How Would You Prefer To Play FM Given The Choice?

1. We will call this "Plug and Play"

This can be desribed as using largely a single set up, one tactic with the only changes having to be made late on in games should you need to see out a win/draw OR if you need a late equaliser/winner.

This is very much the old style of playing FM up until about FM06/FM07 where you set up your tactic based on YOUR teams strengths and weakness's.

Pro's - You need not watch games in any great detail once you have your base tactic.

You get through matches and your saved game quicker.

If you are not tactically gifted you can still hope to do well once you have found a solid base tactic.

Easier for those who dont have the time to play FM that much.

Cons - It simplifies the game somewhat.

2. We will call this "Dawn of a new era"

This would be playing the game as it has recently been devised, largely making changes on the fly and mostly based on what your opposition are doing rather than your own teams strengths and weakness's.

This can also require a lot of in match tweaking based largely on what you see happening via the ME.

Pro's - More realistic to real life.

Cons - Time consuming

Often hard to read via the ME what is wrong tactically

If you are not tactically minded you will struggle

3. Another Way?

Tell us how you personally would prefer to be able to play FM

The first one because I am rubbish at tactics in this game .

I've always played the first way and will continue to do so.

I'm interested in long term progression, so it is key that I can complete my seasons quickly.

Assuming they took the same amount of time, I would prefer to play three seasons to gradually win a title than win it in one.

Ive played the first way since... ever.

2nd way forever...seems to have a lot of cons however.

Lets hope a lot of people can vote and then SI can see this thread and make some tweaks at least for the next patch 10.3

Nice thread mate

Isn't this part of the fun of the game? The fact that people can play it how they want? If they want to skip through then they can, if they don't then they don't have to. Or am i missing something?

I voted another way as i like to mix between 1 and 2. Its pointless tweaking tactics in a game where your going to smash weaker opposition, but in the bigger matches i like to adjust during the match depending on how it's going.

The first way. When i was younger i didn't even do that, just picked players in standard set up.

Another thinly veiled pop at the game by Hammer 1000.

The game is what it is, and no amount of attempts to start a bandwagon rolling are going to change this.

Dawn Of A New Era.... talk about dramatic. I'm already looking forward to your next ban

Another thinly veiled pop at the game by Hammer 1000.

I was thinking the same actually

To answer your question, I play a mixture of 1 and 2.

What I don't understand is that people moan you can't play FM10 like you used to, you need to be more indepth. But I play using method 1 on FM10 and have had good success with it. And the tactics creator does 90% of the work for you!

I generally play the first way, with a sprinkle of the second. I use the same formation and player roles for each game, I just change my strategy at the start of/several times during each game. Seems to work pretty well so far.

What I don't understand is that people moan you can't play FM10 like you used to, you need to be more indepth. But I play using method 1 on FM10 and have had good success with it. And the tactics creator does 90% of the work for you!

Yeah, to be honest, OP shot himself in the foot with the poll, in yet another 'FM is too complicated' thread.

I also play with a single tactic. Sure, I change roles and duties to suit the match, players, and opposition, and I buy players to suit roles or train them to suit roles and duties accordingly.

I voted the dramatically named option 2 because, rather like real life, (which FM is a simulation of), I do make changes to suit the oppositions changes in game. Anyone who thinks FM should allow us to ignore AI tactical changes during a match and have them make no effect is in dreamland. The AI tries to overcome us, and we respond accordingly.

It's not complicated, it doesn't take hours, it is not hard.

The first way. I don't have the time to dedicate my life to the game.

Plug and Play for me

Isn't this part of the fun of the game? The fact that people can play it how they want? If they want to skip through then they can, if they don't then they don't have to. Or am i missing something?

I agree. If I had to tweak and adjust my tactics for every match to get success I think I would have probably stopped playing by now.

The first one. Always been and always will be.

I set up the tactics i want the team to play and i stick with that. No matter if it goes bad or not. If it goes bad i find the right players.

