Farewell to Football Manager

It still eludes why Football Manager leaves me in such an impassioned state. Now, as I've grown older and somewhat wiser, I'm starting to suspect that I'm personally not suited for the game. Ultimately, Football Manager demands two things: patience and contentment. I possess neither of these virtues, unfortunately, which is why I love-hate this game series. I love the endless possibilities, the open-endedness. I love the freedom and the challenge. However, it seems these things are no longer sufficient. They can't replenish that enthusiasm anymore which compells me to buy the game every year. Why? Is this just hyperbole? Or is it something else?

To be frank, I can't really remember the last time I had genuine fun with Football Manager. I seem to recall good times with the 2005 and 2006 iterations, for some reason. Nowadays, it's just a chore. I continually push myself through matches and seasons, searching for that equilibrium: the perfect calm that allows me to just play the game without being distracted by glaring flaws or general frustrations. Naturally, the reason I boot up the game is to have fun; there can't be any other reason, otherwise something would be very wrong with my priorities. Still, these last three years I've invested 2636 hours into Football Manager, as Steam kindly informs me. During these 2636 hours, I've had some good times, to be sure, but they are eclipsed by the bad ones. I wish I could say otherwise, but that's the truth. My truth. So, what is it about Football Manager that riles me up so? Why is it that I launch myself into these sporadic tirades on these forums? I'll endeavour to explain - one last time.

The best way I can summarise FM13 and especially FM14 is with one word: profligacy. If the series was to be renamed Profligacy Manager, it wouldn't really be that untrue. Often, it feels more like I'm managing my attacking players' levels of profligacy (which is like skating uphill), rather than taking care of an actual football team. If my defenders play poorly, or if the opposing side's attackers go on a rampage, there's a few options to rectify this. However, it's all part of football, more or less, and I've grown to accept that. Playing with top sides, however, and having to go through innumerable dry patches - over and over and over again - just drains me of energy. Initially I thought I was doing something wrong. Maybe it was morale, team talks, bad luck. But every game I've played so far of both FM13 and FM14 - with every team you could possibly imagine - it's always been the same. Miracle tactics, free-scoring tactics: none of it really matters in the end. The times when attackers actually score easy chances is when I sit up and pay attention. When they miss them, I just roll my eyes. I guess that's the killer. I just don't care anymore. The last match I played - which probably will be the last match I'll ever play - was against HSV. My Wolfsburg was completely dominating for 80 minutes. Nothing happened. Big surprise. It was a cavalcade of missed chances and baffling decision making. I'd seen it all many times before. Then, out of the blue, I was finally able to break the deadlock. I had put on some subs and it paid dividends. I expected the team to be reinvigorated by this and further smash the hapless opposition, which had failed to create anything noteworthy in 80 minutes. Then, of course, a highlight. I immediately knew what was going to happen. The ball bounces back and forth between the two halves. At first it looked like Wolfsburg would have another goal-scoring opportunity. I knew better, though. A HSV player crosses the ball into the penalty area - chaos - and the ball ends up in the net. 1-1. That's when I stopped. This was hardly the first time it had happened. In fact, it happens all the time. Tactic, context or team be damned. It's always the same thing. When I looked ahead, I saw a thousand matches which I utterly and completely dominate. My world-class attackers? Well... some things just never change, I guess. One day you trounce Dortmund, the other you shoot 25 futile balls against some relegation fodder. "HE CAN'T MISS!" *misses* Oh, and apparently I spend 20 matches a season with my head in my hands.

The way I view this game is, of course, highly subjective. The reasons I can't enjoy this game - this series - has little to do with any other player. Arguing over the match engine will always be a battleground with no perceivable solution or victor. It's just a highly imperfect aspect of the game, which is difficult to amend to everyone's liking. It's just a shame it drove me out of the door, though.

Is that all there's to it? No, not really. You see, I'm really sick of seeing promising newgen defenders with 3 or 2 for Bravery. I hoped and prayed it would be fixed for FM11, then FM12, then FM13 and then finally FM14. Nope. I guess SI is content with newgens like this. Perhaps when they play the game and come across a defensive midfielder with 16 for Aggression and 2 for Bravery, they sign the youngster up, thinking: "Wow, look at all dem stars..."

Or what about those Sugar Daddy clubs? I really hoped that FFP would rein these clubs in. I was mistaken. It's the same as it's always been. PSG, Monaco, Chelsea, Man City, they all go crazy - every year. Signing players left and right for stupid amounts of money, play them for one season and then buy replacements regardless of how they performed. These clubs, frenzied by broken coding, leave a swath of destroyed players in their wake. Sometimes I close my eyes and imagine a world where the AI think three years ahead instead of one. That they'll buy a batch of players and form a squad to challenge for trophies. That's how you generally win things, after all. That's not how Football Manager works. Rich clubs has to buy every single player that has more CA than the one they currently employ. It doesn't matter if that very same player has been playing well. It just doesn't matter. PSG buy Benteke for 25M and he plays well for his first season there. His CA isn't high enough, though, so a replacement has to be bought and Benteke spends the following two seasons in the PSG Reserves. Ideally, according to the logic of the AI, his replacement should also be replaced. What about Cabaye? He was a catalyst, everything PSG could've hoped for in a deep-lying playmaker. He brought calm and assured passing to that central midfield. But his CA isn't up to scratch so that's another 60M splashed about. Because the AI is stupid, and quite frankly, I've had enough. This is it. I'm done trying to be content with these things. At the heart of it, I'm playing a game that isn't bringing me any joy anymore. I've had too many bad moments, I think. If it isn't the match engine annoying me, it's the inane AI, or the lazy writing, or the deficient newgens. For a guy that's been playing since CM 01/02 (which still remains my favourite), it's time to make a decision. It's been an interesting journey, no doubt; a real roller-coaster with its ups and downs. I just wish there were more ups than downs. Oh well. No game can please everyone.

Maybe in the future, this time next year when FM15 is "finished", I'll be tempted to buy it when Steam has a sale. Maybe I'll install it and hope for better things. Get sucked in again. Maybe that'll be the FM I've been waiting for all this time. But, of course, that's what I thought about FM13 and FM14 too...

Well, that's all I had to say.

I don't get why you don't just play one of the older games then.

