Official Football Manager 2015 Feedback Thread 15.2.1

[hluraven]

Taking takes significantly longer than it did at release, and after it was fixed the first time, making it impractical to do. The product does not work as advertised or even as it did at release and for this reason is faulty.

Really? It advertised a minimum time for saving?

[Some Guy!]

Really? It advertised a minimum time for saving?

I would argue that it working properly for the demo (at time of release) and working properly at time of being sold constitutes both as advertised and as initially sold. I have reworded that to be more to the point of my concern though. That is, that it was broken by a patch and at this time there is no means by which to roll back to the previous working version.

[themadsheep2001]

The save time issue is being taken seriously, we are not in a position to even suggest when an out of schedule update could be available for release because the issue is still being worked on.

This sums it up. There is no more to add to this. Moving on.

[Some Guy!]

This sums it up. There is no more to add to this. Moving on.

Are there going to be any official statements that confirm that they are taking it seriously?

[hluraven]

Are there going to be any official statements that confirm that they are taking it seriously?

The save time issue is being taken seriously

There you go.

[Some Guy!]

There you go.

That is not an official statement straight out of the official channels stating categorically how seriously the issue is being taken. What we have is an official channel stating that there won't be any updates prior to the late February one and another in thread comment about how it "is being taken seriously" which could mean anything at this point. When an issue this serious has been in for most of the games release, they should be putting out an official statement, not concealing it best they can away in threads.

[hluraven]

You asked for an official statement and you have someone from SI giving one through one of their "official channels". You have to be trolling at this point if you think they aren't taking it seriously even though you have explicitly been told otherwise by SI.

[RTHerringbone]

You have a statement from the official Twitter account, plus a statement from an SI member of staff that SI can't comment on unscheduled update activity.

I'm not sure why you feel you need even more confirmation Some Guy!, but please stop this now, as already requested.

[shirajzl]

My point is not that with "Apex Predator" my team realize too many shots - that happens anyway, in the game.

Point is that with "Apex Predator" my team is invincible, i win always and it's boring. Of course i can avoid to use it, but the fact remain: can i enjoy to play a game when with the "right" tactic you can win regardless your ability and - top of that - the abilty of your players? And if i use a "wrong" tactic and lose it's my fault? Or just that i don't find the "right" cheat?

I love football, and i think that everybody will agree if i say that there is not a "right way to win": every tactic is good and every tactic is wrong, depends by your players skills, lucky, the day, all the casualties that make football exciting. Now i think i can say that if there is a "invincible" tactic the point of simulating football is missed.

Plus, sometimes my feeling is that players skills doesn't count. If i miss the tactic, seems that my players forget about how to play football. With the right tactic (like "Apex Predator" in my story) every sunday league footballer plays like Zidane. Surely sometimes FM players complain too much about winning, or losing, or shooting, or finalizing or something. But on the other side saying that this game doesn't need fix is, for me, wrong in the same way. My 2 cents, i'm not a great player and i know, but fact for me is not to win or lose (over 1000 hours in 2014, never won a Champions) but HOW this happens.

Again, sorry for my english, i hope that my idea is clear after all.

There are plenty of people who have tried the same tactic and it didn't work for them, so you can't really say "you find the specific right tactic and you always win".

[PratoJoe]

There are plenty of people who have tried the same tactic and it didn't work for them, so you can't really say "you find the specific right tactic and you always win".

Well, it's what i hope. For my experience, 2 teams on 2 pretty invincible. By the way, happy that is not an absolute game-destroyer, obviously i can talk only for my personal story.

[ianscousemac]

Someone replied to Football Manager's tweet regarding a small hotfix for iOS, and asked about the PC one (hotfix). Was told next update will be Winter transfer one. Not sure if by "update" FM means big patch, or if indeed we have a few weeks longer to wait

If it fixes the few problems with the ME that I see (Poor defending, too many shots, too many good chances missed , too many goals) then for me this will be a job well done and definitely a great game.