If it goes well.......well there's no point in changing too much anyways

One tactic away and at home. Don't change anything in the matches either. Don't use shout or nothing, and it works well for me. As long as i get the right players.

I voted Plug and Play, because that's how I like it really. Less frustrating, less time-consuming, more simple as the OP said. I like simplicity. Simplicity is awesome.

However, I think the current (FM10) setup is fair on both "sides". Ideally, I'd also like various tactical sets being included in the game (the 5 typical tactical setups for each formation, defensive/counter/attacking etc), so people don't have to browse the internet to get them.

Either way, as long as I don't ever see any sliders with 20 notches, I'm fine.

as far as i am aware you can play the current version of FM using options number 1 and number 2, there for i dont feel i could not vote.

i do not agree that it takes ages to play through a season, it can be as fast or as slow as you want it to be. OK it might take longer than it did several versions ago but it does not take you weeks to get through a season unless that's how you choose to play.

while the ME might not be as clear as some would like i do not believe that it is as hard as you suggest it is to see whats going on, and what shout for example might or might not help to turn the game around in your favour, just because you select 1, 2 or more shouts to try and change things tactically does not mean that you should then automatically go on to win the game.

i also disagree with the comment about being tactically minded in order to have success, as long as you can set up a sensible tactic then you can do well, if you set up a tactic that puts players out of position to much that will leave you open to a counter attack then of course the CPU should be able to take advantage other wise there would be no challenge, other wise any old tactic would work no matter how ridicules it might be.

Yeah, to be honest, OP shot himself in the foot with the poll, in yet another 'FM is too complicated' thread.

I also play with a single tactic. Sure, I change roles and duties to suit the match, players, and opposition, and I buy players to suit roles or train them to suit roles and duties accordingly.

I voted the dramatically named option 2 because, rather like real life, (which FM is a simulation of), I do make changes to suit the oppositions changes in game. Anyone who thinks FM should allow us to ignore AI tactical changes during a match and have them make no effect is in dreamland. The AI tries to overcome us, and we respond accordingly.

It's not complicated, it doesn't take hours, it is not hard.

I've hardly shot myself in the foot, so far a massive percentage of voters have chosen option 1 "Plug and Play" which is exactly what i had hoped to see.

For the last few releases now SI have tried to eradicate option 1 from the game, so far luckily for both them and us they have largely failed.

Lucky for us because the bigger percentage of players obviously want the "Plug and Play" option and lucky for them because they would lose a massive amount of income should that option finally be taken away.

Plus, i never said FM was too complicated, so far i have always found a way to overachieve, but the day that option 1 has been removed for good is when i will finally call it quits, others have said the very same thing in this thread.

Sadly it is well known that SI are trying to remove option 1, i started this topic as i have others to rally together those FM'ers who like me believe that the game NEEDS option 1, not only that but that a larger percentage of FM'ers prefer it to option 2.

I've hardly shot myself in the foot, so far a massive percentage of voters have chosen option 1 "Plug and Play" which is exactly what i had hoped to see.

For the last few releases now SI have tried to eradicate option 1 from the game, so far luckily for both them and us they have largely failed.

Lucky for us because the bigger percentage of players obviously want the "Plug and Play" option and lucky for them because they would lose a massive amount of income should that option finally be taken away.

Plus, i never said FM was too complicated, so far i have always found a way to overachieve, but the day that option 1 has been removed for good is when i will finally call it quits, others have said the very same thing in this thread.

Sadly it is well known that SI are trying to remove option 1, i started this topic as i have others to rally together those FM'ers who like me believe that the game NEEDS option 1, not only that but that a larger percentage of FM'ers prefer it to option 2*.

Here we go again

Whay are SI trying to eradicate option 1? A number of players combine both options so what is the problem? I've yet to see any ondication that they are trying to force option 2 upon us. The game is there, play whichever way you feel.

*A larger percentage of the 69 votes so far!

