Football Manager 2014 - Full Game Feedback/Tilbakemelding 14.1.3

[wwfan]

On FM13 when I was dominating then i was DOMINATING ... like that:

Now when we are dominating then I pray that 1 shot on 30 will find a goal ...

I'm sorry, but we will never be on the same page if you think winning 10-1 against Barcelona = good game whereas finding it difficult to score = bad game. It is more difficult to score than defend in football. That's just a fact of life. If it weren't, hockey scores would be more common.

From everything that has been posted so far, it looks to me like people are developing tactics which produce a lot of shots, of which very few are actually any good. Situation normal as far as a new FM release is concerned.

I think the central issue is that teams are shooting with gay abandon rather than working chances. For the user, that seems to suggest they are completely dominating, whereas, in actuality, a good 50% of the shots are complete wastes. They key to ME development is to stop the team taking these wasted shots by improving decision making and defensive engagement. If the shot count was 15 - 5, which would perhaps be a fair reflection of realistically taken shots in such games, then the 0-1 score lines wouldn't seem so unfair. It's the perception of unfairness rather than actual unfairness that's the problem.

[wwfan]

Actually 81% would be pretty low if he outshot every opponent by 10-1.

Care to post the evidence for that?

[j4y_z]

Just to give you guys from SI some thumbs up: I already love the new ME. Finally got my defence straight, got my pretty average fullbacks to an average rating of 6.9, getting realistic results all over the league. Currently 12 games into the 2nd season in the Eredivisie playing with FC Utrecht, sitting on 4th place.

[ArneH]

I'm sorry, but we will never be on the same page if you think winning 10-1 against Barcelona = good game whereas finding it difficult to score = bad game. It is more difficult to score than defend in football. That's just a fact of life. If it weren't, hockey scores would be more common.

From everything that has been posted so far, it looks to me like people are developing tactics which produce a lot of shots, of which very few are actually any good. Situation normal as far as a new FM release is concerned.

I think the central issue is that teams are shooting with gay abandon rather than working chances. For the user, that seems to suggest they are completely dominating, whereas, in actuality, a good 50% of the shots are complete wastes. They key to ME development is to stop the team taking these wasted shots by improving decision making and defensive engagement. If the shot count was 15 - 5, which would perhaps be a fair reflection of realistically taken shots in such games, then the 0-1 score lines wouldn't seem so unfair. It's the perception of unfairness rather than actual unfairness that's the problem.

If defense is easier than scoring in football (which I totally agree with), what is your defence for the really accurate ai in those games? So far in this quote I only see you talking about the player, but not the AI. They're both part of this story.

In the example he gave it also shows 19/35 shots were on target, where from 4 clear cut chances in comperence to 3/4 shots on target from the AI, whilst 0 clear cut chances. So the AI is extremely efficiënt there, that's a fact.

Not sure what you mean with "gay abandon". But in the above example he has more working chances too.

Anyway. I certainly agree man u - barcelona: 10-1 is really ridicelous and unrealstic. But many others aren't talking or wanting results like that when they say some issues are there. You said yourself after all the match engine isn't perfect, thus meaning there are things to work on.

Would love to hear from you what you think needs working on.

[wwfan]

If defense is easier than scoring in football (which I totally agree with), what is your defence for the really accurate ai in those games? So far in this quote I only see you highlining the player, but not the AI. They're both part of this story.

In the example he gave it also shows 19/35 shots were on target, where from 4 clear cut chances in comperence to 3/4 shots on target from the AI, whilst 0 clear cut chances. So the AI is extremely efficiënt there, that's a fact.

Not sure what you mean with "gay abandon". But in the above example he has more working chances too.

Anyway. I certainly agree man u - barcelona: 10-1 is really ridicelous and unrealstic. But many others aren't talking or wanting results like that when they say some issues are there. You said yourself after all the match engine isn't perfect, thus meaning there are things to work on.

Would love to hear from you what you think needs working on.

I've been trying to find a thread from last year on AI conversion ratio, in which we conclusively proved that users were far more efficient than the AI. Unfortunately, as the search function is completely borked, I can't find any thread started between 2013 and 2008!! I know Svenc has it bookmarked, so hopefully he'll post it.