[Svenc]

So, it's a bad example because you'd expect them to play attacking football. It's a good example because you don't expect this kind of football to be successful.

The issue aren't these formations, the issue is what they translate to in FM, at least part of it. Up to three players who won't defend.

The unmodified default tactics of Calgiari's manager often make them do well too, as as in Mr Houghs case, the 3 man centre midfield balances it out that nobody from upfront ever tracks back when defending should he field the 4-3-3 narrow (should the manager put all of them on attack duty, which occasionally happens, it appears two at the least though). This isn't football management, this is a numbers game that wouldn't exist in real football as players/managers would immediately adapt.

However, there's still likely more to it than a couple soft goals scored on a counter. In particular as in Italy a number of teams are playingi three at the back (with 2, as in the shot above, a successful clearance is far more dangerous). I can't put my finger on it, but formations with three strikers always tend to find space in general. Only the coders know how this could have been influenced, as it is them who constantly tweak things such as marking, off the ball movements, on the ball decision making, passing accuracy. Looking purely at goals, which can paint a wrong picture, marking players frequently lose their man, but that is one reason why the result was a goal in the first place.

A thing to look out for may be the transition stage, i.e. the moment the team facing such a formation that insists on keeping players upfield regains the ball. Do the central midfielders push by those players, leave them unmonitored and advance too quickly? You don't need to get all pinned back to be able to take advantage of attack duty ST/as and AMC/as who right from that moment just slack off and let the other guys do all defending. Additionally, does the way the counter mechanism is triggered in FM provide an inherent advantage with so many players just staying upfield? A counter attack in FM is triggered when there are less than X players between the ball carrier and the goal. Obviously a clearance in the above screenshot will immediately result in the counter mechanism ticking in. If a counter attack isn't started when there's but two players and the keeper in between the ball carrier and the goal, it never is.

How are Sampdoria doing on your saves? Their manager has a 4-3-3 as a prefered formations, just as Cagliari's uses semi-regularly. Coincidence? It wouldn't be a cheat in that regard as the AI obviously uses such formations too. And it's no guaranteed win button either. However it's a formation that arguably tips the balance towards the team using it due to a number of factors at play, at least with the right combination of duties, wich will vary from save to save for the AI. In real football no formation inherently is that much better than the other, not the "modern ones" anyway. Formations are the means to an end, not the end itself.

Where does that real life stat of 33% conversion of clear cut chances come from ?

Opta Stats, who've more recently signed a deal with SI.

http://eplindex.com/27890/how-well-does-your-team-convert-chances-premier-league-stats-comparison.html

http://eplindex.com/13384/clear-cut-chances-hits-misses-opta-stats-analysis.html

http://eplindex.com/14159/opta-stats-analysis-epl-strikers-reliance-clear-cut-chances.html

Bear in mind that any statistics such as "half chances" or "Clear cuts" are subjective statistics. Meaning that, in real-life football analysis, there are pairs of eyes trying to judge depending on the definition for such a chance. Opta's definition of a clear cut is no guaranteed sitter, another misconception. It is easy to fall into the trap to conclude that chance types classified under the same moniker must be all alike, but none of them ever is. Shooting angles, distances to goal, ect. , factors that in FM will always vary likewise. Atop of that, it is obvious that a statistics algorithm will be no replacement for a human eye, ever, no matter how good. And such is obvious upon actually watching finishes classed as "clear cuts" in FM. It's gotten better, but half chances and clear cuts mix, and on occasion finishes are classed as such even though they've been easy blocks, made from impossible angles, and similar.

To me the most telling statistics focusing solely on them is the shots on target, you don't need a single clear cut or half chance to win 5-0, but shots need to be on target obviously to result in a goal. With that you thus don't go as massively wrong, or are prone to develop misconceptions, and unless there is something very bad going on with your tactics, you should score a goal from 1 in 4, 5 SOT, give or take. Many shots off target can immediately point to rushed and bad finishes, which tactics can contribute to. I calculated the SOT conversion the AI has with the top strikers over here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/413334-Official-Football-Manager-2015-Feedback-Thread-15.2.1?p=10116010&viewfull=1#post10116010 It appears to average to about 31-33%, which roughly means 1 in three shots on target in FM are being converted, at least by the top finishers of a team.