Here we go again

Whay are SI trying to eradicate option 1? A number of players combine both options so what is the problem? I've yet to see any ondication that they are trying to force option 2 upon us. The game is there, play whichever way you feel.

*A larger percentage of the 69 votes so far!

I'm honestly not here to argue, i'd very much like this thread to stay open, if nothing else to keep SI aware that there are many players like myself who prefer the simpler option.

SI have been trying to eradicate option 1 since FM06 or 07, if you read back through any threads in which i converse with wwfan this is blatantly obvious, in fact he often remarks that option 1 is unrealistic and that often the only way to continue to play the game in this manner is to find weaknesses in the ME to exploit.

I'm not having a go at Rich here, i'm sure he'll say the same thing if/when he comes across this thread.

Sadly it is well known that SI are trying to remove option 1, i started this topic as i have others to rally together those FM'ers who like me believe that the game NEEDS option 1, not only that but that a larger percentage of FM'ers prefer it to option 2.

I don't read the tactics forum so I may have missed this, but has that actually be said by anyone from SI?

While I agree that option 1 needs to stay, I see no reason to panic at the moment as option 1 is currently an effective way of playing FM10. Unless there's been an announcement I've missed that single tactics will be ineffective with FM11, I don't see any reason to complain.

I agree. If I had to tweak and adjust my tactics for every match to get success I think I would have probably stopped playing by now.

By the same token, I think if I felt FM was overly-simplistic and my tactical set-up meant nothing as long as I had good players, I think I'd have stopped playing by now too. We have the best of both worlds!

By the same token, I think if I felt FM was overly-simplistic and my tactical set-up meant nothing as long as I had good players, I think I'd have stopped playing by now too. We have the best of both worlds!

I definitely think we have a good balance at the moment, far better than in some of the older versions. I'd like to see that balance maintained.

I don't read the tactics forum so I may have missed this, but has that actually be said by anyone from SI?

While I agree that option 1 needs to stay, I see no reason to panic at the moment as option 1 is currently an effective way of playing FM10. Unless there's been an announcement I've missed that single tactics will be ineffective with FM11, I don't see any reason to complain.

This has been something i have been campaigning against for the last few years mate, i honestly thought it was common knowledge.

This has been something i have been campaigning against for the last few years mate, i honestly thought it was common knowledge.

I've only noticed it recently since the threads have appeared in here. I don't read the tactics forum, where I'm assuming a lot of the discussion has taken place.

Why do you do it though? I could understand if the game had become too dependant on dynamic tactics, but it hasn't, it has a decent balance between tactics and man management.

If it did become 'Tactics Manager', and using just one tactic became completely ineffective then I would probably agree with you and start complaining myself, but until then I don't see the point.

I've only noticed it recently since the threads have appeared in here. I don't read the tactics forum, where I'm assuming a lot of the discussion has taken place.

Why do you do it though? I could understand if the game had become too dependant on dynamic tactics, but it hasn't, it has a decent balance between tactics and man management.

If it did become 'Tactics Manager', and using just one tactic became completely ineffective then I would probably agree with you and start complaining myself, but until then I don't see the point.

The whole idea WAS for it to become "Tactics Manager" the only reason it has yet to become so is because people are still managing to find ways to play using pretty much the one solid base tactic.

Hopefully wwfan will spot the thread when he comes online and reiterate what i have said, if not i'll go trawling through some of my old topics and provide you some links.

The whole idea WAS for it to become "Tactics Manager" the only reason it has yet to become so is because people are still managing to find ways to play using pretty much the one solid base tactic.

Hopefully wwfan will spot the thread when he comes online and reiterate what i have said, if not i'll go trawling through some of my old topics and provide you some links.

Thanks

It is no secret that a rather big portion of the playerbase, while they still do need their yearly FM-fix and still buy the game, never really get into it since about FM06 on. I'll admit that I'm one of those - as are all the people I know irl that still play or played the most recent versions. From a larger perspective, it is also no secret that an average PC gamer is not prepared to invest the amount of effort, thought and trial & error gameplay time to really figure out the game and know exactly what he's doing with every change he makes.