Basically, once the user has a tactic that takes advantage of his teams strengths and compensates for its weaknesses, the AI cannot compete in chance conversion ratios. In such situations, the user always converts at a better ratio, and considerably so. However, if the user has a very one dimensional tactic that has no movement between the lines or multiple scoring lanes, the AI will convert at a better ratio. That's been the case since 2006 and is still the case now.

Which is why we continuously suggest tactical approach has a bearing on what the user is seeing, whether he's winning regularly or not.

[timbamania]

Care to post the evidence for that?

Care to post evidence to the contrary?

[sriracha]

Care to post evidence to the contrary?

That's just silly. YOU made a claim "Actually 81% would be pretty low if he outshot every opponent by 10-1.", not wwfan. Either back it up or admit you pulled it out of thin air.

[wwfan]

Care to post evidence to the contrary?

I've posted evidence that teams win 71% of their matches when outshooting the opposition. That's an empirical fact. Anything beyond that is complete conjecture. Until you can empirically illustrate that a team outshooting the opposition 10 shots to 1 wins over 80% of its matches, you simply don't have a point. The burden of proof is on the person making the empirical claim, not on the one questioning it.

[ArneH]

I've been trying to find a thread from last year on AI conversion ratio, in which we conclusively proved that users were far more efficient than the AI. Unfortunately, as the search function is completely borked, I can't find any thread started between 2013 and 2008!! I know Svenc has it bookmarked, so hopefully he'll post it.

Basically, once the user has a tactic that takes advantage of his teams strengths and compensates for its weaknesses, the AI cannot compete in chance conversion ratios. In such situations, the user always converts at a better ratio, and considerably so. However, if the user has a very one dimensional tactic that has no movement between the lines or multiple scoring lanes, the AI will convert at a better ratio. That's been the case since 2006 and is still the case now.

Which is why we continuously suggest tactical approach has a bearing on what the user is seeing, whether he's winning regularly or not.

In the long run a human player will indeed always be at an advantage. (unless the AI can develop/improve/adjust himself but I don't think that's completely possible yet.)

No debate there really. I was merely talking about that case.

But your next statement does make me wonder. What changed in football manager 2014 then that tactics succesful in earlier versions that worked great for that person, are working terrible in this version? (I know it's pretty hard to give a general answer since it involves so many different tactics, but there has been cases and those players aren't clueless about tactics.

Here is an example, where you replied in:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/374211-The-game-has-lost-its-fun-factor

And there are more.

On my own case I can't make a full comperence since the change between 2013 and 2014 made it you can't the make the player on the "am-position" and inward forward anymore. And I have no problem looking for new tactics at all, it's all part of the fun. A quick side question though, on your opinion, what role represents the inward forward on the attacking midfield in 2013; in the 2014 versions? Shadow striker - Enganche?

[sriracha]

I don't think you'll find a single mod behaving like that. We accept that the ME is by no means perfect. We've also put ourselves out to provide advice that works. What we find frustrating is when people refuse to read that advice, insist they are right, rant that the ME is an unplayable mess, claim their tactics are perfect and call us sneering know-it-alls. How can we help if nobody even begins to follow the advice we give?

First up - I recognize you and other mods put a lot of work into educating the masses here; you absolutely deserve credit for that. I also understand that it can get very tiresome to face after wave of the inevitable "FU .. I lost with the Arsenal to Hull, 12 shots to 1, lol totally unrealistic, would never happen IRL, fix this s%$" - I know I wouldn't be able to cope with this level of retardation.

But that being said you can find lots of examples on the forum where people are just getting made fun of and where the multitude of available match statistics is used for no other end than "proving" that the other guy is wrong. You can even see quite a few of thise right here in this thread. The pattern tends to be mostly the same: the tactics guru (whoever feels to be in charge that day) goes through stats and points out a correlation between the stat and a tactic flaw ("Yes you have 20 shots on target but no CCCs!"). The other guys provides a counter example ("Ha. 8 CCC, still no win"). The guru then makes a turn ("Well, if you have no goals from 8 CCCs then they are no real CCCs.) This goes for a few rounds until it finally ends at the guru declaring that you have to watch every match in full to understand what's happening.