[ianscousemac]

Priority no 1 should always be improving and fixing bugs within the ME. Unless absolutely game breaking (which the save time is not) then the ME should always be no 1.

[Kriss]

The ME team have nothing to do with that part which governs save times so your comment is irrelevant.

[Luizinho]

This was the quote on Twitter:

Football Manager ‏@FootballManager 1h 1 hour ago

@Robbo_WWFC Hi Robert. The next update will be the Winter Transfer Window update.

I've got to say I find this really disappointing. The amount of negative feedback that this patch has received, I would of though there would of been an update sooner. My biggest gripe is with the ME, particularly the defending side of things. I presume that the 'Winter Update' will come early March, which means it's going to be another 2 months until we can see any improvements.

Granted, I know it's not easy to patch certain aspects of FM, but I'm getting sick and tired of having to wait until March until I find the ME bearable.

Haven't played FM for about month and looks like I'll be waiting a while longer.

[ianscousemac]

The ME team have nothing to do with that part which governs save times so your comment is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? I am saying the ME should be the most important aspect. Maybe I should say nothing

[daylight]

How is it irrelevant? I am saying the ME should be the most important aspect. Maybe I should say nothing

Kriss is saying the people that work on say the media interactions do not work on the ME, there are different teams within SI working on different things within the game so it is not like everyone suddenly stops what they are doing and everyone works on only one thing.

Like almost every company in the world SI have different teams working on different things.

[ianscousemac]

Kriss is saying the people that work on say the media interactions do not work on the ME, there are different teams within SI working on different things within the game so it is not like everyone suddenly stops what they are doing and everyone works on only one thing.

Like almost every company in the world SI have different teams working on different things.

Right somehow we have got crossed wires. I am not saying the save game bug is a problem, what I am saying is the focus of SI should be on the ME. Yes I am aware different people work on training, interaction, press etc. Then I get a reply like that from a mod saying my comment is irrevlevant?

Well Kriss I find that totally out of order unnecessary

[daylight]

It really is not unnecessary, it is just the truth.

If SI were to take someone from say the media interaction and tell him to work on the ME it would be counterproductive as they are not familiar with the code and would be more hassle than what they could do to help.

SI have a team that work on the ME and that is all they do, it is the same with any other area of the game, they are there to work on that part of the game and the chances are they have no idea of what the code is for the other parts of the game.

It is a bit like taking a forklift driver in another company and then tell him 1 day to start working in dealing with customer support.

He just loads the lorries and he has no idea of how the product works.

[scott MUFC]

erm... yea.. my season expectations for Man Utd 2nd season

Champions league semi-final

and win the double... seems a little bit demanding imo.

and scouts....

why is it time and time again, a player gets clean through on goal yet never scores?

[CameronHibs]

Tried and tried to like this FM but it isn't an enjoyable experience :o:thdn:.

5 disallowed goals in one game

30+ shots and draw/lose with team who has 1 or 2 (this doesn't just happen once or twice by the way)

Defenders randomly sticking hand in the air to give away *****y scripting penalties

Defenders deciding to just stand still whilst striker runs in for a tap in (always from a cross may I add)

No point asking about it cause just get told "it's your tactics". 2D and 3D since about 07 have been a total disaster.

Shame because most of the other parts of the game are top drawer.

However the actual matches always seem to be a battle against being screwed over rather than trying to outwit the opponent.

[keithfc]

Tried and tried to like this FM but it isn't an enjoyable experience :o:thdn:.

5 disallowed goals in one game

30+ shots and draw/lose with team who has 1 or 2 (this doesn't just happen once or twice by the way)

Defenders randomly sticking hand in the air to give away *****y scripting penalties

Defenders deciding to just stand still whilst striker runs in for a tap in (always from a cross may I add)

No point asking about it cause just get told "it's your tactics". 2D and 3D since about 07 have been a total disaster.

