here? If a customer can prove that a promised feature is missing/broken, should they be entitled to a refund at any point during the game cycle? Why not? I'm sure there's something that covers the developers in the EULA, but I'm talking about fairness not fine print...
13 -
- Popular Post
On 13/02/2024 at 20:11, janrzm said:3-0 up at half time, Bring on a couple of younger talents (Breakthrough Prospect/Impact Sub) for some game time. Both Balanced Personality, 13/14 Determination. Greeted by "Would've preferred to stay on the bench". I don't know what triggers this but it seems way off the mark. Hungry young players, 45 minutes with no pressure, don't want to play. I just can't see it,
One of the major problems with SI is their inability or unwillingness to communicate with loyal customers. So much could be clarified by explaining what these incredibly vague statements mean in-game. Either communicate what the words mean or, even better, put some thought into how language is used in-game. If players could logically infer useful information from the text we're reading it would be an interesting game dynamic. As it is, and has been for years, it's just an annoyance and most communication is click and hope
14 -
You're going to drive yourselves up the wall trying to work this out. SI have acknowledged that this isn't working as intended. It doesn't make sense because it is breaking for some people at some points. SI is looking into it for the next patch, let's hope they fix this basic that seems to have worked more often than not in the past.
1 -
There are numerous threads on recruitment focuses. SI have acknowledged that they aren't working as intended for everyone and that they are looking into it. Hopefully these nonsensical occurrences and more will be dealt with in the the final patch.
1 -
On 12/02/2024 at 18:30, Dagenham_Dave said:
To get the best from recruitment focuses, you need to, you know, actually focus on something. I see so many people just having open wide parameters and expecting hundreds of results. If you're doing that, you're as well just using player search and scouting players individually.
Narrow your search down. Don't just search for players 15-18 without any other focus. Give your scouts instructions on the type of player to look for, otherwise they'll have no clue who to recommend.
I've not had any issues with scouting in this year's game, and this is the method I use.
That makes sense, unfortunately it goes totally counter to the official advice in both of the threads in the Bugs Forum. The communication there said that having too narrow parameters is the reason users are seeing little to no results from recruitment focuses.
It's great that scouting is working for you, but the Bugs Forum shows that there are known issues with scouting. Personally, I've noticed that sometimes recruitment focuses work, sometimes they don't. All in the same save game and with the same staff.
2 -
It may be flavor text, but then SI should clarify what is decorative and what actually has an impact on game dynamics. There is so much vagueness that unless there are ulterior motives for not doing, SI could save themselves a lot of headaches by just saying what is within and what is outside of players' control.
An example of clarity would be the ongoing issue that some have with fatigue. People have gotten very heated and mean while debating this topic, and although there's no excuse for throwing tantrums online, SI could easily put a stop to the debate by clarifying whether or not is working as intended.
I think my point boils down to FM and its creators just not being very good at communicating, in-game and about the game. As someone who has played this series since the late 90s when the games were far less complex, it seems like SI hasn't seen the need to increase the amount of information they share. It doesn't make much sense to me.
(Also, I really don't want to carry on grading exams
)
1 -
2 hours ago, forameuss said:
To me that reads fine, albeit a little awkward. I would read it as agent bluster in that there isn't currently any interest, so if you move now, you can secure the signature before that interest "inevitably" comes in. Of course, that interest would likely never materialise, but it doesn't seem too much of a reach to suggest it's just a bullish agent.
I'm two days and five hours into grading English exams, so I can't help picking up on errors of concord or logical coherence. We could debate the grammar all day, however the real problem seems to be that there is no clear or logical link between the words used by the A.I and the messages the user is meant to infer from them.
If we take your plausible understanding to be correct, then the inference should be that this is a potentially problematic agent who will bring nothing but trouble down the line. There should then be either attributes or text that confirms this inference. From there it is up to the user to decide what course to take. However, in my opinion there is too much of this game that is words for the sake of wordiness or vagueness that adds nothing to the user experience. This may partly explain why many are bored, confounded, or infuriated with press conferences and player interactions. In such a text heavy game there should be more attention paid to what the text actually means. SI surely has enough resources to hire people with the required language skills...
1 -
After inquiring into the demands of my own player for a contract renewal, the agent suggests I "move quickly to gain a jump on other clubs" right after saying "there's no offers or interest currently registered" in the player.
This could be one of many really awkward phrasings in the game, however if something behind the scenes is making contract negotiations take place as if there is urgency or the players have other clear options then it points to something really not working and potentially skewing the way conditions of negotiations. This makes me worry about other poor phrasings in the game and if they are indicating underlying mechanics that aren't working correctly.
There are numerous other instances in which I have just assumed that the developers have not allocated sufficient resources to ensuring that the in-game text has been professionally edited/proof-read. Is it just poor writing or does it indicate that things are working incorrectly. In this instance an agent potentially playing hard-ball because he thinks that I'm desperate to extend his contract as a matter of urgency. The use of the word "desperate" in many interactions is just totally inappropriate. Again, I assumed poor writing. However, does the managers apparent desperation impact negotiations?
0 -
Has this been implemented? I've yet to see an attribute change icon and can't find a way to toggle it on and off if that's how it is supposed to function.
