FM15 Complexity

[Lawlore]

The development path will continue on its current route, which is supposed to make the game more accessible to its user base, not less. The TC is not supposed to have made it more difficult to play, but turned tools (the sliders) into concepts, allowing users to quickly put together a tactical vision.

In which case, I believe there is considerably more work to be done on it, because this is precisely the opposite experience that we are seeing new posters come to this forum with. People are struggling to quickly put together a coherent tactic, and the game is not giving them enough direction to help them do so.

What the introduction of the TC and a more robust ME has resulted in is a reduced likelihood that a user can create a winning tactic suitable to all teams in all conditions against all formations. That means users that never tried to understand the sliders (and for that I don't blame them as they were a nightmare of abstraction) and relied on downloaded tactics or, deliberately or accidentally, ME exploits to defeat the AI have been confronted with a steep learning curve. Users that have invested time int he tactical discussions that initiated the changes have had it far easier.

But those users are a minority of a minority. The first minority is the portion of the userbase who actually register and post on these or any FM-related forums- it's a reasonably safe assumption that most people don't- and the second minority is the portion who are actively involved in discussing the tactical side of the game. As I type this, there are a touch under 1500 people online on this forum, and a touch under 200 of those who are on the Tactics forum. So by your own definitions, the majority of people are facing a steep learning curve. There's nothing especially wrong with a steep learning curve, but it is a steep learning curve that the game itself isn't trying to help you climb.

To put this in a literal sense- you can lay out the finest mountaineering equipment in front of me, and I can make a reasonable guess at most of what it does. But if you then stand me in front of Ben Nevis with just a "good luck" and don't tell me how to use any of it, I'm probably gonna get into trouble before I get to the top.

My opinion is that FM is far more accessible as long as you aren't trying to build a super-tactic.

I strongly disagree. As you state- previously, you could fluke onto something that worked with a flaw in the ME and run with it and, rightly or wrongly, that made it feel like you knew what you were doing, and you could quite happily play the game in your ignorance, thinking you were the greatest manager since Walter Winterbottom. But, with the development of the ME, particularly the collision detection, it has become more important to get a basic tactic right, and that has shone a light on just how complex the tactical tools are, and how little an average user can know about them. It's not about building a super-tactic to take on all comers, it's about communicating what is in your head to what you want to try and happen on the pitch, and if you are unfamiliar with the tools or have been lulled into a false sense of understanding by previous versions, that is not an easy thing to do.

The worst thing you can try is to come up with a gamey solution, such as picking all your players in their best role/duty or trying to beat the ME not the AI.

And yet, this was exactly my train of thought, and others have stated it was theirs. Because that is the information the game is giving us, that is what we have to go on- these players perform best in this role. It is unintuitive to do anything else, and the game is not suggesting a better approach. It is not talking about overall shape, it is not prompting users to think about how the roles interact with one another as a team. You may suggest this is common sense, but again, this comes back to the definitions. What I, in my years as a football fan, define as a target man and what I think he should do and what the game defines as a target man and thinks he should do may be two different things. It may be subtly different, it may be completely different. In every cirumstance, we need to know what the game is understanding by the instructions we are giving. At the moment, we don't.

The shift in thinking merely requires you to alter your tactic to deal with certain situations. Like playing pretty, short passing tactics? Great, but good luck if you do it on a mud bath in a February downpour. Want to play on the counter? Fine, but don't stick five players in the F and AM strata as you need players deep to counter successfully from deep. Want to play ultra-direct, traditional British style football? No worries, but expect to come unstuck against highly technical teams using modern formations. Making strategic shifts before a match takes a few seconds and can bring much reward and increased satisfaction, as you know you won because of the decisions you made.

I don't disagree with this. But it is linked with knowing what we're telling the game to do in the first place. At present, I am playing the game with a base tactic that is the same for every game, come rain, shine, top of the table or bottom. If a certain player is stronger at another role in that same position, it changes- most often, this is switching between playing with an AF & F9 to an AF & TM up front, depending on which striker I have available for supporting the AF. I use the mentality and shouts to change the tactic in game, and that could be after just a few minutes if it's clear things aren't working. These shouts could be changing from one extreme to another- and as it's in-game, I have no idea if these changes affect the tactical familiarity.

Users who adopted a one tactic beats all playing style also struggle to deal with the non-football related modules, such as man and media management, all of which can affect match performance. They always did, but because you had a tactic that won anyway, you didn't notice it. All of a sudden you are having to react to and deal with poor performances rather than still get a result despite them. People think the non-football management modules are all that matters because they have not learnt to deal with the team having an off-day, citing poorly designed randomness rather than highly realistic ebbs and flows of form.

I think you have this backwards. People were doing fine with the man and media management- indeed, keeping morale up is still not an overly difficult task- and because of this (as well as the ME), it didn't matter that their tactic was flawed previously. Now, the opposite is true. Where getting tactics right has become so central to the game in the last two iterations, and yet so abstract, it has meant that just keeping morale up, getting everything exterior to tactics right, is no longer enough to overcome poor or inappropriate tactics.

Again, if you were abreast of the game's development, you would have learnt to deal with this over the years and have had no trouble adapting to the last two iterations. If you haven't, then you'll be feeling lost and frustrated.

Which, again, puts most people in the second category.

My advice is to forget the "it's your tactics" responses. Whilst it sometimes might be, the real critique should be "it's your decisions". Learn to make the right ones and FM is a highly rewarding game, more so than it used to be as you understand why you succeed and fail. You'll have to be up for a steep learning curve, but the final reward will be worth it.

And I agree with the crux of your conclusion- if a player is making bad decisions, then the game should be punishing them. But it should also be showing that the decisions are bad, and that this is the reason they're being punished. That, at the moment, is not clear- it is not clear that the game is understanding the decisions the player is making in the first place, or that the player is being told exactly how the game is interpreting those decisions. There is a big difference between a player making bad decisions and a player thinking they are saying one thing when really the game thinks they are saying something else. There is a need for clarity- the gameplay part of the game is not about trying to get your instructions through to your own team. It's about trying to prepare your team in such a way- in every sense- to win a match against another team. Telling players what you want them to try and do is not part of that, because in reality, you'd just tell them.

[wwfan]

In which case, I believe there is considerably more work to be done on it, because this is precisely the opposite experience that we are seeing new posters come to this forum with. People are struggling to quickly put together a coherent tactic, and the game is not giving them enough direction to help them do so.

I don't agree. I've been modding the tactics forum for four years and explaining tactics for many more. I barely need to post any more because so many forum users give great advice. In the slider years it was a small handful at best.