And finally, not every player understands all the underlying layers of football tactics and management in general. The game is mostly played by and sold to football fans. While most football fans believe they could be managers (which is why most of us play this game), most also do not see anything on the pitch other than the formation, the players, and their general position in that formation. They can tell if team is focusing on short or direct passing, if they are playing cautious or attack-minded football, and that's about it. But most of the time it really comes down to whether the team plays well, or sh*t - that's all we see as football fans. These are the same principles people used when they played CM2-CM3. And it worked, and everybody was happy.

But FM has put it in no uncertain terms that such level of tactical control just doesn't cut it anymore. When the team played sh*t in CM2/3, you changed the formation, subbed in a player player (didn't even need to consider all his attributes, really), and you could see things improving. When the team plays sh*t in FM08-10, you change the formation - nothing happens. You substitute the players who performed badly - the team still plays horribly, and the subs perform just the same. Until you realize you're playing too high tempo, or detect some other relatively abstract issue like that, your team not only lost the game, but got relegated. Twice.

Fact of life is, most people see their team play sh*t and they can't really figure out what's wrong. They haven't the foggiest idea which variable to change, and it's nowhere nearly as obvious to them as it is to some others. I probably shouldn't talk about "they" and "them", because often this happens to me, and I've gone to some length to try to learn and understand how tactics work and what effects each instruction has. And it was quite a painful and frustrating process, and not yet a completely successful one.

Ultimately, when people say something is too difficult or complicated, it's pointless trying to explain that it's all common sense and ultimately simple and try to teach them how it all works. To those people, it is difficult and complicated, period, end of discussion. Which brings me to the point - give the regular football fans who only see whether a team is playing sh*t or not a chance to have their fantasy job without demanding the understanding, commitment and education as if it were a real job. Tactics creator is a step in the right direction after the horrific experience of tactics in 08/09, but it's hardly effective, simple and intuitive enough. Afterall, it can only increase the playerbase, keep people interested in the game, and make more people happy.

2 cent rant over.

I am unable to vote because I don't really play the game in the way indicated in 1 or 2, and I also find option 2 totally inaccurate as a description of 'the game as it has recently been devised'. The opening poster is making a number of assumptions about the game which just aren't true in my opinion.

2. We will call this "Dawn of a new era"

Since when is it 'dawn of a new era'? As far as I recall, there has been defensive, standard and attacking variations in the game since CM2! It is nothing new and these kind of variations have been in the game for a very long time.

This would be playing the game as it has recently been devised, largely making changes on the fly and mostly based on what your opposition are doing rather than your own teams strengths and weakness's.

It doesn't mean that at all. At least not as far as I am aware. I stand corrected if one of the game's makers comes in and says otherwise but I doubt they will!

In my opinion, you don't always have to react to what the opposition are doing in order to be tactically good at FM. The new tactics creator and tactical shouts put the emphasis on: 1) building your tactic around the strengths of your team; and 2) working out how to outwit the opposition manager. This is exactly how it should be.

This can also require a lot of in match tweaking based largely on what you see happening via the ME.

I disagree again. This approach does not require a lot of in match tweaking. It's also made infinitely easier by the new tactical shouts. Everything is far more accessible tactically.

Pro's - More realistic to real life.

What you have described (i.e. only making changes based on the opposition and making lots of in-match tweaks) isn't really realistic in my view. It's simply what you have decided to believe and I certainly don't think that it is true.

The new tactics creator and tactics shouts certainly have made the game more realistic though, or at least they allow the manager to play in a more realistic fashion.

Cons - Time consuming

A lot of people seem to talk about the increasing complexity etc., and how it has slowed the game down. I would argue, though, that FM10 is one of the quickest and most accessible versions ever. The new advice in the game makes things that little bit quicker in terms of getting your tactical ideas sorted out and the tactics creator and shouts (a masterpiece in my opinion) allow you to put all of your efforts into getting the best from your team, rather than fiddling with sliders and building new tactics from scratch.