0 -
3 minutes ago, XaW said:
we mods don't know what SI are working on or not. No inside knowledge here, sorry.
Thank you for clarifying that. I don't want to be hyperbolic, but just knowing this provides a lot of context for what is and what isn't said in some of these threads. Hopefully information like this will also make people think twice before spewing insults and throwing tantrums, though I'm not holding my breath.
Has an AMA or similar ever been held with a representative of the main points of contact between SI Games and the community? Maybe one person from Mods, one from testing, one from the developers. It would possibly give community members who are prone to outbursts information that would give them pause.
0 -
Sad thing is OP raises some good points, just in a way that nobody would, nor should take seriously.
The issue with recruitment focuses not working at all seems to be affecting many players. Mods have acknowledged the issue but that's about it. It's obviously not something that everyone is experiencing, but in the interests of not being like the OP, I'd hope that mods and the rest of the community can imagine the frustration of players/customers who are unable to make use of a key game mechanic.
I know that the potential complexity of fixing this aspect of the game is more than I could imagine. However, in an information vacuum misinformation and frustration spreads. I would be really grateful if someone from SI/the mods could acknowledge that it's being worked on, there is no expected timeline for it to be fixed (if that is the case), and maybe provide an informed perspective that there are no known workarounds for now. This may negate a lot of frustration. It's not the end of the world for me, but any of these steps would have saved me some time and a bit of unnecessary frustration.
Hope everyone has an enjoyable weekend.
0 -
The worrying thing to take away from this is that it's not about identifying bugs, it's that SI know about them before release and still knowingly release products in the state that they do.
If this is the case, which the mod has all but explicitly stated, then surely it would be fair for SI to announce the known bugs at release in the same way that SI loudly touts each version's "new features"...
6 -
1 hour ago, thomas_e said:
Is this a joke?
A real world simulator reflecting real world realities. Why on earth would it be a joke? Is there anyone else you’d like the game not to cater to?
7 -
Are these out of work managers taking contracts that seem incorrect? Regardless, Klopp seems totally off
0 -
He wasn't transfer listed, he came to me saying that he wanted to leave on a free and I went along with it. It doesn't make sense that he takes the first offer when it's less than his current deal. He's playing regularly and well for me, and it seems logical to wait for better offers from other teams, or renegotiate with me (not that I would necessarily want him to stay).
0 -
He wanted to leave and I went along with it, it's his last big contract, he should be at his peak age and CA-wise, and to add to the scenario PSG will have a Mbappe sized gap in their wage bill. I don't think it's realistic at all that Pogba goes for significantly less wages and less squad importance than he's for a free transfer. The whole point of leaving on a free is to get the highest wage and signing on fee. He definitely should not be earning 100k per week less and a middling signing on fee at the age of 28. I can't think of many, if any cases where this would happen irl.
0 -
I've noticed this in numerous versions of FM, but this one seems really stark and I couldn't find discussions of the issue. There is no way in my mind that Pogba should be signing for a club like PSG for significantly lower wages, lower squad importance and with an "average" loyalty bonus. I'm not bothered in this case because I want him out, but in terms of game balance this seems like it could skew things. Bug? I can't think of a logical alternative...
0 -
This thread is absolutely hilarious. Deserves a shout out in the Athletic or the next book on FM
0 -
I'm getting this too, been an issue since the Beta
0 -
On 22/02/2021 at 13:54, mhaffy said:
The introduction/implementation of xG has given rise to numerous differences in FM21 between the stats in the Full Match Engine (FME) and Quick Match Engine( QME), including dribbling. These have been well flagged and I did some detailed testing that I shared in the bugs forum and have included here for your information.
I understand that FM definitions will not align exactly with their real world equivalents but they should be at least broadly in line for both the FME and QME. It is important that FME and QME give similar results so that scouting/search comparisons are not rendered useless. I ran a full season Premier League using Full Match Engine and again using the Quick Match Engine. I then extracted full season stats for each team and compared the FME results with the QME and 19/20 Premier League "equivalent" stats:
A few summary observations from the same FME Vs QME saves used above regarding player stats:
The game is not broken and unplayable but for players who like the immersion and use stats when comparing/scouting players etc there are clearly issues that have surfaced in this years FM that render such comparisons/scouting useless. Hopefully these issues will be largely resolved in the next major update so that SI have a firm foundation from which to develop FM22.
This really deserves a response. Seems SI are strangely silent about match stats and analysis issues
1 -
Has anyone seen a response to this issue from SI? It raises so many questions about what's actually happening under the hood versus what players see, and our ability to impact that. This seems potentially game breaking if what we see is not what's actually occuring
0 -
I'm having similar issues. Lost a match I had no right to lose. All my defenders seemed to underperform massively. I head to the post match analysis and there's absolutely nothing of use to show what errors my players are making. In-game commentary mentioned a player making a mistake leading to a goal, but analysis doesn't reflect this. If this is a widespread issue it really needs to be addressed as it raises tons of questions about what's actually happening with the match engine and the players ability to recognise that and make impactful changes
0 -
I'm finding the same issue. Do you need more pkms or is the issue being resolved. It seems like it could be almost game-breaking depending on when it happens.
0
)
Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted
Have you seen Manchester United play football? This happens on average five times per game.