But those users are a minority of a minority. The first minority is the portion of the userbase who actually register and post on these or any FM-related forums- it's a reasonably safe assumption that most people don't- and the second minority is the portion who are actively involved in discussing the tactical side of the game. As I type this, there are a touch under 1500 people online on this forum, and a touch under 200 of those who are on the Tactics forum. So by your own definitions, the majority of people are facing a steep learning curve. There's nothing especially wrong with a steep learning curve, but it is a steep learning curve that the game itself isn't trying to help you climb.

See above. The users that are struggling are those, in my opinion, are listening to the wrong ideas and opinions (often at fansites trying to make a name for themselves) or panic change things without any kind of tactical coherent vision. Try a "super" solution or fail to have a vision and you will do badly, and so should you.

To put this in a literal sense- you can lay out the finest mountaineering equipment in front of me, and I can make a reasonable guess at most of what it does. But if you then stand me in front of Ben Nevis with just a "good luck" and don't tell me how to use any of it, I'm probably gonna get into trouble before I get to the top.

Analogies like this really don't work.

I strongly disagree. As you state- previously, you could fluke onto something that worked with a flaw in the ME and run with it and, rightly or wrongly, that made it feel like you knew what you were doing, and you could quite happily play the game in your ignorance, thinking you were the greatest manager since Walter Winterbottom. But, with the development of the ME, particularly the collision detection, it has become more important to get a basic tactic right, and that has shone a light on just how complex the tactical tools are, and how little an average user can know about them. It's not about building a super-tactic to take on all comers, it's about communicating what is in your head to what you want to try and happen on the pitch, and if you are unfamiliar with the tools or have been lulled into a false sense of understanding by previous versions, that is not an easy thing to do.

Prior to FM13, all you needed to do was have a quick FC and the team playing TBs as much as possible. We weren't aware just how many users played like this until FM13 when a plethora of similar styled tactics appeared with the user asking for help. The FM scene always drifted towards a certain way of playing (if you ever played FML you'll know what I mean). It wasn't sophisticated, it just beat the AI because it exploited the lack of collision detection. Nowadays, the discussion is far more interesting as so many different approaches work. Again, far more people clearly know what they are doing than in previous iterations, and discussion and the game is richer for it.

And yet, this was exactly my train of thought, and others have stated it was theirs. Because that is the information the game is giving us, that is what we have to go on- these players perform best in this role. It is unintuitive to do anything else, and the game is not suggesting a better approach. It is not talking about overall shape, it is not prompting users to think about how the roles interact with one another as a team. You may suggest this is common sense, but again, this comes back to the definitions. What I, in my years as a football fan, define as a target man and what I think he should do and what the game defines as a target man and thinks he should do may be two different things. It may be subtly different, it may be completely different. In every cirumstance, we need to know what the game is understanding by the instructions we are giving. At the moment, we don't.

I don't want to appear rude, but the most basic understanding of football should tell you that you can't just pick a group of talented players without trying to mould them into a coherent team. You can know what they are best at, but have to recognise that they might have to do a very specific job to help the team perform that does not perfectly match their abilities. Likewise, the difference between what you and I think a TM might be will be so minor as to be irrelevant. Experience with the forums suggests pretty much everyone has very similar expectations of the various roles. The target audience of FM is football fans and you have to expect a basic level of knowledge.

I don't disagree with this. But it is linked with knowing what we're telling the game to do in the first place. At present, I am playing the game with a base tactic that is the same for every game, come rain, shine, top of the table or bottom. If a certain player is stronger at another role in that same position, it changes- most often, this is switching between playing with an AF & F9 to an AF & TM up front, depending on which striker I have available for supporting the AF. I use the mentality and shouts to change the tactic in game, and that could be after just a few minutes if it's clear things aren't working. These shouts could be changing from one extreme to another- and as it's in-game, I have no idea if these changes affect the tactical familiarity.

That's a very logical way of playing and you are probably doing pretty well. The issue, and it is one of SI's making, is people looking too closely at tactical familiarity and worrying about gamey penalisation rather than tactical preparing for the conditions and the opposition. It's pointless playing exactly the wrong type of football because you are worried about a minor tactical penalisation.

I think you have this backwards. People were doing fine with the man and media management- indeed, keeping morale up is still not an overly difficult task- and because of this (as well as the ME), it didn't matter that their tactic was flawed previously. Now, the opposite is true. Where getting tactics right has become so central to the game in the last two iterations, and yet so abstract, it has meant that just keeping morale up, getting everything exterior to tactics right, is no longer enough to overcome poor or inappropriate tactics.

It's not just about keeping morale up. It's guarding against complacency, knowing when to stick the boot in, knowing when to praise and cajole, etc. If you think it is just about morale, then you aren't grasping the subtlety of the module.

And I agree with the crux of your conclusion- if a player is making bad decisions, then the game should be punishing them. But it should also be showing that the decisions are bad, and that this is the reason they're being punished. That, at the moment, is not clear- it is not clear that the game is understanding the decisions the player is making in the first place, or that the player is being told exactly how the game is interpreting those decisions. There is a big difference between a player making bad decisions and a player thinking they are saying one thing when really the game thinks they are saying something else. There is a need for clarity- the gameplay part of the game is not about trying to get your instructions through to your own team. It's about trying to prepare your team in such a way- in every sense- to win a match against another team. Telling players what you want them to try and do is not part of that, because in reality, you'd just tell them.

I agree there are a number of users in that situation. But, and it is absolutely and blatantly clear to those of us who've been writing and posting about tactics for years, there are so, so many more users that understand the tactical aspect of FM than there used to be. I could give up and not get involved in discussions with people who don't, as I often get attacked when I do, but, ultimately, I want to help. It's up to others if they want to listen or not.