For these reasons, FM10 is probably my favourite ever version of the series. I can quickly pick up a save, play a couple of matches and then put it away again. The accessibility is great and what is best about it is that none of the complexity has been sacrificed. Just my opinion of course.

Often hard to read via the ME what is wrong tactically

You watch football in real life, right?

All that is needed is common sense. The tactics creator has made things even quicker and more accessible than ever. All you need to do is to make simple decisions relating to real life football.

For example:

1) 'Oh I'm 2-0 up now, perhaps we should "take a breather" and "retain possession"'.

2) 'We cannot seem to break down this defence, perhaps we should become more attacking and play with more width'.

3) 'My team aren't taking enough shots, perhaps I should tell them to "shoot on sight"'.

4) 'My team are taking too many shots from distance, perhaps I should tell them to "work it into the box"'.

5) 'We're 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, perhaps now is the time to settle for the result and become more defensive'.

These are some of the basic things you might do each game. As you can see, it is nothing terrible. Just basic and simple decisions you can make on a game-by-game basis. It's stuff you probably already know from watching real football matches! Probably stuff you say to your Dad, best mate, Wife or whoever you watch football with all of the time.

It's good fun as well, making these decisions for yourself, and it takes no time at all. You don't need any in-depth theoretical understanding and you don't need to tweak every five minutes. All you need is a basic understanding of football and the ability to click a button on a drop-down menu!

As someone else has pointed out, the beauty of FM is that you can have competing philosophies which both work in the game, just like in real life. For instance, Dafuge sets up a fundamentally solid tactic, then focuses all of his efforts into bringing the best talent he can find into his squad and using his man management skills to make sure they are all motivated to play for him and feeling confident. On the other hand, I'm not so good in the transfer market, but I love the tactical side. I largely rely on whatever my scouts find and concentrate on the squeezing everything I can out of my squad tactically. There is room for both philosophies in the game (and more) evidenced by the success that Dafuge and I enjoy in playing the game our own ways. In fact, Dafuge is far more successful than I am, and I am supposed to be an apologist for WWFan's way of playing the game!

The tactics creator and the shouts have resulted in the greatest step forward for the game in recent years, in my opinion. It is all leading to more of a complete experience. In conclusion, I think your idea about how the game has been devised as a kind of 'tactics manager' (invented by that super evil tactical nerd WWFan, of course! ) is just totally wrong.

As others have said, the great thing with FM is you can play it your own way. You could play very slowly, watching 90 minute matches and make tactical changes during that, tweaking tactics in a lot of detail for each game etc. You could even scout players yourself by watching other matches.

As dafuge has said, you can play the way described in option 1, there's no reason to complain while the game still lets you play that way. I really don't believe SI have said they'll be stopping that in future, would love to see some proof of that.

I do something in between, I want to play quick enough to actually get through the season, but if I rush through it I find I can struggle a bit.

You'll never be able to play the way you could on CM 01/02 and the games around that time, but then they were very different games and don't have so many of the new features and details the FM games have now.

Dawn of a new era, sounds like something tak would say doesn't it?

Dawn of a new era, sounds like something tak would say doesn't it?

I am unable to vote because I don't really play the game in the way indicated in 1 or 2, and I also find option 2 totally inaccurate as a description of 'the game as it has recently been devised'. The opening poster is making a number of assumptions about the game which just aren't true in my opinion.

Since when is it 'dawn of a new era'? As far as I recall, there has been defensive, standard and attacking variations in the game since CM2! It is nothing new and these kind of variations have been in the game for a very long time.

It doesn't mean that at all. At least not as far as I am aware. I stand corrected if one of the game's makers comes in and says otherwise but I doubt they will!

In my opinion, you don't always have to react to what the opposition are doing in order to be tactically good at FM. The new tactics creator and tactical shouts put the emphasis on: 1) building your tactic around the strengths of your team; and 2) working out how to outwit the opposition manager. This is exactly how it should be.