"Farewell to Football Manager" ? Farewell to this thread sometime soon no doubt

Well, that's all I had to say.

Believe me it's enough

To be frank, I can't really remember the last time I had genuine fun with Football Manager. I seem to recall good times with the 2005 and 2006 iterations, for some reason. Nowadays, it's just a chore. I continually push myself through matches and seasons, searching for that equilibrium: the perfect calm that allows me to just play the game without being distracted by glaring flaws or general frustrations. Naturally, the reason I boot up the game is to have fun; there can't be any other reason, otherwise something would be very wrong with my priorities. Still, these last three years I've invested 2636 hours into Football Manager, as Steam kindly informs me. During these 2636 hours, I've had some good times, to be sure, but they are eclipsed by the bad ones.

Why on earth would you put so many hours into a computer game you clearly don't enjoy more than you do?

I agree with a lot of that post especially the head in hands statement after yet another horrendous miss. My hands have fused with my head at this point

I agree with a lot of that post especially the head in hands statement after yet another horrendous miss.

And of course, he blames the game and not himself. Despite countless evidence of other users getting their strikers to score freely. Despite countless evidence of other users actually dominating AND scoring.

But no, let's blame the game because people can't handle the thought that maybe, just maybe the problems they're having are down to themselves.

I agree with a lot of that post especially the head in hands statement after yet another horrendous miss. My hands have fused with my head at this point

Players miss chances IRL though and a lot of users seem to forget this.

The stats show good strikers score around 30% of the time, really good ones at closer to 40% but this shows they miss a lot as well, just look at the England game the other night as an example with Sturridge missing two chances that users would be raging about on here.

And of course, he blames the game and not himself. Despite countless evidence of other users getting their strikers to score freely. Despite countless evidence of other users actually dominating AND scoring.

But no, let's blame the game because people can't handle the thought that maybe, just maybe the problems they're having are down to themselves.

To be fair there is countless evidence of plenty struggling to get their strikers scoring freely as well !!

I think it's only fair to accept peoples opinions without attacking their ability to play the game. The game has errors and as players we make errors, it's not black and white every issue encountered can't be the games fault but at the same time every issue can't be the players fault.

I think the OP has made some valid comments but without knowing his tactics, and way of managing you can't just say it's his fault. I just beat Arsenal away 4-1 and yet in the next game against Chelsea I was 3-0 down after 20 minutes after defending magnificently against Arsenal for 90 minutes. My players finished 4 of many chances against Arsenal but hardly had a sniff against Chelsea. I'm baffled and that IMO is one of the biggest problems with this FM, there may be a rhyme or reason for it but it's bloody difficult to work out why when you don't have much time to play the game. Consistency is a strange one in this FM. I find myself constantly tinkering and that corrodes my enjoyment of the game. I don't mind getting beat but at times it is so extreme that a way of playing one week seems pretty solid but the next totally useless. You can go through pre season maybe losing a game so you tinker, then you might win the next two 2-0, you tinker again and win your last friendly 6-0 so you are looking forward to the season start only to be stuffed out of sight away at Hull on the first day and you cannot understand why.

Yes it could be tactical but it could also be down to various weaknesses in this years game. Maybe there are too many variables that is about making sure you get everything 100% right from training to players to motivation to tactics and if you are slightly out one just one of those it can prove costly.

There are probably thousands happy with the game but thousands may not be but all have an opinion and I think it's harsh to criticise someone just for having a different opinion from your own.

I think the OP has made some valid comments but without knowing his tactics, and way of managing you can't just say it's his fault.

The point I was making was that at no point did the OP even acknowledge it could be his fault.

Guarantee the OP person keeps playing FM14 and will obviously keep buying every new release in the future also.

Too many people have the same problems for it to be just them. Strikers don't score, corners, own goals blah blah blah. The internet forums are riddled with people struggling as are the people I know who play the game away from forums. Its become monotonous to the point you know you'll lose certain matches to crazy goals after battering them for the whole match no matter what you try and do. I feel for the OP as I also have days like he does. It often doesn't feel like fun anymore. It appears to be some sort of criminal offense to suggest the game is flawed in any way.

Too many people have the same problems for it to be just them. Strikers don't score, corners, own goals blah blah blah. The internet forums are riddled with people struggling as are the people I know who play the game away from forums. Its become monotonous to the point you know you'll lose certain matches to crazy goals after battering them for the whole match no matter what you try and do. I feel for the OP as I also have days like he does. It often doesn't feel like fun anymore. It appears to be some sort of criminal offense to suggest the game is flawed in any way.

No one ever suggests the game doesn't have bugs the problem is a lot of the issues that people bring to the forums aren't bugs.

The first step is for a person to have realistic expectations, this means players get injured, strikers miss more than they score and that dominating possession doesn't mean you should win the game just like real life.

The second step is to accept that at least some of the issues are of the users making through making poor choices often tactical but it also includes media comments/team talks and how you build & manage your squad of players. You improve by stepping back, evaluating your teams performance and identifying where it went wrong. The tactics forum has loads of good threads where you can improve your knowledge, How to build tactics, how to balance roles & duties, how to approach games etc.

The users that take the time to put some effort into the game generally improve and enjoy it more. I've always said the more you put into FM the more you get out, its time consuming and certainly should not be considered an "Arcade" game which means its not for everyone.

I actually agree, Cougar. The game does have flaws and errors but equally so do the players. Where the game really falls down imo is feeding back these errors to the player and sufficiently and accurately documenting the various functions of the tactical interface.

A player can design a tactic that looks sensible and reasonable and very much like a tactic which would be used irl which then gets destroyed because the player hasn't quite understood some obscure thing with the ME or a role or duty isn't quite clear. We know it's a bad idea to have all your defenders on a defend duty for example but to many that would simply seem like common sense.

For FM15 i'd like to see them improve the tactical feedback to the player, be it from the assman or a sky sports style post game analysis where a pundit comments on certain highlights. The OP's strikers seem to be missing chances but what the game isn't telling him is WHY they're missing these chances. It could be that he's got his attack set up slightly wrong or it could be a flaw in the ME causing it but we don't know and he certainly doesn't.

I actually agree, Cougar. The game does have flaws and errors but equally so do the players. Where the game really falls down imo is feeding back these errors to the player and sufficiently and accurately documenting the various functions of the tactical interface.