[samdiatmh]

it's also a poor analogy wwfan, considering that you can actually walk up Ben Nevis without any gear (apparently, I've not tried it, and only when there's no snow)

and to carry on with the last 2 points here:

is the game supposed to tell you exactly what you're doing wrong?

sure, it gives you hints (assistant manager feedback during game, team talk feedback, players reacting well [or not so well] to press conferences), but then it's up to you with regards to how important that is

as for tactics, the basic ones do work (don't the AI use them? I'm not completely sure) so you can see what you're going up against

you can either set up counters for all tactics (rather you than me)

or you can modify the existing tactic (the basic shell of what you want) in order to finetune your performances - conceding too many goals from Left-wing crosses? modify the DR mentality (too many DC-splitting through balls? then play narrower/deeper)

of course, like wwfan suggest, it doesn't exactly take a genius to tell you why playing 4 creative midfielders (in a flat midfield 4) with tackling <5 doesn't work too well

I also agree with wwfan, I don't spend a lot of time (if at all) in the tactic part of this forum

but a few years ago... the sole posts (basically, or variants of them) were the Kerlon-tactic (as I call it, where a fast ST scored 1000 goals per season) and the corner-exploit tactic

It's a LOT more interesting now (just taking a browse of the tactics uploading) - you've got a 433, 4231, 3421, 32212, 442 and various different types of styles

[bennymc]

rigid is described ingame as "players commit to less phases of play" - so arguably most Mourinho sides are 'rigid' with defenders there to defend, and attackers there to attack? (that's essentially what rigid means)

arguably 22 shots on goal and 65% possession should win you most games (due to balance of odds, if you have enough shots, eventually you will score) - but it's not a failsafe (Bayern vs Chelsea 2011 CL final? Celtic vs Barcelona 2012/13 CL? anyone)

and the basic tactics do work, I just pulled this from a pretty basic 4-4-2 (no TeamInstructions, but i do accept preseason isn't the best judge) with customising the player roles to fit the personell (I won 3-2 btw) - link http://i.imgur.com/xW4pF6w.jpg

edit: no, I am not blindly defending the game, I just find some criticism of it highly unwarranted

but I do find it interesting that some of the complainers are the types that pick up the game and then don't win every game (OPs join date was under a week ago for reference) - are they bothering to learn the game at all, or just picking players? (because this isn't quite the "pick players in a basic formation and play" game)

Aren't you just arguing the same points as me, but coming at it from a different angle? I get the impression you're trying to put words in my mouth for some reason!

My point is that there's a gap between perceptions and interpretations that users have from their own football knowledge, and how they use that knowledge within the game. I've seen from my own experience that the terminology is confusing less experienced users. I don't understand your media point at all, I only brought it up to show that there's a wider perception out in the real world that the word rigid is synonymous with 'outdated' and 'backwards thinking', where 'fluid' is the opposite. So if you come to FM14 with that mindset, you're at a disadvantage from the word go.

There's this idea that you've been "FM'd" if you had stats like Bayern's, but lost 1-0 through your opponents' only shot on target. In other words, they think the game is out to get them because they don't understand the choices they are making in the game. That is partly their fault of course, but I definitely think there's a case to be made for more clarity in FM when it comes to terminology.

As wwfan has been saying, before FM13 you could win games by playing a certain way, now that there is so much more subtlety involved, there's a lot of room for interpretation and therefore mis-interpretation, so some clarity could make a world of difference for a lot of players.

[Lawlore]

I don't agree. I've been modding the tactics forum for four years and explaining tactics for many more. I barely need to post any more because so many forum users give great advice. In the slider years it was a small handful at best.

The users that are struggling are those, in my opinion, are listening to the wrong ideas and opinions (often at fansites trying to make a name for themselves) or panic change things without any kind of tactical coherent vision. Try a "super" solution or fail to have a vision and you will do badly, and so should you.

I don't doubt this, and at no point am I calling for a return to sliders, although I know some do. I've personally never touched a slider in my life, that's not my angle here.

I'm referring to the all-too-common posts here on the General Discussion Forum, the "I'm fed up, can't win a game, about ready to quit" posts- people who have gone out, found and registered for the SI forums purely out of frustration with not being able to do anything with the game. You can tell which ones they are, as they're new accounts, and they've come straight here to post in GD. That's a problem- that shouldn't be happening. That means people are not able to put together a basic tactic using the tools in the game and their existing knowledge of football. And yet these posts are common. Of course, here in GD we inevitably direct people to the Tactics Forum, but really, that shouldn't be necessary- not for creating a basic tactic or to understand what the different things in-game do.

The "it's your tactics" cliche may well be generally true in a lot of those cases- but it should be the game explaining this, not forums that the player has had to seek out themselves. It begs the question how many don't bother finding the forums and just give up? Not because the game is too hard, but because the controls, the input method, is too abstract.

Prior to FM13, all you needed to do was have a quick FC and the team playing TBs as much as possible. We weren't aware just how many users played like this until FM13 when a plethora of similar styled tactics appeared with the user asking for help. The FM scene always drifted towards a certain way of playing (if you ever played FML you'll know what I mean). It wasn't sophisticated, it just beat the AI because it exploited the lack of collision detection. Nowadays, the discussion is far more interesting as so many different approaches work. Again, far more people clearly know what they are doing than in previous iterations, and discussion and the game is richer for it.

Again, no argument here. It worked for the ME at the time, so people did it, got results, and didn't think about it any longer. Whether they stumbled on it by themselves, whether they downloaded tactics- really, how they got there doesn't matter. They found something that worked, and that was the end of the discussion. And trust me, I knew FML very well, and it was extremely prevalent.

Please don't misunderstand me- I'm not suggesting lively tactical discussion and debate is a bad thing, by any means. Quite the opposite- I have the utmost respect for those, yourself included, who have taken the time to experiment, to develop, to understand the intricacies- and furthermore who go that extra mile to help others understand. But that doesn't change my key point.

I don't want to appear rude, but the most basic understanding of football should tell you that you can't just pick a group of talented players without trying to mould them into a coherent team. You can know what they are best at, but have to recognise that they might have to do a very specific job to help the team perform that does not perfectly match their abilities. Likewise, the difference between what you and I think a TM might be will be so minor as to be irrelevant. Experience with the forums suggests pretty much everyone has very similar expectations of the various roles. The target audience of FM is football fans and you have to expect a basic level of knowledge.

Someone who has never played the series before, but who has an interest in football, should be able to pick up the game, tell their team how they want to play, and live or die by those decisions, completely oblivious to the Tactics Forum. Right now, just doing that is much, much tougher than it needs to be. Questions like this one here are valid questions (note I don't agree with the point that person is making), and they exist not because someone doesn't understand football or tactics, but because there is not sufficient explanation as to how the tools at their disposal work.

If they do it badly, the game needs to do more to tell them why what they're doing isn't working, so they're not left with the conclusion that they're losing games they should be winning because of the ME. You and I both know there will always be people who blame anyone but themselves, granted, but there will also be those who pay attention, listen and learn- as the Tactics Forum shows. So surely it should be happening within this game world- the feedback should be coming from the AI characters who are seeing the same mistakes that the game is punishing, not from you or I here in the forum.

The issue, and it is one of SI's making, is people looking too closely at tactical familiarity and worrying about gamey penalisation rather than tactical preparing for the conditions and the opposition.