Bear with me - I am not even complaining here that the recommendation is to watch in full. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. Just cut short on the stat BS-bingo. Or admit that the stats the game provide are not good for a lot.

You can't have it both ways - either you tell people that 30min is enough to learn the game or you tell people that you cannot have success without watching nearly allmatches in full. Either stats matter or they don't.

Anyhow ... I think it's a great game that comes with quite a few flaws. I just wish there was more room for grey on these forums, not the permanent barrage of black and white.

[timbamania]

That's just silly. YOU made a claim "Actually 81% would be pretty low if he outshot every opponent by 10-1.", not wwfan. Either back it up or admit you pulled it out of thin air.

No, wwfan made the claim 81% was pretty normal. THAT claim was not backed up, so who is pulling thing out of thin air?

[Ste-25]

I've posted evidence that teams win 71% of their matches when outshooting the opposition. That's an empirical fact. Anything beyond that is complete conjecture. Until you can empirically illustrate that a team outshooting the opposition 10 shots to 1 wins over 80% of its matches, you simply don't have a point. The burden of proof is on the person making the empirical claim, not on the one questioning it.

HE didn't say that...he responded to YOU saying that the other guy with screenie won 81% of matches....

[timbamania]

I've posted evidence that teams win 71% of their matches when outshooting the opposition. That's an empirical fact. Anything beyond that is complete conjecture. Until you can empirically illustrate that a team outshooting the opposition 10 shots to 1 wins over 80% of its matches, you simply don't have a point. The burden of proof is on the person making the empirical claim, not on the one questioning it.

So the burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that 81% would be normal first:

He's lost twice in 26 matches. Given his goal difference, he's going to be scoring circa 3 a game at least. I don't see any issue in that he's failed to win five times, even if he outshot the opposition in all of them by 10 shots to 1.

[MichaelBrown]

I would argue that if someone had made a particular tactic that manipulated the ME because of its flaws, and someone else downloaded it and used it to make a mediocre team win the top division in the first season, then that would be by any definition, cheating.

Not having a go, a person can play the game whatever way they want, it's just a bit much to have a go at the game for a lack of realism whilst piloting Cardiff to the Premier League title with some ME-bursting 'super tactic'.

And this isn't 'trolling' as I seem to get accused of more often than not, it's purely an opinion.

What about those who develop a tactic that manipulates the ME? What about those who don't look at the forums, mess around, and develop a super tactic?

[wwfan]

So the burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that 81% would be normal first:

I said the user had won 81% of his matches. I'm not sure how you are conflating that with any claim about real life statistics? I suggest you read what I said again.

[gerardpique]

Goal ruled out for offside when my striker nipped in and intercepted a back pass. Threw it in the bugs forum and uploaded the pkm but still, I know the amount of coding etc that goes into the game but it's basic laws of the game stuff there, along with the penalty hitting the post bug etc. That disallowed goal could end up relegating me as drew the game too.

[wwfan]

First up - I recognize you and other mods put a lot of work into educating the masses here; you absolutely deserve credit for that. I also understand that it can get very tiresome to face after wave of the inevitable "FU .. I lost with the Arsenal to Hull, 12 shots to 1, lol totally unrealistic, would never happen IRL, fix this s%$" - I know I wouldn't be able to cope with this level of retardation.

But that being said you can find lots of examples on the forum where people are just getting made fun of and where the multitude of available match statistics is used for no other end than "proving" that the other guy is wrong. You can even see quite a few of thise right here in this thread. The pattern tends to be mostly the same: the tactics guru (whoever feels to be in charge that day) goes through stats and points out a correlation between the stat and a tactic flaw ("Yes you have 20 shots on target but no CCCs!"). The other guys provides a counter example ("Ha. 8 CCC, still no win"). The guru then makes a turn ("Well, if you have no goals from 8 CCCs then they are no real CCCs.) This goes for a few rounds until it finally ends at the guru declaring that you have to watch every match in full to understand what's happening.