A player can design a tactic that looks sensible and reasonable and very much like a tactic which would be used irl which then gets destroyed because the player hasn't quite understood some obscure thing with the ME or a role or duty isn't quite clear. We know it's a bad idea to have all your defenders on a defend duty for example but to many that would simply seem like common sense.

For FM15 i'd like to see them improve the tactical feedback to the player, be it from the assman or a sky sports style post game analysis where a pundit comments on certain highlights. The OP's strikers seem to be missing chances but what the game isn't telling him is WHY they're missing these chances. It could be that he's got his attack set up slightly wrong or it could be a flaw in the ME causing it but we don't know and he certainly doesn't.

Bang on, fantastic post.

The comment about defenders is spot on. The "pass beyond the full back and centre back" is a prime example of this. The "between the lines" suggestion which advises an attack duty in defence, one in midfield, and so on can create a problem in a users mind. If that pass is continuously happening in the game beyond your attacking full back it is probably natural for a user to then put all his defenders on defend or at least support thus creating a further problem because of the nature of the ME. IRL YOU CAN have all your defenders on defend so to speak without any problem and as the user has been told to apply footballing logic he doesn't think doing this will cause a problem.

The main issue is what Loki says though and that is poor in game feedback from the game in the main assistants and coaches. Many a time on these forums I have seen people suggest that users just ignore their Assistant. What's the use of that?! If the Assistant is giving you useless advice it is only makes things even more difficult.

An example of this is training. I really can't be bothered with training, that's what staff are for!!! Yet a lot of the time under my Assistant half the squad is unhappy because training is too light or too heavy but there isn't an option to just have a chat with the Assistant and say "Up the intensity a bit/lower it a bit" Same with PPM's. I have been told at times to ignore a coach who says that "I don't see Player A learning that at this stage of his career" If I want Kevin Nolan to stop being offside it doesn't matter if he is 20 or 50 I should be able to ask him to try but if the coach really doesn't see him learning that then you should be able to trust the coaches opinion. At the moment it's too open. Do we trust the coach or don't we? What are we paying our staff for!!!!!? Yes I can take training myself but that's not the issue, if we are trying to make a game as realistic as possible then improved staff interaction has to be at the top of the tree when it comes to improvements.

I also don't think that the forums really help as much as they could do as well. I see many posts from people asking for help just fade away or have too many conflicting opinions. I have done a couple myself. Posted my tactics, asked sensible questions and whilst have some answers which I fully appreciate the thread dies and you don't receive the advice you are looking for. In previous FM's when the sliders were active the advice seemed far more forthcoming and the advice seemed better. Maybe it was because it was easier to give. Maybe so many people "think" they know the answers about the TC but in reality they don't so that's why advice is so conflicting and if advice is conflicting how are people supposed to improve at the game?

It always intrigues me as well when people attack a struggling player with comments like " you have no understanding of football tactics!" I would be interested in a poll to see how many successful users have ever actually kicked a ball compared to how many struggling users have a lot of real life football experience. I've said before that I have played, coached and managed at a reasonably high standard and yet there are many real life things that you can not replicate in FM. Third man runs are not implemented, defending with always three at the back in a back four is tough to get right, pressing is poor in the game whilst multiple pressing is impossible so lets not think that just because someone is struggling at times in game has no idea about football because what works IRL football doesn't necessarily work in the game, if it did no-one would be complaining!!!

Generally though if the in game feedback could be better it would be a lot easier for many. If an assistant can say to you "Andy Carrol missed those three clear cut chances today because he was upset with you because you took tomato ketchup off the menu" then at least I would know why Andy Carroll couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo!!!

I also don't think that the forums really help as much as they could do as well. I see many posts from people asking for help just fade away or have too many conflicting opinions. I have done a couple myself. Posted my tactics, asked sensible questions and whilst have some answers which I fully appreciate the thread dies and you don't receive the advice you are looking for. In previous FM's when the sliders were active the advice seemed far more forthcoming and the advice seemed better. Maybe it was because it was easier to give. Maybe so many people "think" they know the answers about the TC but in reality they don't so that's why advice is so conflicting and if advice is conflicting how are people supposed to improve at the game?

I asked you for the PKM's or the saved game in one of them and you never replied, hence I stopped answering any questions you had as it was pointless if you couldn't provide the extra info I needed to help you. I also disagree about people being more helpful when it was about sliders. In the tactics forum it didn't matter which system someone was using. The reason why threads don't get much attention these days are all the helpful people who were the ones answering questions have stopped posting due to getting abuse, people ignoring their advice or being dismissive. That's the real issue with the forum (tactics forum) these days as its not worth helping people anymore. I mean, myself in the past year have tried to help lots of people with detailed helpful replies and I think for most cases the info posted gets dismissed if the reply is deemed too long. People seem to ask for help but then fail to accept it when given.

That's the real underlining issue with the comment I quoted off you.

I do think the feedback system in general does need work though. I still want to see the idea that I've posted about many times implemented into the game though, where you have a training pitch and you can see the effects that roles, duties and the shouts actually have on your system. And where you can get proper feedback from it.

The OP has many points, but so does Loki...

The game can be frustrating as hell because what many of us perceive as perfectly sensible football decisions are something completely different in FM world. And unfortunately some of those quirky bits can't be picked up if not after long and annoying sessions of trial-and-error or with time-consuming match analysis which is, in fairness, absurd in what should still be a GAME (and not some sort of part-time job).

It's OFTEN our tactics, but the game is bi-polar in the way it swings from awesome surprise win to infuriating "unjustified" defeat without warning and, mainly, without us having too much of a chance to change the outcome with tactical adjustments. (The only thing that seem to work at times is the hairdryer treatment at half time)

I mean, we've all been there... one week you smash a Top Club away 3-0, the next week you struggle to bring home a 0-0 draw against a League One opponent in the Cup.

Also, you can virtually lose or win the same game by huge margin without changing a thing... Now, I don't want an outcome to be set in stone, and a bit of variety and unpredictability is fun, but how plausible is going from a 6-0 loss to a 4-1 win (or the other way around) just with a reload?

We know it's a bad idea to have all your defenders on a defend duty for example but to many that would simply seem like common sense.