It falls within the same group of description issues that I'm harping on about- the game isn't telling us what the various parts of it do, what they affect, or how they interact with one another. Does setting an "Overload" mentality change all of the Duties to the most attacking ones, for example? Does making a side Very Fluid cause an otherwise-static Enganche to wander? These are the first ones off the top of my head, but of course there are countless other types of interaction which have the potential to contradict one another or cause problems in a tactic.

It's not just about keeping morale up. It's guarding against complacency, knowing when to stick the boot in, knowing when to praise and cajole, etc. If you think it is just about morale, then you aren't grasping the subtlety of the module.

I was simplifying for the sake of my message getting long and that not really being the point we're discussing (hence the "everything exterior"), but I completely get what you're saying. Apologies if that wasn't clear, that's my mistake. I appreciate there's a lot more to it than morale.

I agree there are a number of users in that situation. But, and it is absolutely and blatantly clear to those of us who've been writing and posting about tactics for years, there are so, so many more users that understand the tactical aspect of FM than there used to be. I could give up and not get involved in discussions with people who don't, as I often get attacked when I do, but, ultimately, I want to help. It's up to others if they want to listen or not.

And that's a good thing- that people are discussing tactcs, that the game is provoking debate and that people who go there are getting a greater understanding can only be a good thing. But it's the other end that concerns me- those who aren't getting involved in the discussions, those who are buying the game, trying it, finding it inaccessible and giving up. They want to play the game, and if they could get past that first barrier of understanding, they'd find it's a rich, deep game, with the potential to do nigh-on anything tactically they can imagine. But they're not getting there, because the game is saying "here are these tactical tools, get on with it, and don't lose too much or you'll be sacked".

From the frequency of posts like that in GD, we can only speculate how many are in that boat but don't get as far as registering here and just give up. Either way, I think it's a significant enough portion to be concerned about.

[samdiatmh]

Someone who has never played the series before, but who has an interest in football, should be able to pick up the game, tell their team how they want to play, and live or die by those decisions, completely oblivious to the Tactics Forum. Right now, just doing that is much, much tougher than it needs to be. Questions like this one here are valid questions (note I don't agree with the point that person is making), and they exist not because someone doesn't understand football or tactics, but because there is not sufficient explanation as to how the tools at their disposal work.

brings back memories of an old CM feature (after the split)

basically, whenever you made a change to the tactic (mentality, or adjustment of sliders as it was back then) then the team would move (slightly) depending on what you had selected

- so if you selected a high line, then the team would move up (defs become higher, and the rest of the team moves up a bit to compensate)

- if you selected attacking, then the team would also move up (team generally becomes more forward)

- shorter passing bunches up the team (naturally, shorter passing remember) as well as playing narrower (leaving a lot of space on the flanks)

gave a nice visual representation of how your team would actually look on the pitch (nice high defs, as well as a big gap for the opposition to exploit)

maybe SI could copy that, if purely for the newer players to see what's going on (or for that question you referred to about bringing back sliders - NO, just don't)

-----

the game does provide a text-based description of what each thing actually does

so overload is (as I understand it) commiting players forward with no regards for defence, which would probably be like setting all players to attacking (also enhanced by that feature listed above)

as well as very fluid meaning that players are interchangable

in this case, the typically-static enganche would wander elsewhere, but he'd be replaced by whoever he switches with [so if he switches with the ML, then the ML becomes your enganche - for a brief period at least]

-------------

as for the tactics themselves:

they're not too bad if you understand them (probably a few more roles added), but it's getting to that point that's the troubling part

at least this thread has made SI aware (if they weren't already) that the current system isn't the best for understanding (hence the masses of threads), and that it needs a revamp

[Äktsjon Männ]

From the frequency of posts like that in GD, we can only speculate how many are in that boat but don't get as far as registering here and just give up. Either way, I think it's a significant enough portion to be concerned about.

It likely is. I don't have any friends who actively play FM but a couple of them have tried a version or two in the past and I've been able to have a look on how they approach it. Safe to say I won't be recommending the last couple of versions to any of them. Not because they are bad games. But I know they will likely struggle to get anything going in the game, get frustrated and then just abandon it meaning they'll have wasted their money. These are the kind of people who will never go on a forum to read about a game, never mind signing up and asking for help. They're bored to tears of me talking about FM all the time as it is. But they are football fans. A football game should be accessible to people like them as well. Saying that they're not the target audience because they're not 'willing to put their time and effort in' is ludicrously elitist, condescending and frankly ignorant.

[RTHerringbone]

So basically what we need it for SI to input some in-depth explanations for everything tactical. People are being sent to the tactical part of the forum and people are helping them (saying do this instead of this), but the person needing help doesn't understand why he's having to do this instead of this, whether it worked or not isn't the issue.

To be fair, the people in the Tactics forum almost always say "Do this because it will mean.....".

It's rarely just a case of "Just do this" because that doesn't serve to educate the user.

[Cleon]

To be fair, the people in the Tactics forum almost always say "Do this because it will mean.....".

It's rarely just a case of "Just do this" because that doesn't serve to educate the user.

Aye, the general feedback in the tactics forum is more along the lines of 'Why did you use that role, why did you use them shouts' and so on. It's more focused on getting the user to question themselves and know why they choose the roles they did compared to just giving a direct answer saying someone should use this and that. Or by getting them to understand why they had 30 shots but only 6 on target and the opposition had 5 all on target and they lost 2-0.

[Cleon]

I agree some people do, especially the dedicated users, but I wouldn't say almost always. I'd say 50% of the help I've had through those forums has just been a case of "do this" and that's it.

A quick look at your threads and posts from that forum I can only see 2 posts that say 'do this' compared to about 25 posts where people say things like 'have you considered or you can get away with this'. So I think the number you came up with is rather extreme. And the really good advice you got seemed to go unnoticed especially the brilliant post from Naks.

[Gazzaroon]

I kind of understand where the OP is coming from as I think the game's difficulty has in some ways increased and you need to pay more attention to what is going on in the game more than in previous versions. But, I don't seem to find the same problems as others and i have never really taken any information from the tactics forum. I have scanned it a few times, but never really implemented any ideas - I don't know I just didn't. And, I have enjoyed success in the game and have found the increase in difficulty refreshing and a nice little 'after-work-challenge' which gave me a new enjoyment of the game.

The one piece of advice I remember reading somewhere, probably on here, was 'don't keep changing your tactics' and that was the best advice I heeded for this version as I persevered with a new tactic I was trying to see if it actually worked. After a few early game disasters suddenly the players seemed to get the idea and the rest is history as they say.