Bear with me - I am not even complaining here that the recommendation is to watch in full. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. Just cut short on the stat BS-bingo. Or admit that the stats the game provide are not good for a lot.

You can't have it both ways - either you tell people that 30min is enough to learn the game or you tell people that you cannot have success without watching nearly allmatches in full. Either stats matter or they don't.

Anyhow ... I think it's a great game that comes with quite a few flaws. I just wish there was more room for grey on these forums, not the permanent barrage of black and white.

I've purposely kept somewhat clear of this thread this year because I don't want to get dragged into any kind of statistical warfare. I had enough of that last year when I suddenly became fair game for anyone who wanted to spout abuse.

For what it is worth, my position has always been the same. If you have a tactic that ensures players are moving between the lines which creates multiple chance types, you'll do well and see good football. If you have a tactic that gets the ball into the final third with regularity, but only really creates one chance type, you'll often get frustrated by teams defending deep. Looking at the stats is a waste of time with such tactics because, as you always outshoot the opposition, the only defeats you'll get will be against what seems to be the run of play. Without examining the context of the chances, it will look unfair. However, if you take the context into account, you'll pretty much always see why you won or lost.

I've seen the same pattern repeat for 7 years. I've had games sent to me by users and by SI to see if I can help explain what is going on in such matches, and it is always, always down to tactical one-dimensionality. The key is to develop an ME that stops the shots in the first place. That way, the user can see his tactical approach isn't that great and adjust. Until that happens, and I'm sure it will, we'll see the same old arguments crop up ad infinitum.

[PeteTownsend]

Yeah, my tactics make 15 of the goalkeepers in my League look like Lev Yashin clones, with 11 meter dives, 3/4/5 rebound saves in less then a tenth of a second, a 100% clean sheet in terms of saving one-on-one chances.

And also, my tactics also make my defenders tackle each other. Inside the box. And giving away the ball for the opposition to score. And sit still in random ocasions when defending.

It's also my tactics that make 30% of my shots hit a teammate. Once, my striker got hit 3 times with rebound shots on the way to the back of the net. On the 3rd one, offside was given. Of course, my pre-season training was all about "shoot your mate and get a day-off when you reach the 100-point mark".

I think it's the passing style. Hmmm...

[sriracha]

For what it is worth, my position has always been the same. If you have a tactic that ensures players are moving between the lines which creates multiple chance types, you'll do well and see good football.

Sure. I guess one of the key problems is that it's really hard to figure out what exactly is going wrong without having at least 50-100hrs of ME experience. I do not doubt that you and a very few select others have the knowledge to rather quickly spot problems in the tactical setup, but for people either new to FM or simply not having the time to learn how to interpret the ME correctly this can be an insurmountable obstacle. And mind you, SI are not making it easier on anybody by deciding to steer the game into a direction where direct match interaction and tweaking becomes the key focus (as opposed to just team building plus okayish tactic and gogogo) and then delivering a seriously buggy ME as well as failing miserably (again) to properly document the available tactical instructions.

The key is to develop an ME that stops the shots in the first place. That way, the user can see his tactical approach isn't that great and adjust.

Better ME with more precise feedback? Awesome ... when is the patch coming

[ArneH]

I'm very anxious to see your tactic you're using the most in personal games wwfan. Is it somewhere on the forum here?

[Ackter]

Yeah, my tactics make 15 of the goalkeepers in my League look like Lev Yashin clones, with 11 meter dives, 3/4/5 rebound saves in less then a tenth of a second, a 100% clean sheet in terms of saving one-on-one chances.

And also, my tactics also make my defenders tackle each other. Inside the box. And giving away the ball for the opposition to score. And sit still in random ocasions when defending.

It's also my tactics that make 30% of my shots hit a teammate. Once, my striker got hit 3 times with rebound shots on the way to the back of the net. On the 3rd one, offside was given. Of course, my pre-season training was all about "shoot your mate and get a day-off when you reach the 100-point mark".

I think it's the passing style. Hmmm...