I disagree again. This approach does not require a lot of in match tweaking. It's also made infinitely easier by the new tactical shouts. Everything is far more accessible tactically.

What you have described (i.e. only making changes based on the opposition and making lots of in-match tweaks) isn't really realistic in my view. It's simply what you have decided to believe and I certainly don't think that it is true.

The new tactics creator and tactics shouts certainly have made the game more realistic though, or at least they allow the manager to play in a more realistic fashion.

A lot of people seem to talk about the increasing complexity etc., and how it has slowed the game down. I would argue, though, that FM10 is one of the quickest and most accessible versions ever. The new advice in the game makes things that little bit quicker in terms of getting your tactical ideas sorted out and the tactics creator and shouts (a masterpiece in my opinion) allow you to put all of your efforts into getting the best from your team, rather than fiddling with sliders and building new tactics from scratch.

For these reasons, FM10 is probably my favourite ever version of the series. I can quickly pick up a save, play a couple of matches and then put it away again. The accessibility is great and what is best about it is that none of the complexity has been sacrificed. Just my opinion of course.

You watch football in real life, right?

All that is needed is common sense. The tactics creator has made things even quicker and more accessible than ever. All you need to do is to make simple decisions relating to real life football.

For example:

1) 'Oh I'm 2-0 up now, perhaps we should "take a breather" and "retain possession"'.

2) 'We cannot seem to break down this defence, perhaps we should become more attacking and play with more width'.

3) 'My team aren't taking enough shots, perhaps I should tell them to "shoot on sight"'.

4) 'My team are taking too many shots from distance, perhaps I should tell them to "work it into the box"'.

5) 'We're 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, perhaps now is the time to settle for the result and become more defensive'.

These are some of the basic things you might do each game. As you can see, it is nothing terrible. Just basic and simple decisions you can make on a game-by-game basis. It's stuff you probably already know from watching real football matches! Probably stuff you say to your Dad, best mate, Wife or whoever you watch football with all of the time.

It's good fun as well, making these decisions for yourself, and it takes no time at all. You don't need any in-depth theoretical understanding and you don't need to tweak every five minutes. All you need is a basic understanding of football and the ability to click a button on a drop-down menu!

As someone else has pointed out, the beauty of FM is that you can have competing philosophies which both work in the game, just like in real life. For instance, Dafuge sets up a fundamentally solid tactic, then focuses all of his efforts into bringing the best talent he can find into his squad and using his man management skills to make sure they are all motivated to play for him and feeling confident. On the other hand, I'm not so good in the transfer market, but I love the tactical side. I largely rely on whatever my scouts find and concentrate on the squeezing everything I can out of my squad tactically. There is room for both philosophies in the game (and more) evidenced by the success that Dafuge and I enjoy in playing the game our own ways. In fact, Dafuge is far more successful than I am, and I am supposed to be an apologist for WWFan's way of playing the game!

The tactics creator and the shouts have resulted in the greatest step forward for the game in recent years, in my opinion. It is all leading to more of a complete experience. In conclusion, I think your idea about how the game has been devised as a kind of 'tactics manager' (invented by that super evil tactical nerd WWFan, of course! ) is just totally wrong.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn, wake me up when you have something interesting to say.

Regards

Hammer1000

If this was just my own opinion and NOBODY agreed then i would have stopped posting long ago, but around 60% of FM'ers prefer the game in a more simple format, at least tactically, so in that case, as you are in the small minority your post is full of the same misled ramblings as usual and again as usual just bore me, i feel a little sorry for you to be honest, but carry on posting and please wake me up when you actually have something interesting to say.

Regards

Hammer1000(again)

Hammer where did you get this 60% from?

I don't want thing's simpler, but maybe explained better, or at least a bit easier to understand.