We... do? It IS common sense. They're defenders, their job is first and foremost to defend. I've not ventured into the tactics forum, but I find it slightly absurd that- unless you want surging wingbacks or a DC who plays more as a DM- you'd suggest anything else could be true.

I'm not getting at you personally- I'm sure what you say is accurate, and based on much more experience and testing than I've undertaken. That doesn't, however, mean it makes any sense, and I agree entirely that it's the kind of in-game trap, with no relation to real football, that simply is not being explained by the game.

The game can be frustrating as hell because what many of us perceive as perfectly sensible football decisions are something completely different in FM world. And unfortunately some of those quirky bits can't be picked up if not after long and annoying sessions of trial-and-error or with time-consuming match analysis which is, in fairness, absurd in what should still be a GAME (and not some sort of part-time job).

I'm not sure I agree with that tbh.

Once a user grasps the basics of creating a balanced tactic it can be created in less than a minute. Sure some users use the game analysis and take time to refine the tactic but I'm not one of them. All I do is play the matches on comprehensive highlights which for me is the most time consuming aspect but also the reason I play the game.

It's OFTEN our tactics, but the game is bi-polar in the way it swings from awesome surprise win to infuriating "unjustified" defeat without warning and, mainly, without us having too much of a chance to change the outcome with tactical adjustments. (The only thing that seem to work at times is the hairdryer treatment at half time)

I mean, we've all been there... one week you smash a Top Club away 3-0, the next week you struggle to bring home a 0-0 draw against a League One opponent in the Cup.

I don't see this as an issue at all, it happens IRL on a regular basis.

Also, you can virtually lose or win the same game by huge margin without changing a thing... Now, I don't want an outcome to be set in stone, and a bit of variety and unpredictability is fun, but how plausible is going from a 6-0 loss to a 4-1 win (or the other way around) just with a reload?

Again I see this as a good thing that it isn't set in stone.

I asked you for the PKM's or the saved game in one of them and you never replied, hence I stopped answering any questions you had as it was pointless if you couldn't provide the extra info I needed to help you. I also disagree about people being more helpful when it was about sliders. In the tactics forum it didn't matter which system someone was using. The reason why threads don't get much attention these days are all the helpful people who were the ones answering questions have stopped posting due to getting abuse, people ignoring their advice or being dismissive. That's the real issue with the forum (tactics forum) these days as its not worth helping people anymore. I mean, myself in the past year have tried to help lots of people with detailed helpful replies and I think for most cases the info posted gets dismissed if the reply is deemed too long. People seem to ask for help but then fail to accept it when given.

That's the real underlining issue with the comment I quoted off you.

I do think the feedback system in general does need work though. I still want to see the idea that I've posted about many times implemented into the game though, where you have a training pitch and you can see the effects that roles, duties and the shouts actually have on your system. And where you can get proper feedback from it.

Well, in the past versions I would give -specific- advice based on my perception of how the game works (i.e what works for me should work for him). I got a lot of flak for that, despite it being helpful in some cases, because my perception wasn't good enough. In order to give advice now, you have to keep in line with the company-approved canon. Only a few people are "allowed" to actually give advice, and they're all more or less "read the tactics forum stickies".

So, sometimes, it is helpful posting a tactic when asking for help because it is quite obvious that the formation/duties/strategy has some issues. Other times, it is not so clear-cut. I follow the guide to the letter, but still get the occasional game where I wonder what on earth has happened to my team. So how can I say "use my tactic because it is set up according to the guidelines and should therefore work"? I can't. I could say, however, that I recommend this setup because it works for me. Do you see the difference? This is why advice threads are "dying"....

We... do? It IS common sense. They're defenders, their job is first and foremost to defend. I've not ventured into the tactics forum, but I find it slightly absurd that- unless you want surging wingbacks or a DC who plays more as a DM- you'd suggest anything else could be true.

I'm not getting at you personally- I'm sure what you say is accurate, and based on much more experience and testing than I've undertaken. That doesn't, however, mean it makes any sense, and I agree entirely that it's the kind of in-game trap, with no relation to real football, that simply is not being explained by the game.

Personally I think its one of the most common "traps" users fall into.

I've suggested for several years now that the terms should be called something else. The duties "Defend", "Support" & "Attack" are all relative to a players position on the field. So a defender with an attack duty doesn't suddenly become a striker, what he does do is close the ball down more, tackle more rather than standing off a player, make riskier passes forward etc.

Again I see this as a good thing that it isn't set in stone.

What makes you say that matches playing out very differently with the same initial settings is a good thing? Not looking to pick a fight, just curious about your reasoning

Also, you can virtually lose or win the same game by huge margin without changing a thing... Now, I don't want an outcome to be set in stone, and a bit of variety and unpredictability is fun, but how plausible is going from a 6-0 loss to a 4-1 win (or the other way around) just with a reload?

Because one goal can completely change how a game pans out. I dont see an issue with that at all, it kinda shows that all outcomes are possible for all games, rather than the rubber banding that people accuse the game of having.

What makes you say that matches playing out very differently with the same initial settings is a good thing? Not looking to pick a fight, just curious about your reasoning

Because it means every match is winnable and comes down to the choices you make with a slice of luck involved.

EDIT

It means when I sit down and choose my team for the next match I know I have a chance of winning the match. Sometimes I get it right like the 5-1 away win I had against stronger opposition and sometimes I get it wrong where I lost 1-0 away to the team at the bottom of the table.

After that its about evaluating the match (Usually quickly as FM processes), was I lucky? did I deserve to win? what could I have done differently?

The 1-0 defeat is a good example, I made mistakes, my choices prior to the game were poor but once I realised this I made adjustments via shouts to repair some of the damage to try and keep the game tight. I think I made good choices in match by restricting their chances and hoping I could nick a goal to change the game but in the end it was the other team that scored after about 70 mins.

Well, in the past versions I would give -specific- advice based on my perception of how the game works (i.e what works for me should work for him). I got a lot of flak for that, despite it being helpful in some cases, because my perception wasn't good enough. In order to give advice now, you have to keep in line with the company-approved canon. Only a few people are "allowed" to actually give advice, and they're all more or less "read the tactics forum stickies".