Shame because most of the other parts of the game are top drawer.

However the actual matches always seem to be a battle against being screwed over rather than trying to outwit the opponent.

very simple, because they dont look deeply what our problem is. When you read some of the replies from the mod, you can see lots of replies are no respect to our customers. They always think that uploading PKM and reporting bug are customers's responsibility. Even all relevant materials are reported, it does not mean it can be solved within a short period.

Many problems are existing in recent Fm series even reported. May be their team does not have sufficient ability to solve all of them. But what i dont understanding is they prefer to improve the graphic in FM15 instead of solving the bugs and problems in last series found.

Game difficulty, AI squad building, possession football, defensive logic, description of the roles, etc. All of them are raised in last series, but we cant see any great improvement.

[forameuss]

They always think that uploading PKM and reporting bug are customers's responsibility.

I'm sorry...what? Who else's responsibility would it be? The PKM's showing the "bug" are on your system.

[Some Guy!]

It really is not unnecessary, it is just the truth.

If SI were to take someone from say the media interaction and tell him to work on the ME it would be counterproductive as they are not familiar with the code and would be more hassle than what they could do to help.

SI have a team that work on the ME and that is all they do, it is the same with any other area of the game, they are there to work on that part of the game and the chances are they have no idea of what the code is for the other parts of the game.

It is a bit like taking a forklift driver in another company and then tell him 1 day to start working in dealing with customer support.

He just loads the lorries and he has no idea of how the product works.

I think the argument is that there should be a larger fraction working on the ME, not that people should be moved. That is, there should be more people hired for the ME team and less for the media module team.

That is, it would be like hiring 10 forklift drivers and having 10 forklifts to deal with 8 crates a day.

[Dagenham_Dave]

I don't have any issues with the amount of injuries, but sometimes the way they come about and what you find out they actually are afterwards leaves a bit to be desired.

For example, in my last match, one of my CMs got a 'yellow' injury fairly early on in the game. As I always do, I checked the 'performance' tab, and it said something along the lines of 'not affecting performance', and indeed his condition almost immediately jumped back to about 80%, in line with the other players, so I kept him on thinking it was just a knock he was running off. As the game wore on, his condition never dropped below the rest of the side, so he completed the full 90mins, as he's a key player for us.

After the game, I get the physio report that he's got a badly twisted knee, which he 'twisted painfully during the match' and is now out for over a month. *sighs*

The feedback you get from 'yellow' injuries should be a lot better. Had I known he'd twisted his knee, I would have brought him off there and then. I also think it's highly unlikely in such circumstances that a player could carry on with the same condition percentage as the rest of the team for the whole match.

[keithfc]

I'm sorry...what? Who else's responsibility would it be? The PKM's showing the "bug" are on your system.

I agree some of the specific or problems are needed to provide PKM. But actually many problems are very general. You just need to simulate one match, all problems can be found yourself easily. Many problems just show that they have no testing team. They do not have sufficient amount of test before issuing a game or patch.

when everyone raises the same problem, SI as the game manufacturer also need to have a look on it even no PKM is provided, right?

When SI always put advertisement saying FM is the best football management games, besting selling football management game, how about putting more effort on improving the game?

According to your logic, we as a a customer we need to become a game tester after buying the game, right?

If SI needs to rely on the customer reporting bugs to improve the game, why dont design a better and more convenience ways to reporting bugs? How about we can report the bugs in the game directly?

[Dagenham_Dave]

when everyone raises the same problem,

A handful of people on here is not 'everyone raising the same problem'.

[Some Guy!]

I agree some of the specific or problems are needed to provide PKM. But actually many problems are very general. You just need to simulate one match, all problems can be found yourself easily. Many problems just show that they have no testing team. They do not have sufficient amount of test before issuing a game or patch.

when everyone raises the same problem, SI as the game manufacturer also need to have a look on it even no PKM is provided, right?

