FM been on top too long?

i have been playing fm for 14 years ..i like the new 3d with this new game...but it feels like the game has lost it's *soul* somehow..

i hate the sliders...i hate that i need to put players on weaker foot,,tackle harder ..close in on player etc etc every 5 minutes..then when they score 1-0 on me...i wait a little hoping to tie the game...ok they score again 2-0 i need to change tactics and load a new one that is more attacking...now it has forgotten some of my settings...hey you need to close player b down better again..set player c on weaker foot etc etc...

my striker is on a bad run..he wont score....so why is he not scoring?...as a manager i have no clue...he is not telling me that he feels there is not enough support from the midfielders or that the winger loses the ball too often because he is a dribbling freak..he really tells me nothing..all i can do is tell the press he sucks baaawls..

take control of a club?? ..what control...why is tactics failing...i dont know..there is no control.. ahhh we doing good and winning matches..why are we winning??..i dont know why!

all i know we scored more than they did... if we lose ...why do we lose? i dont know...i feel like i got no control... a season can look like this with bolton.... chelsea at home 4-0 portsmouth at home 1-2 arsenal away we win 2-1 wigan at home 0-0 liverpool home 3-0..stoke away lose 3-0 ..i could have gotten those results throwing dice..there is no consistency..

you dream of getting that player for several millions to make your team better??...

forget about him..he sucks more than your gf..for the other team he is the king of the universe...for you he is a manodepressive loser..his 17 in finishing means your league position with him in the team!!

i hope a new management game hits the shelves that put some pressure on SI GAMES...

dont get me wrong it is a decent product...but i would like to see a football manager game where i get more feedback from my assistant and my players..and that feels more like football!!

This is another WOB thread. +1

Realism v.s. casual gamer argument. It's been discussed ad nauseum; both has its own pros and cons. Ultimately, you talk with your wallet.

1.) my striker is on a bad run..he wont score....so why is he not scoring?...as a manager i have no clue...he is not telling me that he feels there is not enough support from the midfielders or that the winger loses the ball too often because he is a dribbling freak..he really tells me nothing..all i can do is tell the press he sucks baaawls..

2.) take control of a club?? ..what control...why is tactics failing...i dont know..there is no control.. ahhh we doing good and winning matches..why are we winning??..i dont know why!

all i know we scored more than they did... if we lose ...why do we lose? i dont know...i feel like i got no control... a season can look like this with bolton.... chelsea at home 4-0 portsmouth at home 1-2 arsenal away we win 2-1 wigan at home 0-0 liverpool home 3-0..stoke away lose 3-0 ..i could have gotten those results throwing dice..there is no consistency..

3.) you dream of getting that player for several millions to make your team better??...

forget about him..he sucks more than your gf..for the other team he is the king of the universe...for you he is a manodepressive loser..his 17 in finishing means your league position with him in the team!!

4.) i hope a new management game hits the shelves that put some pressure on SI GAMES...

dont get me wrong it is a decent product...but i would like to see a football manager game where i get more feedback from my assistant and my players..and that feels more like football!!

I separated your issues , so i can easier try to respond:

1) FM 09 has way more feedback then any previous version. Just read stats and ASSman feedback, as well watch game on extended or full, and you will have quite clear picture most of the times. There are things that are beyond any logic caused by lack of animations, some old bugs that surfaced more obvious with 3D, but in general it is much more easier to read it.

2.) To be honest with you , i generally see why i lost game or why i won. It could be just one mistake in midfield that caused me to lose or could be low morale or my tactics or several other things. But in the end it is possible to see it. And i suck as manager.Only time i had no explanation why i am winning or losing was with FM 08, but that was bug-ridden version that was beyond any logical comprehension in so many ways.Even then it was to easy , due to all bugs.

3.) Could be due to football reasons, like not getting quality balls , lack of balls ,not fitting into tactics etc..or something non-match related. My best striker (on paper) is sitting on the bench , because he just doesn't play well with any of other 4 strikers in team and vice versa, while as lone striker he scores with ease. If i play any other combination, that doesn't include him , i score much more.Or maybe his adaptability was low .

4.) There are 2 more management games on market CM and FIFA whatever is called, supposedly they are more casual then FM.However i don't think either of them is good as this one.As for more feedback, well not to many players IRL will tell their manager "i suck in crossing " or "i dribble to much".It's manager's job to observe that and work on fixing that

Either way , i would suggest you not to give up. I didn't give up after last years FM 08 fiasco, and now i am enjoying it.

I suppose from the point of view of have there been any serious challengers, there really hasn't been. I bought LMA Manager once, never again.

The match engine this year ruined the game for me. I've gone back to fm 2008 for now.

E. g Attacking Professional players probably play every game against opposition who have been given a full briefing on their strenghts and flaws, may have even watched them on video. And then told close him down all match, and watch out for his e. g left, he likes to drop back, go wide....

Amazingly goals still get scored????

PS I think the match engine is the best ever

Sorry - one final. I think your question is a fair one, but not supported by your arguments. (No disrespect intended). I do think FM needs to start looking over its shoulder. PC Gamer (usually a fan over last few iterations, though not initiallly when I think they described game as suprisingly good selling excel spreadsheet) gave FM09 69% I seem to recollect. This is far from a good score - my interpretation was cos the game has stagnated, not progressed (and was probably quite buggy)

One of the things that alwasy annoys me about FM is that you never properly start a game until months after purchase, and with each patch the game changes (somtimes alot) and yes other games are patched too (vitually all I guess) but never as bad in terms of altering game play as FM. But now albeit two months after initial puchase I do think this is the best FM ever, but dont know who much longer that for me will be good enough...(I'll vote with my wallet)

Realism v.s. casual gamer argument. It's been discussed ad nauseum; both has its own pros and cons. Ultimately, you talk with your wallet.