So, sometimes, it is helpful posting a tactic when asking for help because it is quite obvious that the formation/duties/strategy has some issues. Other times, it is not so clear-cut. I follow the guide to the letter, but still get the occasional game where I wonder what on earth has happened to my team. So how can I say "use my tactic because it is set up according to the guidelines and should therefore work"? I can't. I could say, however, that I recommend this setup because it works for me. Do you see the difference? This is why advice threads are "dying"....

I have a couple of thoughts about advice threads and why they don't work as well as people feel they should.

A) A lot of the users that ask for advice want a black & white answer and it simply can't be given.

B) There is more than one way to skin a cat which is what is great about the ME. One person might suggest doing one thing while someone else suggests something different, both can be perfectly reasonable suggestions that may or may not work.

C) The biggest issue though is reactions. The users who give advice generally react to what is happening on the pitch which is something that is difficult to give advice about.

Because it means every match is winnable and comes down to the choices you make with a slice of luck involved.

EDIT

It means when I sit down and choose my team for the next match I know I have a chance of winning the match. Sometimes I get it right like the 5-1 away win I had against stronger opposition and sometimes I get it wrong where I lost 1-0 away to the team at the bottom of the table.

After that its about evaluating the match (Usually quickly as FM processes), was I lucky? did I deserve to win? what could I have done differently?

The 1-0 defeat is a good example, I made mistakes, my choices prior to the game were poor but once I realised this I made adjustments via shouts to repair some of the damage to try and keep the game tight. I think I made good choices in match by restricting their chances and hoping I could nick a goal to change the game but in the end it was the other team that scored after about 70 mins.

The more I think about it the more I agree. I don't think they can code a game in such a detail that randomness can be eliminated. I think my initial hesitance came from the fact that randomness doesn't go the "same way" every time someone reloads, but that's not really an argument in any other way than because it'd feel more satisfying from a deterministic point of view

Personally I think its one of the most common "traps" users fall into.

I've suggested for several years now that the terms should be called something else. The duties "Defend", "Support" & "Attack" are all relative to a players position on the field. So a defender with an attack duty doesn't suddenly become a striker, what he does do is close the ball down more, tackle more rather than standing off a player, make riskier passes forward etc.

Thank you for the clear and concise explanation. I could post you a screenshot of my current tactic which has four defenders with Defend duties- I'm sure many others could too. After 917 hours on FM14 and 3,504 on FM12, I'm pretty sure this is not how I should be learning this now, buried deep in a random thread on the game's forum, but that feedback is infinitely more valuable than anything the game has told me.

Can I hire you as my in-game Assistant Manager?

In order to give advice now, you have to keep in line with the company-approved canon. Only a few people are "allowed" to actually give advice, and they're all more or less "read the tactics forum stickies".

This bold stuff couldn't be further from the truth.

Whilst mods offer advice in there - after all, that is their purpose! - a higher proportion of the advice comes from members of the community.

Regarding the stickied threads, we by default send people there if they haven't been before, as those threads offer the core advice to get going with the game tactically. Several users are still posting set ups which are simply dysfunctional, and they need to get a basic, logical system in place before constructive advice can be given.

I do think the feedback system in general does need work though. I still want to see the idea that I've posted about many times implemented into the game though, where you have a training pitch and you can see the effects that roles, duties and the shouts actually have on your system. And where you can get proper feedback from it.

An addition like this would be excellent! I still think training itself needs more detail and needs to be more user friendly. FM is an excellent simulation and has come a long way since it's early days, game wise and community wise. (I think this needs to be remembered) It can cause every player frustration at times. Cleon's point is spot on regards to people not wanting to give advice as much as they once did, I think that has been extremely evident over the last few years. That in it's self is a real shame!

That being said I do feel SI need to spend more time on the user guide for the game and the systems used for advice within the game. it probably needs an overhaul in all honestly. Very much like training needed a few years ago. Training a few years ago was something I would leave to my assistant but now it's something I feel you need to use to get the most out of the game. Although more could be added to it.

Sorry for hijacking the thread:)

This bold stuff couldn't be further from the truth.

Whilst mods offer advice in there - after all, that is their purpose! - a higher proportion of the advice comes from members of the community.

Regarding the stickied threads, we by default send people there if they haven't been before, as those threads offer the core advice to get going with the game tactically. Several users are still posting set ups which are simply dysfunctional, and they need to get a basic, logical system in place before constructive advice can be given.

Agree. For me, my specialist area is building logical, structured systems - and the advice I give is always going to be built around that - it's the way I think. Some things you just can't teach - in-game decision making can be really hard to teach, as is the way I imagine my tactics playing out - I sit down and let my mind picture the movement and work out if I am happy on that basis, but, it is hard to impart a way of thinking.

I think it's all about player expectations.In previous FM's , it was quite easy to build a strong team in 3-4 years and win european cups with a mediocre team from a decent league.Now it is not,but if you set up a decent balanced tactic,you will meet board's expectations.Most users don't get satisfied with that

I'd quite like that, as long as you say it was optional, and in no way stopped you progressing without doing them.

The more I think about it the more I agree. I don't think they can code a game in such a detail that randomness can be eliminated.

I think it's all about player expectations.In previous FM's , it was quite easy to build a strong team in 3-4 years and win european cups with a mediocre team from a decent league.Now it is not,but if you set up a decent balanced tactic,you will meet board's expectations.Most users don't get satisfied with that

I agree. This year the game has been significantly more challenging for me, particularly in the tactics depatment, which I really appreciate.

Playing some of the previous versions somehow kept me out of the tactical aspect of the game, since it didn't seem to matter all that much to me. The reason I say this, is because I used the same approach towards managing in the last few versions and I always succeeded with weaker sides without tinkering with tactics too much. All I had to do was buy some high profile players and hot prospects, use a quick poacher up front in a 4-2-3-1 formation and let the wins come. It was a fun experience TBH, but eventually I started noticing a repetitevness in the gameplay.

This year, however, I actually spent a lot more time on the tactical side of the game and the development of young players. I feel the experience is much more rewarding, since for example I now see the way smaller profile teams are vigorously defending against stronger ones and ultimately scaping a 1-0 win, which you can often see IRL too. In past versions I would coast past weaker opponents without flexing a muscle, but now I actually have to work harder for it, which IMO contributes to a more realistic management experience. The same goes for playing against higher reputation teams - cheking and adjusting your pre-game approach to their most assist locations, For/Ag goals and goal types, etc. is actually extremely helpful and can be done in less than a minute, two tops. This year I've actually used Opposition instructions on a frequent basis and have gotten pretty decent results defensivewise, praticularly against high-paced wingers and good crossers. In a nutshell, this year's version has definitely taught me never to underestimate a side, no matter how weak, because I could get punished - something that happens often in real life too.