When SI always put advertisement saying FM is the best football management games, besting selling football management game, how about putting more effort on improving the game?

According to your logic, we as a a customer we need to become a game tester after buying the game, right?

If SI needs to rely on the customer reporting bugs to improve the game, why dont design a better and more convenience ways to reporting bugs? How about we can report the bugs in the game directly?

Many problems just show that they have no testing team.

I'd argue that this is quite unfair to them. They have a testing team, the issue is that the standards appear (from the outside) to be slipping and slowly becoming more and more the players responsibility. It's a tough balance though. If 50,000 players play with a patch for a mere hour, that's more than a team of 100 testers could do in 4 weeks testing 16 hours a day. The game has so many settings and permutations possible that it's extremely difficult to test everything.

The issue I'd argue with this version is that issues have appeared that potentially should have been caught, either in soak tests (imbalance in lower league goal scoring in the early patches, issues with the shooting and keeper etc.) or in hardware tests (the first save time issue, arguably the second, though we don't know where this particular STI originates).

It's the whole idea with the beta though. It's not about getting it early, it was about testing the issues with the game as we can do more testing in a few hours, than they ever could in any reasonable time before a release.

[Cougar2010]

After the game, I get the physio report that he's got a badly twisted knee, which he 'twisted painfully during the match' and is now out for over a month. *sighs*

The feedback you get from 'yellow' injuries should be a lot better. Had I known he'd twisted his knee, I would have brought him off there and then. I also think it's highly unlikely in such circumstances that a player could carry on with the same condition percentage as the rest of the team for the whole match.

As I understand it its due to the limitations of the current injury module.

Within the ME the player didn't "twist his knee" he simply had a yellow injury occur, after the match FM then calculated his yellow injury was actually a twisted knee.

Injuries within the ME may or may not turn into actual injuries after the match.

[Lawlore]

I think the argument is that there should be a larger fraction working on the ME, not that people should be moved. That is, there should be more people hired for the ME team and less for the media module team.

That may be the first time I've seen someone say the media module doesn't need much attention, considering it's in a far worse comparative state than the ME.

[Äktsjon Männ]

As I understand it its due to the limitations of the current injury module.

Within the ME the player didn't "twist his knee" he simply had a yellow injury occur, after the match FM then calculated his yellow injury was actually a twisted knee.

Injuries within the ME may or may not turn into actual injuries after the match.

The game does give a hint of what kind of injury it is if you go into player profile after the event in match (it'll say something like 'has a possible knee injury' etc) so it must have already made the initial calculation by that point.

That may be the first time I've seen someone say the media module doesn't need much attention, considering it's in a far worse comparative state than the ME.

It's in such a state because so much attention is given to it in the first place i.e too much of it is being forced into the game.

[Some Guy!]

That may be the first time I've seen someone say the media module doesn't need much attention, considering it's in a far worse comparative state than the ME.

Oh boy it needs attention, I was trying to make sense of what they were trying to argue.

Player interaction and media is an area that needs a lot of attention, mostly the balance between the shear illogical randomness of humanity and some logic to actually make it a game. I do think they need to rethink the number of options given for a lot of questions though.

Personally I'm actually in the camp that the match engine is alright and just needs more tweaking over time, which they've demonstrated they know how to do.

[Dagenham_Dave]

As I understand it its due to the limitations of the current injury module.

Within the ME the player didn't "twist his knee" he simply had a yellow injury occur, after the match FM then calculated his yellow injury was actually a twisted knee.

Injuries within the ME may or may not turn into actual injuries after the match.

That's not really much use to you as a manager, is it? There really should be better feedback on these types of knocks, because at the moment it just feels random.

[forameuss]

I agree some of the specific or problems are needed to provide PKM. But actually many problems are very general. You just need to simulate one match, all problems can be found yourself easily. Many problems just show that they have no testing team. They do not have sufficient amount of test before issuing a game or patch.