You can't say "around 60% of FM'ers prefer the game in a more simple format" based on a poll in here. You'd get different results if you posted the same thread in the tactics forum. The forums also only represent a small group of all the people that play FM as well.

I'm sure a large percentage do only want to play that way, but plenty play the other way and loads will also play their own way.

I'm plug and play, a big believer in the "let them change their play to suit us" approach. Doing me well so far.

around 60% of FM'ers prefer the game in a more simple format, at least tactically, so in that case, as you are in the small minority

Where did you get this statistic from?

your post is full of the same misled ramblings as usual and again as usual just bore me, i feel a little sorry for you to be honest

The feeling is absolutely mutual.

Nice post ldktalin, I agree with a lot of that. Particularly the quote below.

Which brings me to the point - give the regular football fans who only see whether a team is playing sh*t or not a chance to have their fantasy job without demanding the understanding, commitment and education as if it were a real job.

You can't say "around 60% of FM'ers prefer the game in a more simple format" based on a poll in here. You'd get different results if you posted the same thread in the tactics forum. The forums also only represent a small group of all the people that play FM as well.

I'm sure a large percentage do only want to play that way, but plenty play the other way and loads will also play their own way.

Yeah, probably more in favour of option 1, how many tactic sets have you seen uploaded in the T&T Forum?

Not worth having it out with you fella's to be honest, i'll just let the stats speak for themselves.

Nice post ldktalin, I agree with a lot of that. Particularly the quote below.

Yes, it was a very good post.

Yeah, probably more in favour of option 1, how many tactic sets have you seen uploaded in the T&T Forum?

Not worth having it out with you fella's to be honest, i'll just let the stats speak for themselves.

You don't even know who has answered the poll. My point was you could get a group of FM'ers together that love tweaking tactics (fair enough there's probably plenty of people in that forum that just want to download tactics) and you'd get very different answers.

As I said I'd love to see proof that SI are going to change the game so you can't play in that style, because I'm pretty certain they won't stop a huge group of people from wanting to play future FMs. There's a good balance at the moment and I doubt they'll be changing that on purpose.

If you don't want a discussion mate, should the thread be closed then? Or why even make the thread, as the stats really arent saying anything due to the small number of people who have voted (I havent as there isnt really an option for 1 and 2.

The poll results are fundamentally flawed anyway because option 2 is totally inaccurate as a description of 'the game as it has recently been devised' and because the opening poster is making a number of assumptions about the game which just aren't true.

If you don't want a discussion mate, should the thread be closed then? Or why even make the thread, as the stats really arent saying anything due to the small number of people who have voted (I havent as there isnt really an option for 1 and 2.

You can try to discuss it with him if you like but he will just be rude to you and insult you in lieu of giving you an intelligent response.

You can try to discuss it with him if you like but he will just be rude to you and insult you in lieu of giving you an intelligent response.

I'm telling you, tak is his alias

I live in hope that we can get the hammer of a few years ago who wasn't quite as bitter as now. As I've said in the past I enjoyed his posts from back then.

Hammer, please click this link to the these forums v2 thread, which contains some important information that you should read.

I'll post up a couple of the most relevant quotations:

The purpose of these forums is for people to be able to talk about the game, a bit of speculation about what the future holds, coming up with ideas, and discussing them with likeminded people - people who play Football Manager.

What they aren't a place for is to sling around personal insults, not listening to other people or destructive criticism.

Obviously, we understand that some discussions can become heated but if you can't argue your point in a mature manner, then you shouldn't be posting.

You can try to discuss it with him if you like but he will just be rude to you and insult you in lieu of giving you an intelligent response.

No fella, no need, the poll speaks for itself despite your arguments to the contrary.

Regards

Hammer1000

No fella, no need, the poll speaks for itself despite your arguments to the contrary.

As I said before, your poll is fundamentally flawed:

The poll results are fundamentally flawed anyway because option 2 is totally inaccurate as a description of 'the game as it has recently been devised' and because the opening poster is making a number of assumptions about the game which just aren't true.