Agreed! Unfortuanely i think that now FM cannot keep its fans that aren't hard core gamers due to lots of bugs, addictiveness and the excess money it costs you buying a new laptop ram installer etc. Fortunately i'm a hardcore gamer which i don't if its a good thing or bad thing :confused:

Maestro, my way of solving those kind of problems is by watching several (whole) matches of my team in 3D. Then I can see that some of my players cannot exacute well my offensive tactics or that some of my players are not able to guard their man or zone. Then I try to think why this is so. Is it down to general tactics? Is it down to a player's specific tactical instructions? Is it down to player being much worse than opposition? Is it down to morale? Is it that some player is out of form?

I used to need a lot of playing time to figure these things out, but now I am kind of an experienced player and good things happen much quicker. And it's very rewarding too, as it has not been too easy for me.

So, if I were you, I 'd start with a simple 4-4-2 and watch some matches. I 'd tweak general and spefific tactics according to my players' strengths, quality of opposition, field dimensions and weather. And start wondering why things are happening. The tactics and training forum is there to help you with your quest.

Not knowing why I win or lose was a problem before the 2D was introduced, but now the match visual representation has helped me solve it.

I agree with OP. There seems to be alot of inconsistancy in results, and AI teams doesn't seem to be affected by moral at all. Instructions seems to matter very little. Any there is neither any indication why I only drew with a team, or why I beat United 4-0 other than the ME decided that it was the time to be totally effective on chances. When I look at the results in their games as well, it is the same. They draw in games they should have won easily, and win 4-0 in an equal match.

I can still win the PL with a predefined tactic and man management, which works better than fiddling around with anything - which is also totally uninteresting and unrealistic. Simply due to the fact that my biggest rivals are innane at buying players and man management and are hit by the same inconsistancy. IE Chelsea losing at home vs Stoke 2-0 etc, then goes on to beat LFC 3-1 in the next away.

Like OP I have played for many years(17), and is a HC gamer. People thinking that fiddling around with tactics does much are believing an illusion. Why fiddle when you can win at end season without it with a predefined tactic?

This shows that other games that came out ain't as competent as FM much less beat it eh? FM got no lack of competition, when FM ain't performing well, it is just the other games incompetent enough to take advantage of it. Too bad.

Fully agree. There is plenty of competition out there, from Eidos and EA most notably, but in the end it's still SI that comes out tops.

To be honest the opposition instructions changing tactics every 5 minutes is a myth.

I play with 4 very simple 4-4-2 tactics (no indivudual player changes) and don't change tactic during the game and managed to finish 10th in my first season with West Brom.

Keep it simple you can get decent success. I play with commentary only to get through quicker.

Keep it old school.

still FM is the best management game out there..sometimes i just wish it was not ; )

i been trying to get into fifa manager but i just cant stand it...

players had stats like 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 on the various skills...didnt feel like alot of thought were put into it..hehe

but i would love to have fifa managers 3d on fm ; )

If the niche of the market ever becomes truly big enough to contest it, you can almost guarantee EA would throw enough money at it to outshine SI & Sega's efforts. Notice Sega's football games have never competed with FIFA and pro evo lol, and lets face it the competing series there have just been driven out by EA on the whole part.

It'd actually become a shame if the market did become that big though, because there wouldn't be much variety afterwards, I mean go back to 1995/1996 on the mega drive, I can remember having 4 or 5 different football games, all good fun. Now there's only 2. That being said, the football management market has shrunk considerably, Premier manager chimes in every couple of years with a release, which is pretty shoddy. LMA - is that still around? I haven't seen any game, gamestation etc stores round here with a copy on their shelves post 06/07 version. Sensible world of soccer is long gone, all thats left is FM, CM and Fifa Manager I can vaguely remember a couple of others down the years which have tried but failed to make an impact on football management games.

The main problem is the fact that both EA and SI want to release annually games. One of the problems for me, when it comes to FM(I don't care about Fifa) is that they want to make it harder, but do so by making it less transparant what makes a difference, and add more complexity ie with adding prefered moves, and make the AI adapt to your tactics. However, as always keeping it simple works far better than going down the path of complex. As mentioned earlier I have great succes(by results) by just sticking to a pre-defined tactic, and not fiddling with anything other than man-management and subs - The only indicator being the rating, which actually seems to work(while nothing else in the statistics seem to indicate why things work or don't). The fact that many of my games makes me think that I am playing a 22 man hockey game; many of my attacks seems like I am playing power play with all of my 10 outfielders taking part in the last 1/3 of the field.

I don't find it fair to just be bashing on SI - many other things involving around the actual match works very well - especially your ability to finally be able to sell your players(hooray). Still room for improvment, but it works better than in a long time. These parts seem to go in the right direction, and adding 3d engine was a step in the right direction - however, it does not work very well yet.

However, all of these cosmetics fall flat, when the actual game engine is insatisfactory. Many game developers make the same mistakes over and over again; they try to add more complexity to a game that was flawed when simple. It cannot be done this way.

This WOB thread odd to be closed.

i agree with OP - consistency is bizarre