Having said all that, I do think a more in-depth instruction manual would be a good addition for people who buy the game to understand some of the ideas behind the game. It would be good to understand the thinking behind 'player- mindset' and so on.

[Cleon]

I kind of understand where the OP is coming from as I think the game's difficulty has in some ways increased and you need to pay more attention to what is going on in the game more than in previous versions. But, I don't seem to find the same problems as others and i have never really taken any information from the tactics forum. I have scanned it a few times, but never really implemented any ideas - I don't know I just didn't. And, I have enjoyed success in the game and have found the increase in difficulty refreshing and a nice little 'after-work-challenge' which gave me a new enjoyment of the game.

The one piece of advice I remember reading somewhere, probably on here, was 'don't keep changing your tactics' and that was the best advice I heeded for this version as I persevered with a new tactic I was trying to see if it actually worked. After a few early game disasters suddenly the players seemed to get the idea and the rest is history as they say.

Having said all that, I do think a more in-depth instruction manual would be a good addition for people who buy the game to understand some of the ideas behind the game. It would be good to understand the thinking behind 'player- mindset' and so on.

I agree documentation of some kind and descriptions are badly needed. However I'm not sure just how far it should go at explaining stuff there needs to be some kind of cut off point or it'll become far too much text for people to read. Saying all that, I still think the game should address stuff like this with something visual in game that shows what a setting does. So if I choose something like a winger role it gives me a quick training pitch clip of what to expect from the role. It could show me things like the player taking on a man, crossing from the byline. Just a short 10-20 second clip that highlights the main points of the role just enough so the user has a clear indication of what the role does. This should also be applicable to stuff like Team Instructions and show you what pushing the d-line high up does for the system you have selected and so on.

[YKW]

I think rather than complexity there is a combination of obscurity and arduousness. I'm not going to mention the obscurity part because I think that has been well addressed.

I agree with the overall goal that wwfan mentions, when he refers to the "reduced likelihood that a user can create a winning tactic suitable to all teams in all conditions against all formations." I would like this element to remain but somehow I would also like to not have to spend very much time at all manually making changes during the match.

Could there be some way of 'moving' the arduousness to somewhere outside of the match experience? I am thinking that improving the training module, specifically the match training module, could go hand in hand with this.

For instance in the new training screen I would have a match preparation tab, and in it I could set up triggers and events to happen within a match. For example:

- If (1) goal up/down at (75) minutes activate tactical plan (x) (this could be a new formation, roles and lineup etc)

- If (3) goals up at (60) minutes take off players (x,y,z for a,b,c)

- If we get a red card activate tactical plan (y)

- If (possession/shots/fouls) are (x amount) against us then activate tactical plan (z)

Some things could be related to your style of play, like coming out attacking until you get a goal or until 15 minutes has passed, and may consistently be in your match plan. Other things could be match by match like bringing on a tired star if chasing a game or for shaking up quality opposition early with some big challenges. Also it would be good if I could select match plans to activate depending on the final lineup of the opposition. If I'm not sure of the opposition's formation or lineup then it would be nice to set up a few contingency plans that would have be activated by the time I finish my team talk and go to the tactics screen.

There could be nice little widget which would have a list of any tactical plans that were due to come into effect, ideally I could click the little red x to delete them or drag them to make them happen earlier/later.

The general idea would be to make matches a more smooth experience with less interruptions but still maintain that element of having to change things for every match.

[Cleon]

Except this hasn't been my only account. Also, what does "Have you considered or you can get away with this" got to do with giving detailed explanations (which I never said nobody does). Could you also please explain how you made this assumption that I've ignored his post?

Well it was rude not to have thanked him for his effort considering the lengths at which he posted and in such detail? The only response afterwards was from a mod no-one else so its not really an assumption and if in fact you have seen the post and not even acknowledged someone went out of their way to give you great advice then that is just plain rude . And you've used that account for well over a year now so I'm going off the posts you've done on that seeing as this was the account you was talking about. And 'Have you considered etc' was proving the point no-one told you to 'do this' apart from 2 people. The rest all gave you advice or said things which got you to think differently and gave you advice on things you could perhaps try. You made a bold statement and said 50% of the advice given was 'do this' when in fact its nowhere near that based on the posts you've made on this account. I'm happy to stand corrected though if you provide me the other accounts name.

But we are straying off topic here so this will be my last post on this matter. If you'd like to carry it on you can PM me though

[wwfan]

From the frequency of posts like that in GD, we can only speculate how many are in that boat but don't get as far as registering here and just give up. Either way, I think it's a significant enough portion to be concerned about.

But it's always been like this. Every year we get an influx of users who haven't been able to adjust to ME and AI changes, failed to understand why what worked in the last iteration doesn't work now, sign up and rant / ask for help. The change in input methodology has perhaps increased the numbers slightly, but it was such a big change that was always likely to be the case that many people wouldn't adjust as they'd become so invested in a certain way of playing.

The main difference is now I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of the user base that has invested some effort in trying to understand the tactical input, either on the forums or just through plain, old-fashioned thinking, have grasped what things do. When sliders were prevalent, no more than a handful could tell you what they did and how they interrelated (and Ackter would say I'm being generous suggesting even five could). The evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards more people than ever genuinely understanding the game, with no more than usual registering to say they don't understand things.

[ianclark]

If you think I am making a sweeping generalisation, answer me this. How quickly did you overachieve with West Ham in FM12 versus FMs13-14? I'm not talking about every match, but enough to get a top eight finish early doors, then get into Europe, win a cup or two, and finally challenge for the league.

I never managed to "overachieve" with West Ham or any other team - I had good seasons with good teams, but never managed to do anything crazy (like West Ham winning the league or anything daft like that!). Why do people assume that all the people complaining are moaning because FM13 and FM14 are harder than FM12, that is not true, I (and others) just don't find them as enjoyable to play (its not about winning all the time, its about enjoyment surely?).

And I don't understand what issues I have that are of my own making? I am just trying to offer some constructive criticism because I feel the FM series has gone too far down the wrong path.

[jumbohotdog]

Then I would like to ask how would you classify "enjoyment"?

[wwfan]

If you think I am making a sweeping generalisation, answer me this. How quickly did you overachieve with West Ham in FM12 versus FMs13-14? I'm not talking about every match, but enough to get a top eight finish early doors, then get into Europe, win a cup or two, and finally challenge for the league.