There are still some problems with the game and I have raised my concerns with the game a couple of times in the Feedback and Whishlist threads. I do feel the game is getting more complex and I can see how it could lose some of its fanbase due to this fact, which would be a shame. I wish more people could share that rewarding experience when you've put a great effort and have gotten the result you so desperately want. Losing despite the effort is always on the cards, but It makes success all the more rewarding experience.

Career Mode (the full game experience, if you will) should be complex, beacuse it is a football management sim and football management is tough and cannnot simply be practiced by everybody, as in real life. Realism is the way to go and FM14 has definitely raised the bar for future versions.

This is easy - you save the seed in the saved game, and you ensure when the game starts, it always uses the same seed in its PRNG. Then the game will play out exactly the same assuming you perform the exact same actions.

But that wouldn't work with FM because the matches aren't calculated as one single outcome.

Decisions/calculations are made for every player on the pitch is it 4? times for every in match second, a little randomness is built into every one of those decisions.

i have suggested this before and i can only repeat myself.

1. football as it is, is very chaotic game and whatever you do it does not guarantee a victory. people playing this game often play it as they forget this. when you add player mental state to the mix it is even less controlable in short time spans. instead evaluating yourself based on one game i think anyone should give himself at least 2 full seasons.

2. people struggle with basic tactical concepts. it is even more frustrating because it is not only fault of people playing the game but lot of times what works in reality doesn't necessary work in the game.

therefore, si should implement a real tutorial in sense of small tactical tests-explanations that could be camouflaged in coaching badges. therefore, once you take on the job you would (optionaly) go throught few basic lessons in tactics earning yourself a coaching badge and learning something about tactics that would help you create a sound tactic.

as lot of players struggle understanding the player personalities, motivation and reactions... in one of more advanced "courses" si should also explain how psychology works as well.

i think it would be fun and very intuitive for new and old players going through these lessons earning yourself ingame badge.

Some want to have a 'realistic experience' while playing, but the more realistic the game gets, the more complex the gameplay tends to get too. That's when some throw the towel and claim that it should not be that complex because it's only 'just a game' and that tactical knowledge should not be that crucial to the manager's success. IMO this is why the game is judged in such a hate-it-or-love-it basis this year. I guess this is also why SI decided to introduce FMC as a response. People should really decide for themselves whether thay want to play a PC Game or a complex simulator like Fritz or FM.

But that wouldn't work with FM because the matches aren't calculated as one single outcome.

Decisions/calculations are made for every player on the pitch is it 4? times for every in match second, a little randomness is built into every one of those decisions.

So, for example, you might have a PRNG algorithm that given a seed "42", it might generate random integers (from 1-100) 25, 26, 47, 65, 25... A few hours later, if you give the PRNG algorithm the same seed "42", it still spits out 25, 26, 47, 65, 25...

Each decision or calculation would need to make a call to PRNG algorithm with a seed. At present, it probably uses something like the number of nanoseconds since the epoch as the seed. Instead of feeding the number of nanoseconds since the epoch, you could simply feed the in-game date and time (say) as the seed and as the above, it would generate the same sequence of random numbers. The in-game date and time is consistent if you save and reload, so it is the "42" which produces the same sequence of numbers. So as long as the user does exactly the same actions at exactly the same points in time relative to the match, it will generate the same result. Or an AI vs. AI game would always produce the same result (because their actions are also derived from this seeded PRNG).

Whether or not this is desirable is an entirely different story, but this is how it would work if you wanted to make it so.

This is easy - you save the seed in the saved game, and you ensure when the game starts, it always uses the same seed in its PRNG. Then the game will play out exactly the same assuming you perform the exact same actions.

Random numbers with a seed is still random (for most practical purposes), it's just the same same random number every time. From an idealistic viewpoint, what I wanted was randomness eliminited from the game, but that means the simulation must be nearly as complex as real life (which is far far beyond the scope of a computer game anno 2014)

Just adding my two pennies.

First, the OP is not just a rant about the ME, he also raises a very valid point about poor AI squad building which I and others have posted on elsewhere. These really affects the challenge of long term games which is what I like to play. Personally, I'm not at all into tactics, I just want to create one or two tactics that work reasonably well against most other teams and then leave it be, concentrating on winning the long game by building and nurturing the best squad. But this isn't as much of a challenge as it should be for loads of reasons to do with poor AI transfer and squad decisions.

Second, on the "my strikers can't score" and the response that this is tactical and that IRL most top strikers only convert 30-40% of chances. IMO a big part of this is that in the graphical display the chances appear to be better than they actually are in the ME. IRL a lot of chances, even those considered good chances, the player is under pressure from a defender, or not perfectly balanced, or the ball is bobbling, or the ball is coming across him from his blind side and he has to react quickly etc. In the 3D, it basically isn't possible currently to show a lot of these factors very well. Very often the player appears to have loads of time, be free of defenders, perfectly balanced, with the ball completely under control, and I would contend that in these situations IRL the conversion rate would be significantly higher than the 30-40%. The same is true of crossing as well. Yes, IRL maybe only 10-20% of crosses connect, but that's because usually the winger is under pressure (has to cross around the defender), or is only just reaching the ball as it runs away from him/out of play etc, whereas in FM much more often than IRL the winger has completely broken free and has loads of time to pick out a player, which IRL you would expect a higher completion rate.

Now the 3D isn't going to be sophisticated enough to show subtle elements of balance and body position etc any time soon, but I do think the commentary could do a better job here. You never see things like "he just never quite had the ball under control" or "X did just enough to put him off the shot" etc which you hear all the time IRL commentaries, and I think could help assuage some of the frustration here.

Too many people have the same problems for it to be just them. Strikers don't score, corners, own goals blah blah blah. The internet forums are riddled with people struggling as are the people I know who play the game away from forums. Its become monotonous to the point you know you'll lose certain matches to crazy goals after battering them for the whole match no matter what you try and do. I feel for the OP as I also have days like he does. It often doesn't feel like fun anymore. It appears to be some sort of criminal offense to suggest the game is flawed in any way.