Yeah, it's way more likely that the game is going out of its way to screw you over, despite not being able to tell the difference between human and AI sides. The match engine is a complex calculation that receives two sets of input. On the one hand you have the AI inputting sensible information, on the other you have the human manager, most of whom (based on this thread) don't really understand what they're doing or seeing.

I'm really getting tired of all this nonsense. Most of your complaints would only hold water if SI have gone out of their way to screw over human managers - but they haven't. Why would they do that? The game engine can't differentiate where the input is coming from, it just deals with the input it gets.

GIGO.

[PeteTownsend]

Ackter: I'm a CM/FM player since 1997. Active updater in the portuguese community up until 2003. My experience with this game goes beyond a "the AI is screwing me over" argument. So I resent that condescent speach like you're f*'n Gandalf Palpatine Jesus Christ and I'm a sewer rat.

What I said earlier actually happened to me during the course of last week, in one save game. I was champion in the first season 17-points clear of the nearest opponent, and yet the worse way I was ever champion. Although I dominated every single aspect of every match, with lots of possession, shots on goal, completed passes (short and long), the whole 9 yards, I only had three players of above 7.00 average rating by the end of the season. Even my top striker, who scored 23 league goals...

And throughout that season, I saw everything I said on my above post. I think my heart doctor will ban FM from my household when he checks up on me next time. I can't translate to words the frustration of living football like that and being confronted by such ridiculousness in such a short time span. It's not a problem when it happens here and there. But when you see the same thing over and over and over again, for a full season, you have to AT LEAST wonder, and look at what you have in front of you with a clear and objective mind.

What I see is, yet again, a flawed product with an hefty price-tag.

[Ackter]

What difference does it make how long you've played other versions for? If anything, it'll be a contributory factor towards misunderstanding because you'll have habits you're unwilling to consider may be problematic when applied to this version.

This version has an entire new tactical interface and a significantly changed match engine. You'll basically need to relearn how to play. If you're seeing something happen over and over again, please consider that it may be something you're doing that's causing it, because it probably is.

Sure, the match engine has problems, but treating the AI and human managers differently isn't one of them.

[PeteTownsend]

What I meant when talking about history with this game, was I've been around for a while, and countless others like me have, so we, those who actually put bread on your tables, deserve a bit more respect for the money we spend, and the community we've built around the game (at least, when the game was released in a playable state).

So, you state that same-team players tackling each other, or super-sayan-like goalkeepers are because of my tactical ignorance? That's mentally insulting.

[Ackter]

Same-team players tackling each other is a bug which affects both the AI and human teams, it evens itself out and cannot be used as an excuse for extended poor performances.

The superkeepers myth, and it is a myth, has been around for a decade and this year is no different. It very much is tactical if you're seeing this happen often. The average player is nowhere near as good at this game as they think they are. The first step towards genuinely being that good is to look at what you might be doing wrong instead of blindly blaming SI for programming the game to screw you over. It's funny how the people most demanding respect are generally those that show the least respect to SI and the people trying to help them.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

I've purposely kept somewhat clear of this thread this year because I don't want to get dragged into any kind of statistical warfare. I had enough of that last year when I suddenly became fair game for anyone who wanted to spout abuse.

For what it is worth, my position has always been the same. If you have a tactic that ensures players are moving between the lines which creates multiple chance types, you'll do well and see good football. If you have a tactic that gets the ball into the final third with regularity, but only really creates one chance type, you'll often get frustrated by teams defending deep. Looking at the stats is a waste of time with such tactics because, as you always outshoot the opposition, the only defeats you'll get will be against what seems to be the run of play. Without examining the context of the chances, it will look unfair. However, if you take the context into account, you'll pretty much always see why you won or lost.

I've seen the same pattern repeat for 7 years. I've had games sent to me by users and by SI to see if I can help explain what is going on in such matches, and it is always, always down to tactical one-dimensionality. The key is to develop an ME that stops the shots in the first place. That way, the user can see his tactical approach isn't that great and adjust. Until that happens, and I'm sure it will, we'll see the same old arguments crop up ad infinitum.

So you are saying it is a fault within the ME? Why isn't this the stock reply then instead of "it's your tactics" or variations thereof.