I never managed to "overachieve" with West Ham or any other team - I had good seasons with good teams, but never managed to do anything crazy (like West Ham winning the league or anything daft like that!). Why do people assume that all the people complaining are moaning because FM13 and FM14 are harder than FM12, that is not true, I (and others) just don't find them as enjoyable to play (its not about winning all the time, its about enjoyment surely?).

And I don't understand what issues I have that are of my own making? I am just trying to offer some constructive criticism because I feel the FM series has gone too far down the wrong path.

So, failing to win anything with WHU is irrelevant as you always failed to win anything with them. The issue is not being able to win the league with top teams? What exactly is the issue?

[ctfm2012]

The truth is yes people have made many complaints about fm14. I found it very difficult at the start and eventualy broke the learning curve to it. I'd have to say it required more of my attention compared to previous versions. I still don't like fm14 because I can't control my palyers the way i use to in previous versions. If you look in the forums there is one guy who said he had broken the code of invisible sliders somewhere. There is also another person saying the game started going against him abnormaly in a frenzy state making him loose 9 straight games, he tried everything and wasn't successful.

I'm going to wait for fm15 and i hope it delivers more realism. Just to let you know, I played stoke using the full game mode and ended up 9th in the league only buying 1 player. 3/4's of the season i was 5th. Not bad I guess i was doing something right. I've played Real Madrid and Man Utd and won the leagues with those teams. What i don't like about the game is when you play in a final on neutral ground. The npc for 1 half is playing like they play at home and the other half it's like they are playing away. You have to guess which one it is for your strategy or game plan to work right or otherwise it's catch up football.

I'll wait and see what fm15 brings but i hope it blasts the living daylights out of fm14 which has been my least desirable version of all versions. Sorry.

[Crushall]

ctfm2012

The truth is yes people have made many complaints about fm14. I found it very difficult at the start and eventualy broke the learning curve to it. I'd have to say it required more of my attention compared to previous versions. I still don't like fm14 because I can't control my palyers the way i use to in previous versions. If you look in the forums there is one guy who said he had broken the code of invisible sliders somewhere. There is also another person saying the game started going against him abnormaly in a frenzy state making him loose 9 straight games, he tried everything and wasn't successful.

This right here is me and my friends biggest issue,(Not the slider thing, got no idea about coding etc and who has broken what) it just happens right out of the blue, and none of us been able to figure out why, when it does.

You all talk about realisme of game, and im all for that, but im 44 years old, im from a football family, ive followed real life football for almost 40 years now, and 1 thing you do know is WHY you loose a game, sure some days youre just unlucky, but most of the times you can pinpoint where the game went wrong, after the game when looking in hindsight.

This is what i need from the game, a proper analasys of the game, what did we do real well, what didnt work well etc, did we loose due to personal faults or bad choices etc etc.

(And i know you get small pieces of info about some of these things, but it could be made way clearer in an after the game report)

In earlier versions this werent needed, due to numerous reasons already mentioned, and im in no way against the game being fixed and more difficult, as long as the logic follows it.

As i mentioned earlier, the game feels more like a puzzle to piece together, and less like a manager game.

And just to set all straight, that feels like im whining due to not winning, cause i am. THATS NOT THE ISSUE :-)

I just want the control of the game back, i wanna loose due to my mistakes, and then be able to change things.

And to much random biip happens, like the last game when i were down by 1 to Chelsea, and changed my game plan, i then at the 70 minute mark made my last 2 subs, and at the 75 min mark i got an injury, and then needed play the last 15 mins with 10 man and ofc lost the game.

Ofc these things happen, and thats fine and one of the charms about the game, theres just to many random things happening imo that is unexplainable, except that this might have to do with the new engine, and the less room for error. (And if so, that choice werent an error, and shouldnt be penalised by the game engine)

[Cougar2010]

This right here is me and my friends biggest issue,(Not the slider thing, got no idea about coding etc and who has broken what) it just happens right out of the blue, and none of us been able to figure out why, when it does.

You all talk about realisme of game, and im all for that, but im 44 years old, im from a football family, ive followed real life football for almost 40 years now, and 1 thing you do know is WHY you loose a game, sure some days youre just unlucky, but most of the times you can pinpoint where the game went wrong, after the game when looking in hindsight.

All this is already there for the most part you are simply failing to pick up on it or understand it.

When I play I know after a match why I won or lost, sometimes I got lucky/unlucky, sometimes a particular player(s) played well or badly, sometimes I got the tactics right or wrong and sometimes the team simply do or don't fire which tends to be a mentality/team talks issue.

Thats not to say that maybe SI could do a little more to help users understand what went right or wrong but the basics are already there.

EDIT

I also think part of the issue is that users expect too much control over their players and maybe have had that in previous versions. FM is a management sim therefore you do not and should not have a direct robotic influence on what happens on the pitch, your control as a manager is indirect, you build a framework but once out on the pitch its down to the players.

[Crushall]

All this is already there for the most part you are simply failing to pick up on it or understand it.

Bits and pieces are there about some issues, true, i mentioned that also, but saying one dont pick up on it or understand it, might be going a bit far, since its all about interpretation of all the info gathered and which to use and not to use, which brings me back to the puzzle of getting it 100% right every time.

But when i watch full matches, my team DO play as i want them to, they DO control the game, and i DO win most of the time.

Like ive mentioned a few times, i have np setting up a (Mostly)winning tactic.

Then when i go to highlight only mode, suddenly all kind of weird things start happening, its like you get penalised for not watching full game.,

This might be due to other stuff, or just bad luck, but its just weird and unexplainable for me, since its every time, me and my friends get together, and 1 or more get there season destroyed by a sudden loosing streak with no reason to find, and it seriously compromises our enjoyment of the game.

A big part of my enjoyment of the game is like i mentioned, getting together with friends and play a season, and have some fun.

This requires highlighted mode only once season starts, or we will get nowhere, and its always the same, weird things ruining the game for some, that none can explain why happens.

Exactly how much time do you guys use on a match, from pre-game training till match is over?

How long does one season in general take you to complete?

And will it in your opinion ever be possible to play a season in a weekend, that being said, a weekend is for us about 40 hours of gametime, considering the time you guys use on a season?

Im feeling like my goal for weekend fun is over with FM, unless we go back to a previous version.

This however will kill it for us, football is a big part of our life, and we talk football, and players all the time, which means we also wanna try out the new stars and talents etc that enter the football scene every year.

Im thinking this is very much a solo game now, even with the effort put into making it easier to play against others

[Cougar2010]

But when i watch full matches, my team DO play as i want them to, they DO control the game, and i DO win most of the time.