Actually I want to touch on this point since everyone missed it.

On here its far too secular, people on the SI forums (staff included imo) see the problems, repeat the same issues and repeat the same 'solutions' and so on. It wasn't so long ago that this forum was dire for petty fanboys shouting 'it's your tactics', it's only quite recently that people are sort of banding together and providing more clear solutions. I may be wrong here, but the 'easier' iterations of FM you could dive into and deal with things without too much trouble - I still do, but other less capable players won't.

That said, on here I find lots of praise for FM09/11 in particular (both considered brutally hard if you look outside of these forums) but I'm going off the point...

Basically, if you take the time to trawl forums outside of this one, you'll find the majority of players posting have trouble with the game and raise plenty of issues. People spam tactics in a download forum, there's no real tutorial or understanding of football tactics as FM interprets things. Even if you just go by roles and duties, they don't always match up. Assistant reports are dire, the writing has been lazy and not quite tested thoroughly, there's plenty of incidents where player A will read a text-decription to mean something completely different from what SI thinks it means. There's loads of comments about the media side of things not matching up, there's more so on other things - player conversations for example are ridiculous; 'congratulations on scoring for England' followed up by a tantrum and thumb sucking from the 29 year old pro because you're not famous enough...

Anyway; What people on here have to be careful of is not being blinded by the information provided on here. We are lucky enough to have good players and some staff who can diplomatically put points forward, if it wasn't for the likes of Cleon and others on the tactics forum I would say most of us here would still be quite clueless. They invest a lot of time into writing posts, studying the engine and the game. The average player can't do that, the average player doesn't want to deal with that, there were topics when 11/12 were out which were debating whether the game was going too far into a spreadsheet/morale manager rather than retaining the 'fun factor'. The warning signs have been there for a while, they just got ignored on some levels. Other forums were not too happy about the whole T+T strategems that were written; that was far, far too much information to deal with a game; you would only ever see that much information provided in a hardcore strategy game with a small core fanbase and an overinflated price point; FM was never in my opinion a 'hardcore' game, it was accessible and football mad but it was the accessibility that was the selling point, a way for you to play your fantasy, and as with all fantasies fun and indulgence need to be heaped on you in a reasonable way so as to entice you to keep going and to empower you with your 'skills' so to speak.

Hell, I got Swansea from Division 2 to Europe and the Premier League with a 3-5-2 direct system in the older FM/CM's, and it was bloody good fun. I still do LLM from the North/South to Premiership but it's more of a chore than the blind, mad fun that it was back then; albeit, maybe nostalgia plays a part.

In any case, look at other forums, look at the complaints, the frustrations and so on. They are the 'uninformed', they are the 'average player', they're the ones who don't get shot down as much over here, or 'educated' in the ways of the match engine. We need to assume that anyone not frequenting on this board is in the same boat as they are, because it's here that has the information; fansites are littered with misinformation or errors derived from SI's lacklustre explanations in-game. Basically, don't be so quick to go 'oh well, learn, do this, do that.' you're getting it here, they're not and the few that do come here and fail to learn, while they may be a minority here could very well be a majority elsewhere.

@kotzemazza

Excellent post at 12.58. I agree with it all.

Also think @okd at 11.32 raises a valid point.

I think there is a degree of psychology at play here as well. Many players play a long period of game-time, and hence multiple matches at one go. A run of, say, 3 losses happens over a real period of a few hours at most. Whereas in real life that would take at least a week and probably 2-3 weeks. In real life everyone concerned: players, coaches, manager, fans, pundits, would micro-analyse each game and determine what changes to make to prevent a recurrence. Frequently all that would be required would be some "mental" work, such as player praise or criticism, and probably working on a specific weakness. However, in FM time, players just get frustrated, or make what are effectively random changes, in the hope that the sequence can be broken.

There is a lot of academic work around how people respond to good and bad events. My background is finance, and people respond 3x more negatively to bad news than positively to good news. So if I lose £1,000, I need to make £3,000 to get myself back to the same emotional state as I started. Applying that to FM, losing 3 on the trot requires a run of 9 wins to make you feel better again. That doesn't happen too often for real or in FM.

I get round this by only playing one game week per day, so a max of 2 games. Now I'm clearly not going to have a 60 year career doing that, but I can have some interesting challenges. The benefit, though, is that I have a break where I can calm down and then think about why something went wrong when things are going wrong. I can look again at the stats, or how I conceded or failed to score. Ultimately, I can see a few games in the wider context suggested by okd.

I've just come off a season where I've won my league by 23 points (as expected by the Board). Within that, however, I had a mid-season 3-game winless blip that included a home defeat by the bottom team (they ended up bottom by 8 points) which left me just 2 points clear at the time. It would have been easy just to allow emotion to get the better of me at the time and start making wild changes: slagging off players, dropping "useless" strikers that miss CCCs etc. Instead I allowed calmness and logic to reassert itself and I made tweaks only, and concentrated on building up players losing confidence. Ultimately I achieved success. The other thing to keep in mind is that the AI also suffers similar blips and irrational results. In my example my closest rivals at mid-season also suffered a bad run after me. Theirs was so bad the manager was sacked. So the randomness of football is captured both for us and our AI opponents in the game.

I think the taking a breather, or break advice is some of the best you can get, take a step back from your game and walk away from it, and come back with a fresh perspective if things are going badly.

Dude I gota say one thing. Finaly someone feels the same way i do about he match engine. There is so much Bull i can't believe it. When i put up posts i get heaps of people calling me a nub and you need more time on the game. Cough bloody cough. Look the graphics are awesome, the team got it right. As for RESULTS it hugely dissapoints me (& others). No matter how much i spend on players my team will bend over for the soap frequently on playing lowbie sides. Now ok i'm not saying big teams should never loose to small teams I'm saying how often out of ten times will a lowby team win a game over a big name team. In this version of the game I'm seeing it frequently happen beyond the boundaries of our solar system.