Doesn't this make the "help and advice" so freely offered around here merely ways of working around this fundamental flaw?

Maybe if your post was stickied there would be far fewer posts about the shot to goal ratio in a match... , and hopefully far fewer "helpful" replies.

[Ackter]

Yeah, ignore the bit right before that, why don't you?

"always down to tactical one-dimensionality"

[CityAndColour]

Yeah, ignore the bit right before that, why don't you?

"always down to tactical one-dimensionality"

I thought he was saying that while a match engine produces 20 shots and perceived dominance when tactically one-dimensional or unsound, people are always going to feel hard done by and cheated and thus post about these injustices. They are then (correctly or not) told it's their tactics and the whole crap fight starts again.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Yeah, ignore the bit right before that, why don't you?

"always down to tactical one-dimensionality"

I am not ignoring it. Without the proper feedback how is the user to know they suffer from" tactical one-dimensionality"? why should they have to go to the tactics forum to have it explained?

[Ackter]

I thought he was saying that while a match engine produces 20 shots and perceived dominance when tactically one-dimensional or unsound, people are always going to feel hard done by and cheated and thus post about these injustices. They are then (correctly or not) told it's their tactics and the whole crap fight starts again.

The match engine may exacerbate the issue, but the issue itself is tactical.

[Ackter]

I am not ignoring it. Without the proper feedback how is the user to know they suffer from" tactical one-dimensionality"? why should they have to go to the tactics forum to have it explained?

You won't find me arguing with that, but we have to work with what he have - and currently the tactics forum is the best we have.

[sriracha]

The match engine may exacerbate the issue, but the issue itself is tactical.

Your line of argument seems exceptionally thin. Correct me if I am wrong (I mean it) - but what you are saying is basically just: "Hey, no matter how bugged the ME, no matter how misleading the info given inside the game, no matter how undocumented the instructions, no matter how contradictory the advice ... it's you playing, so it's your input, so it's your fault. Stop bickering."

[pigfacemonkeyman]

You won't find me arguing with that, but we have to work with what he have - and currently the tactics forum is the best we have.

I understand that, but maybe a more, shall we say, understanding approach when replying to posts/rants that stem from lack of feedback would help eg letting the poster know you are directing them to the tactic forum because someone there may be able to fill in where the game fails, rather than possibly making them feel they are not up to the mark tactically. (it would also help if you mods curtailed the exploits of the serial repliers that crop up )

[Ackter]

Your line of argument seems exceptionally thin. Correct me if I am wrong (I mean it) - but what you are saying is basically just: "Hey, no matter how bugged the ME, no matter how misleading the info given inside the game, no matter how undocumented the instructions, no matter how contradictory the advice ... it's you playing, so it's your input, so it's your fault. Stop bickering."

I'll simplify it for you:

Your tactics suck, but the way the match engine presents it to you makes it even more obvious that they suck - and because the match engine is making it so obvious, people are wrongly believing the match engine is what's at fault, rather than the sucky tactics.

Lots of possession, shots or passes may look like a good tactic, but what use really if the possession is in the wrong places? If the shots are not good chances? If the passes go nowhere?

[Ackter]

I understand that, but maybe a more, shall we say, understanding approach when replying to posts/rants that stem from lack of feedback would help eg letting the poster know you are directing them to the tactic forum because someone there may be able to fill in where the game fails, rather than possibly making them feel they are not up to the mark tactically. (it would also help if you mods curtailed the exploits of the serial repliers that crop up )

I've been here for 10 years, unfortunately most people who bitch and moan never look further than doing so - I can count the number of people I've advised to visit the tactics forum that have actually gone there on one hand. It doesn't matter how you direct someone to the tactics forum, they'll take it as an insult because they couldn't possibly be at fault. I've given up trying to deal with people nicely because they're not interested in hearing it. As such, I don't pussyfoot around. The other mods can play nice if they want, but I'm telling it like it is.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

I'll simplify it for you:

Your tactics suck, but the way the match engine presents it to you makes it even more obvious that they suck - and because the match engine is making it so obvious, people are wrongly believing the match engine is what's at fault, rather than the sucky tactics.