Like ive mentioned a few times, i have np setting up a (Mostly)winning tactic.

Then when i go to highlight only mode, suddenly all kind of weird things start happening, its like you get penalised for not watching full game.,

This might be due to other stuff, or just bad luck, but its just weird and unexplainable for me, since its every time, me and my friends get together, and 1 or more get there season destroyed by a sudden loosing streak with no reason to find, and it seriously compromises our enjoyment of the game.

So reading between the lines when you watch highlights you are slower to pick up on issues when they happen and because of this the issues become worse than they are when you take more time with extended/full match mode.

Its certainly something I can identify with and I can't say I'm surprised. Thats not to say to can't achieve on a key highlight level but it makes sense that the more effort you put into a match the more likely you are to identify small issues before they become bigger ones.

A big part of my enjoyment of the game is like i mentioned, getting together with friends and play a season, and have some fun.

This requires highlighted mode only once season starts, or we will get nowhere, and its always the same, weird things ruining the game for some, that none can explain why happens.

Exactly how much time do you guys use on a match, from pre-game training till match is over?

How long does one season in general take you to complete?

And will it in your opinion ever be possible to play a season in a weekend, that being said, a weekend is for us about 40 hours of gametime, considering the time you guys use on a season?

Im feeling like my goal for weekend fun is over with FM, unless we go back to a previous version.

This however will kill it for us, football is a big part of our life, and we talk football, and players all the time, which means we also wanna try out the new stars and talents etc that enter the football scene every year.

Im thinking this is very much a solo game now, even with the effort put into making it easier to play against others

I watch every match on extended highlights and I get through a match in around 15-20 minutes.

For me FM is a solo game, I've tried playing it with friends but it comes down to I like to play with extended highlights, I like to take my time and that doesn't tend to fit in with playing online with others.

[Crushall]

So reading between the lines when you watch highlights you are slower to pick up on issues when they happen and because of this the issues become worse than they are when you take more time with extended/full match mode.

Its certainly something I can identify with and I can't say I'm surprised. Thats not to say to can't achieve on a key highlight level but it makes sense that the more effort you put into a match the more likely you are to identify small issues before they become bigger ones.

You calling us old and slow? :-) :-)

But its surely part of it, but it dont explain the loosing streaks that just happens out of the blue sometimes.

I watch every match on extended highlights and I get through a match in around 15-20 minutes.

For me FM is a solo game, I've tried playing it with friends but it comes down to I like to play with extended highlights, I like to take my time and that doesn't tend to fit in with playing online with others.

I can understand this, when im playing solo and depending on time i have, i even throw in a full match now and then to make sure all is working as intended still, and normally do that when its the harder teams im up against.

[ianclark]

I can't be bothered with these forums any more - you try and offer an opinion and get questions like "How would you classify enjoyment" - seriously?

For the 1 millionth (and last) time, I don't like playing FM13 and FM14 as much as FM12 (or all previous versions - except CM3 - for that matter).

Can anyone actually describe enjoyment, or is it just something you know when it happens - I suspect it is the latter.

Goodbye forums dwellers, to those of you who agree with me, I hope FM15 brings back some of the "enjoyment", to those who disagree with me, I hope you all learn some tolerance of other peoples opinions, especially if they differ from yours!

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Users who adopted a one tactic beats all playing style also struggle to deal with the non-football related modules, such as man and media management, all of which can affect match performance. They always did, but because you had a tactic that won anyway, you didn't notice it. All of a sudden you are having to react to and deal with poor performances rather than still get a result despite them. People think the non-football management modules are all that matters because they have not learnt to deal with the team having an off-day, citing poorly designed randomness rather than highly realistic ebbs and flows of form. Again, if you were abreast of the game's development, you would have learnt to deal with this over the years and have had no trouble adapting to the last two iterations. If you haven't, then you'll be feeling lost and frustrated.

Users who adopted a one tactic beats all playing style also struggle to deal with the non-football related modules, such as man and media management, all of which can affect match performance. They always did, but because you had a tactic that won anyway, you didn't notice it. All of a sudden you are having to react to and deal with poor performances rather than still get a result despite them. People think the non-football management modules are all that matters because they have not learnt to deal with the team having an off-day, citing poorly designed randomness rather than highly realistic ebbs and flows of form. Again, if you were abreast of the game's development, you would have learnt to deal with this over the years and have had no trouble adapting to the last two iterations. If you haven't, then you'll be feeling lost and frustrated.

I think it is well documented that the Press conferences and player interactions are so abnormal and unrealistic to the extent that no average gamer will put much stock in it let alone comprehend the methods to use it at their disposal. So much so, it's flatly easier to just 'no comment' everything and not bother talking to the players, who apparently will stab you in the back for some perceived insult such as breathing.

Hyperbole aside, that area of the game needs proper investment and a proper model of responses re-coded into it before it should even encroach on the main game. It is a travesty, and the fact it affects the game is quite the annoyance. I'm all for those elements being in the game, but they need to make sense and be workable.

It's amusing to me to see catch-phrases flung about in relation to the newer FM's (either here or elsewhere) such as 'Morale Manager 13/14 etc'.

But those users are a minority of a minority. The first minority is the portion of the userbase who actually register and post on these or any FM-related forums- it's a reasonably safe assumption that most people don't- and the second minority is the portion who are actively involved in discussing the tactical side of the game. As I type this, there are a touch under 1500 people online on this forum, and a touch under 200 of those who are on the Tactics forum. So by your own definitions, the majority of people are facing a steep learning curve. There's nothing especially wrong with a steep learning curve, but it is a steep learning curve that the game itself isn't trying to help you climb.

This point, analogy aside, is valid.

I'm consistently surprised that people are denying this. The forums here are limited, it's a minority of minorities. You don't need to go to other fansites trying to make a name for themselves, just head to any gaming forum. Look at neoseeker, gamefaqs, social forums, steam, whatever, the amount of abject monster tactics there are commonplace. The amount of tactical understanding is nonsensical (i.e. Zero).

The amount of 'diablo' type tactics out there too are quite high. You might be winning the battle against that on these forums but don't for a moment think you've won the 'war'...

Either way, I hope the future games will address the concerns raised. I for one understand what people mean by the enjoyment factor, but I do think there's a clash of interest and approaches to the game that has been brewing since 10/11 tbh.

[themadsheep2001]

I can't be bothered with these forums any more - you try and offer an opinion and get questions like "How would you classify enjoyment" - seriously?

For the 1 millionth (and last) time, I don't like playing FM13 and FM14 as much as FM12 (or all previous versions - except CM3 - for that matter).