As far as i can see, the game favors small teams. Don't spend money just buy some crap players and you will have a frequently win against big teams. Thank you for the imbalance in this game. No matter what training and chatting i setup for my team loosing to a small team is going to happen and when it happens you won't loose by 1 goal. You will most likely loose by 4 or 5 which has happened to me. Your telling me i got the setup wrong. Yeah right. i might as well go player OOTP Baseball. Go check that match engine out, thats what you call a realistic match engine without any ******** in it. Sorry for the swearing but you feel my pain.

I aint playing FM14 club season any more till an improved realistic match engine is released god knows when that will be.

In most cases of advice threads being ignored, it's due to not enough detail being given (about the tactic or the actual problems being experienced) or the fact that the player isn't really struggling and is just raging because they "only" have a 75% win percentage with their "Avoid Relegation"-tipped lower half side. On the tactics forum, it's very rare to see someone make a detailed post about an obviously flawed tactic and not quickly receive several good responses from multiple users.

Keep in mind, the tactics forum is focused on helping people avoid basic mistakes and figure out how to use the tools at their disposal to approximate real world styles. It's not a super tactic workshop. If you just want something to plug in and churn out results so you can focus on the transfer side of the game, we have the Downloads sub-forum.

My Inter team hasnt lost a league game in 36 attempts, plenty of small teams in that time. That alone shows your post is full of nonsense. I havent lost to a "small" team in more than 18 months.

isignedupfornoreason I think thats a more than fair point to make.

The conversation about feedback from the game, or lack thereof id something which has really taken off in a big way this year, more so than other iterations that I can remember. I would also like to reiterate the point martinji makes about the graphical representation, as I think if this was addressed it would go a huge way to aleviating some of the issues some players have. The most common complaint I see is probably in regard to finishing and 'world class strikers' missing chance after chance. The problem I find from my own experiences is that I get wound up because every chance they miss is so guilt edge and they almost always take exactly the same shot. It is usually from about 10 yards further back than it needs to be, and is aimed at about the keepers midrif, straight at him, at a comfortable pace and I can see this rinse and repeated multiple times which I ultimatley have no control over. I have come to the point that I don't worry about it anymore, I did my job by devising a sustem that gets the striker in teh right place and his miss is just one of them things. I wouldn't have got half as annoyed if I had seen him take a step wide and screw the ball past the foot of the post, or lob over the net, or try and take the ball round the keeper but the keeper gets the ball/ pushes striker out wide, but I haven't seen that in 4 season s of playing in various saves. If the graphical representation of the ME was better and had more diversity I think people would be more forgiving.

I think tactically it is different this year and the lose of sliders is going to cause players to rethink the way they do things. I for one love the tactical side and feel I am pretty decent at it, if I think I can give someone advice, or even help them by putting my own thoughts down I will, as others in the T&TF do. THe problem is the game should take care of the players and accommodate their learning in game, now the T&TF will always be there but sometimes it feels like it's an unoffcial guide which can frustrate both the person looking for advice and those giving it.

Dude I gota say one thing. Finaly someone feels the same way i do about he match engine. There is so much Bull i can't believe it. When i put up posts i get heaps of people calling me a nub and you need more time on the game. Cough bloody cough. Look the graphics are awesome, the team got it right. As for RESULTS it hugely dissapoints me (& others). No matter how much i spend on players my team will bend over for the soap frequently on playing lowbie sides. Now ok i'm not saying big teams should never loose to small teams I'm saying how often out of ten times will a lowby team win a game over a big name team. In this version of the game I'm seeing it frequently happen beyond the boundaries of our solar system.

As far as i can see, the game favors small teams. Don't spend money just buy some crap players and you will have a frequently win against big teams. Thank you for the imbalance in this game. No matter what training and chatting i setup for my team loosing to a small team is going to happen and when it happens you won't loose by 1 goal. You will most likely loose by 4 or 5 which has happened to me. Your telling me i got the setup wrong. Yeah right. i might as well go player OOTP Baseball. Go check that match engine out, thats what you call a realistic match engine without any ******** in it. Sorry for the swearing but you feel my pain.

I aint playing FM14 club season any more till an improved realistic match engine is released god knows when that will be.

If you're losing by that much against a smaller/weaker team, it is your tactical setup. Your training and chats won't mean anything if your tactics aren't good enough. End of. Now please don't detract from what has been good discussion so far. This isn't the feedback thread.

The more I think about it the more I agree. I don't think they can code a game in such a detail that randomness can be eliminated. I think my initial hesitance came from the fact that randomness doesn't go the "same way" every time someone reloads, but that's not really an argument in any other way than because it'd feel more satisfying from a deterministic point of view

In fact, randomness shouldn't be eliminated. It's still a football simulator, hence it should simulate football. In football, the best team doesn't always win. It's often the details or just a moment of luck that can win or lose the day for your team. Player skill and tactics do have an influence, because they minimize the risk of that moment of luck not going your way. But they'll never completely negate it. That's what makes the game of football such an amazing game.

My Inter team hasnt lost a league game in 36 attempts, plenty of small teams in that time. That alone shows your post is full of nonsense. I havent lost to a "small" team in more than 18 months.

Firstly I never chose a team like inter. I chose a team from the greek league thats not worth millions. I turned them into a million dollar team that beat popular german teams let alone QPR in the eufa cup. Yeah it was a great feeling when i beat their teams with my low budget team. When it comes to the other way around it dissapoints me when you end up playing a relegation battling team in your own league that can't compare to your own team price wise an you loost to them 5-2. Let alone the coaches and training staff involved you have is top quality. So help me out here.

Conspiracy Theorist maybe, maybe in some leagues the coding needs checking up. Maybe the popular leagues are not having this issue as more of the non popular leagues are having.

I never chose them either, they chose me, but thats a different story.

So your happy that your team was able to beat the bigger teams, but unhappy that it happens to you?

There are countless examples of smaller teams beating the bigger ones, i dont see why you would want this removed? As i have stated im on a huge unbeaten streak, so its more than possible to do it, and to beat every single smaller team you come up against, but thats not to say it will always happen. In 8 seasons with 2 different clubs and on 25 years on my previous save i had not managed this, which again is very good as it should not be a normal thing everyone comes across.

If your losing or struggling to smaller teams consistently, its because of your set up and most probably your inability to counter how smaller teams are playing against you, if you do actually want help with that kind of thing, plenty on here will offer it willingly, but you have to read whats said and not just believe that your right and that the game is wrong.