Lots of possession, shots or passes may look like a good tactic, but what use really if the possession is in the wrong places? If the shots are not good chances? If the passes go nowhere?

Erm, pretty much the opposite of this, given that users aren't given the some of the info mentioned in your second para.

Edit: I know, I've heard you say it often enough, maybe modding is no longer for you.

Goodnight.

xxx

[Sarin1]

I'll simplify it for you:

Your tactics suck, but the way the match engine presents it to you makes it even more obvious that they suck - and because the match engine is making it so obvious, people are wrongly believing the match engine is what's at fault, rather than the sucky tactics.

Lots of possession, shots or passes may look like a good tactic, but what use really if the possession is in the wrong places? If the shots are not good chances? If the passes go nowhere?

11 points clear in the Premier League, winning trophies, went 23 games unbeaten.

Tactics arnt an issue, the state of the match engine is.

[Ackter]

11 points clear in the Premier League, winning trophies, went 23 games unbeaten.

Tactics arnt an issue, the state of the match engine is.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous and exactly what I've been talking about. You expect your tactics to work on everyone, that's not going to happen. When you lose, I bet its mostly to the same types of teams and the matches throw up the same kinds of stats.

It's because your tactics aren't good enough in those situations. They can't deal with them.

[Ackter]

Erm, pretty much the opposite of this, given that users aren't given the some of the info mentioned in your second para.

Yeah, no. If your tactics suck, they'll suck over 10 shots. With a match engine that allows you more shots than it should, you see your tactic sucking over 20 shots instead (or 30, or 40 with this current iteration). It's pretty easy to see what's going wrong if you watch the matches.

[Ackter]

Incidentally, all complaints about my modding can be directed to the Contact Us button

[sriracha]

Incidentally, all complaints about my modding can be directed to the Contact Us button

It's a good thing that you are immensely proud to insult every single person who disagrees with you. Classic role model.

[Sarin1]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous and exactly what I've been talking about. You expect your tactics to work on everyone, that's not going to happen. When you lose, I bet its mostly to the same types of teams and the matches throw up the same kinds of stats.

It's because your tactics aren't good enough in those situations. They can't deal with them.

Excuse me Ackter but did you even READ my post.

I am 11 points clear at the top of the Premier League table, I am winning Trophies easily.

IT IS NOT TACTICS THAT IS THE PROBLEM, the match engine is flawed and that is what people are talking about.

The match engine does things that are not realistic, the flow is bad, certain things work well because of the match engine, others simply cannot work, because of its faults.

At least read my post before you tell me I am ridiculous.

People are complaining about the way the game plays, not that there tactic does not win 38 of 38 games.

I went 23 games unbeaten, and was not happy at all with the way the game played.

[Ackter]

It's a good thing that you are immensely proud to insult every single person who disagrees with you. Classic role model.

See what I mean? "Your tactics aren't good enough" is not an insult, but people insist on taking it that way. Do you take it as a personal insult when you die or fail objectives in other games?

[Ackter]

Excuse me Ackter but did you even READ my post.

I am 11 points clear at the top of the Premier League table, I am winning Trophies easily.

IT IS NOT TACTICS THAT IS THE PROBLEM, the match engine is flawed and that is what people are talking about.

The match engine does things that are not realistic, the flow is bad, certain things work well because of the match engine, others simply cannot work, because of its faults.

At least read my post before you tell me I am ridiculous.

People are complaining about the way the game plays, not that there tactic does not win 38 of 38 games.

I went 23 games unbeaten, and was not happy at all with the way the game played.

I did read your post, my points stand. Did you read mine?

Why does losing those games mean the match engine is screwing you over? Why doesn't losing mean your tactics weren't good enough to deal with the AI?

Winning 23 games in a row means your tactics worked against what those teams tried against. Turns out they weren't good enough to deal with what the 24th team did to you.

[Sarin1]

I did read your post, my points stand. Did you read mine?

Why does losing those games mean the match engine is screwing you over? Why doesn't losing mean your tactics weren't good enough to deal with the AI?