Can anyone actually describe enjoyment, or is it just something you know when it happens - I suspect it is the latter.

Goodbye forums dwellers, to those of you who agree with me, I hope FM15 brings back some of the "enjoyment", to those who disagree with me, I hope you all learn some tolerance of other peoples opinions, especially if they differ from yours!

It's a valid question, as its so subjective. I could certainly go into detail about what I enjoy (and dont enjoy) about FM14, and I do so, because thats how you put feedback This thread has actually been very tolerant of peoples opinions. Asking "why" and "how" is not aggressive. It's a VITAL part of feedback. Take a look at isignedupfornoreason's point. He looks to answer the why and how, because thats what the developers can work with.

This:

For the 1 millionth (and last) time, I don't like playing FM13 and FM14 as much as FM12 (or all previous versions - except CM3 - for that matter).

with all due respect, really doesn't tell a dev much they can take onboard, or think about. You can't get angry if someone then asks you for more info on why.

What didn't you like, and why you didnt like it, and how you feel it could be changed are things that need to be put across. That's the very crux of constructive criticism.

[Crushall]

The development path will continue on its current route, which is supposed to make the game more accessible to its user base, not less. The TC is not supposed to have made it more difficult to play, but turned tools (the sliders) into concepts, allowing users to quickly put together a tactical vision.

I figure as much, but at the same time i do hope they will also give us more info after a game, even if its the assistent turning up on screen laughing and asking wt biiip was that, dont ever do this and this again or ill rip that tie of you, since it clearly keeps the blood from entering your brain. :-)

What the introduction of the TC and a more robust ME has resulted in is a reduced likelihood that a user can create a winning tactic suitable to all teams in all conditions against all formations. That means users that never tried to understand the sliders (and for that I don't blame them as they were a nightmare of abstraction) and relied on downloaded tactics or, deliberately or accidentally, ME exploits to defeat the AI have been confronted with a steep learning curve. Users that have invested time int he tactical discussions that initiated the changes have had it far easier.

My opinion is that FM is far more accessible as long as you aren't trying to build a super-tactic. That would be an exercise in frustration. Although the descriptions of the TC could be improved, and some are perhaps non-intuitive, if you have any knowledge about football you should be able to make an educated guess about what things do. The worst thing you can try is to come up with a gamey solution, such as picking all your players in their best role/duty or trying to beat the ME not the AI. The shift in thinking merely requires you to alter your tactic to deal with certain situations. Like playing pretty, short passing tactics? Great, but good luck if you do it on a mud bath in a February downpour. Want to play on the counter? Fine, but don't stick five players in the F and AM strata as you need players deep to counter successfully from deep. Want to play ultra-direct, traditional British style football? No worries, but expect to come unstuck against highly technical teams using modern formations. Making strategic shifts before a match takes a few seconds and can bring much reward and increased satisfaction, as you know you won because of the decisions you made.

Users who adopted a one tactic beats all playing style also struggle to deal with the non-football related modules, such as man and media management, all of which can affect match performance. They always did, but because you had a tactic that won anyway, you didn't notice it. All of a sudden you are having to react to and deal with poor performances rather than still get a result despite them. People think the non-football management modules are all that matters because they have not learnt to deal with the team having an off-day, citing poorly designed randomness rather than highly realistic ebbs and flows of form. Again, if you were abreast of the game's development, you would have learnt to deal with this over the years and have had no trouble adapting to the last two iterations. If you haven't, then you'll be feeling lost and frustrated.

My advice is to forget the "it's your tactics" responses. Whilst it sometimes might be, the real critique should be "it's your decisions". Learn to make the right ones and FM is a highly rewarding game, more so than it used to be as you understand why you succeed and fail. You'll have to be up for a steep learning curve, but the final reward will be worth it.

Player relations i find a joke tbh, they are just all over the place, same goest for contract talks at times, although in most cases is fine.

Moral talks i find very usefull, very rare i get an all red responce in that, but happens i read the game wrong and say the wrong stuff, but it happens, and ive only got myself to blame when that happens.

About tactics, i actually try to use basic instructions, and more or less only use specialisations on my AMC now and then.

So basicly agreeing on most you write here.

My issue is the weird unexplainable stuff that happens, and how impossible it seems to pinpoint the reason behind it when it happens.

[jumbohotdog]

Quote Originally Posted by ianclark View Post

I can't be bothered with these forums any more - you try and offer an opinion and get questions like "How would you classify enjoyment" - seriously?

For the 1 millionth (and last) time, I don't like playing FM13 and FM14 as much as FM12 (or all previous versions - except CM3 - for that matter).

Can anyone actually describe enjoyment, or is it just something you know when it happens - I suspect it is the latter.

Goodbye forums dwellers, to those of you who agree with me, I hope FM15 brings back some of the "enjoyment", to those who disagree with me, I hope you all learn some tolerance of other peoples opinions, especially if they differ from yours!

I wanted to ask you that because to a lot of people the enjoyment comes from winning ALL the time or having a 100 match winning streak. If that is how you classify enjoyment then you will NEVER enjoy fm14

[ianclark]

I don't classify enjoyment by winning all the time (see my previous posts), I don't like the "look" of the last 2 games, the menus "bouncing" in and out all the time is particularly distracting. Also, when I play FM13 or FM14 I don't feel like I am actually in control of the game, I just feel like a passenger. I have no problem with the new method for tactics as a lot of people do. There does seem to be a lot of random mistakes by players (more than any other version or real life) which can be annoying. The whole look of the game just feels a bit too "in your face" whereas the look of older versions just feels "calmer". Perhaps that is something you get used to (but getting a headache while playing the game is not my idea of fun!).

Press conferences are a popular complaint I know but I am afraid I must add to the list of people griping about these too!

Also, transfers need a big upgrade - why is it so hard to buy players for a reasonable price and so hard to sell players at all sometimes? It can be very frustrating to have to leave players in the reserves until their contracts run out and they leave anyway.

[jumbohotdog]

I agree with you on the press conferences. It is tedious at best but i have no problem regarding transfers. It is even too easy to get the players that I want for the prices that I want

[sriracha]

I agree with you on the press conferences. It is tedious at best but i have no problem regarding transfers. It is even too easy to get the players that I want for the prices that I want

Press conferences are "FUN". Last season about 20 of the opposition managers singled out my reserve keeper as the weakest link.

Wrt transfer system - you're right that you can (mostly) get the kind of player you want for the price you want, but it's hopelessly broken because of the PA fixation anyways.