Winning 23 games in a row means your tactics worked against what those teams tried against. Turns out they weren't good enough to deal with what the 24th team did to you.

You clearly did not read it.

I never complained about losing a single game. I never said the match engine screwed me over.

I never said my tactics were not good enough to deal with the AI.

I said I was 11 points clear, winning.

I said winning trophies was easy.

NEVER did I complain about losing, I just said I was on a 23 steak to show how the tactics were CLEARLY working.

I said the match engine is flawed, can be exploited as above, certain things work too well, others completely fail, that the match engine is unrealistic and flawed.

You clearly did not read it, you just looked for the first opportunity to say "Its tactics".

That match engine is not engaging, it is not fun to play, players tackling each other, kicking the ball out for no reason, a million other things.

I am not here to say "I CANNOT WIN" I am here to give feedback, and that is that the match engine plays very poorly as a football sim.

[Ackter]

Then why reply to a post of mine which was in the middle of a discussion about those exact things?

If I misunderstood your point it's because you decided to attach your point to an entirely different conversation without actually explaining any of it.

Let's take a look, I said:

Your tactics suck, but the way the match engine presents it to you makes it even more obvious that they suck - and because the match engine is making it so obvious, people are wrongly believing the match engine is what's at fault, rather than the sucky tactics.

Lots of possession, shots or passes may look like a good tactic, but what use really if the possession is in the wrong places? If the shots are not good chances? If the passes go nowhere?

To which you replied:

11 points clear in the Premier League, winning trophies, went 23 games unbeaten.

Tactics arnt an issue, the state of the match engine is.

[Sarin1]

Because the answer to everything is not the tactics.

Plenty of people on here are posting and your answer to all of them is Tactics.

Someone shows that they are consistantly getting 15+ shots on targets, Must be tactics.

People post clear cut chance after chance after chance, all failed, most be tactics.

Don't get me wrong, adjusting some peoples tactics is going to help them, especially when they pick up on the ways to exploit the current Match Engine.

However, the catch cry answer isn't Tactics.

The Match Engine at the moment needs serious love, the Beta was better (and once again, I am flogging the AI, it is not about winning, it is about an accurate sim of football)

Lots of the match engine isn't flowing like it should at the moment.

But telling the people pointing out it isn't working, that they should just go read some guides, so they find a way to exploit its faults, is not ideal at all.

edit. SI will get it sorted, hopefully soon, however pretending its simply peoples tactics isn't helping, this is a feedback post, and they are trying to give feedback that its unrealistic and not working well.

[BCFC_Mike]

Wow. One of you decide to just give up.

Hopeful of an update today. No doubt i'll be wrong, but who knows.

One thing I've never understood is, the release date of the game is a 'set' date... Why can't updates be given a set date? I know it involves testing etc but as does the game before release. It seems more testing is done on the updates, rather than the game itself before release date

For me, the amount of goals in full leagues is a gamebreaker for me. I like to see realism, but unfortunately there are a few aspects of the current version which completely throws realism out of the window.

[sriracha]

Then why reply to a post of mine which was in the middle of a discussion about those exact things?

If I misunderstood your point it's because you decided to attach your point to an entirely different conversation without actually explaining any of it.

Let's take a look, I said:

Your tactics suck, but the way the match engine presents it to you makes it even more obvious that they suck - and because the match engine is making it so obvious, people are wrongly believing the match engine is what's at fault, rather than the sucky tactics.

Lots of possession, shots or passes may look like a good tactic, but what use really if the possession is in the wrong places? If the shots are not good chances? If the passes go nowhere?

Which just proves the point that you're not even reading the post you're getting mad about. I made no reference to winning or losing here at all. If you just look a few posts up you'll find my exchange with wwfan in which I say it's a great game with a few flaws.

Not that this is going to stop you from snapping "It's your sucking tactics" at the next random guy.

Have fun & I hope that you occasionally have a nice day

[someone21]

Hopefully the patch comes out this week. And then, SI and its team should use the internet to its advantage rather than trying to threaten on what to do or else. So certainly SI should and can give some form of a daily update. It's simple psychology for "waiting".