No. Just...no.

when everyone raises the same problem, SI as the game manufacturer also need to have a look on it even no PKM is provided, right?

If 500 people report a crime, do the police need evidence for it? If not one of this nebulous "everyone" gives any evidence behind the bug, then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it? Do you understand how bugs are actually fixed?

When SI always put advertisement saying FM is the best football management games, besting selling football management game, how about putting more effort on improving the game?

Way to bring two completely unrelated aspects together! FM is the best football management game. It is the best selling football management game. Given there is no competition, it has little to do with how much effort they are putting into the game. Not to mention that they put plenty of effort in

According to your logic, we as a a customer we need to become a game tester after buying the game, right?

You know what? Yes. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that when you actually have any kind of simple understanding of how everything works. SI will never catch everything. Ever. If you believe they will, you're wrong. That means they have two options - either say "screw it" and release the game, then disappear off on holiday for 6 months until they want to work on the next version, or they provide a framework to allow users to report, so they can work on the things they've missed through the cycle. Honestly, would you prefer the first? There is no other option.

If SI needs to rely on the customer reporting bugs to improve the game, why dont design a better and more convenience ways to reporting bugs? How about we can report the bugs in the game directly?

The only part of your post that isn't utterly nonsensical. Although reporting in game would hardly be much different to doing it here, just putting a shinier interface on it. That would be better for some people, definitely, BUT that then opens up the possibilities of bugs in the bug reporting system. The FTP server works. The forum works. Why change it?

The one thing I would like to see, but is really hard to implement (I imagine) would be to store enough information in the saves so that they don't necessarily need to have a save from just before a "bug" occurs. Personally, I've seen a few things I would have reported, but by the time I actually observe it, I don't have a save which would reproduce it well enough. I completely understand why they need the things they ask for, but it's often difficult to have those pieces of data unless it's something repeatable.

[Lawlore]

It's in such a state because so much attention is given to it in the first place i.e too much of it is being forced into the game.

I think by "attention" we mean two different things. I agree that at the moment, SI's answer in FM15 was to add more of the same to make it a more prominent part (tunnel interviews etc), which was entirely the wrong one. It needs more attention in terms of development- it needs a serious structural overhaul if it's going to be such a prominent part of the game- the "choose from five inadequate answers to repetitive, personality-free questions" simply isn't fitting the depth of the rest of the game, or having much more than a superficial impact. It's a chore, not something that adds to gameplay.

[Cougar2010]

The game does give a hint of what kind of injury it is if you go into player profile after the event in match (it'll say something like 'has a possible knee injury' etc) so it must have already made the initial calculation by that point.

Thats true it does so there is some connection between the modules but its still limited as it stands.

That's not really much use to you as a manager, is it? There really should be better feedback on these types of knocks, because at the moment it just feels random.

Until a new injury module is written which better links the ME with the injuries its not going to change.

The bottom line is taking him off or not wouldn't have mattered in your example. Within the match it didn't affect his performance while its only after the match that it turned into a full blown injury, taking him off sooner wouldn't have changed that.

[forameuss]

I think by "attention" we mean two different things. I agree that at the moment, SI's answer in FM15 was to add more of the same to make it a more prominent part (tunnel interviews etc), which was entirely the wrong one. It needs more attention in terms of development- it needs a serious structural overhaul if it's going to be such a prominent part of the game- the "choose from five inadequate answers to repetitive, personality-free questions" simply isn't fitting the depth of the rest of the game, or having much more than a superficial impact. It's a chore, not something that adds to gameplay.

I'd say - in my opinion at least - they've moved slightly towards "right" in terms of media interaction, but they're certainly taking the long way around. It's still a bit of a chore, but for me it seems less of a chore than it was in previous games. There seems to be more cause and effect behind it in the game world, rather than just being a black-box that spat out changes in morale.

Having said that, there needs to be a definite long look at the module. Perhaps not an overhaul (but then that depends on what they would end up with) but definitely a long look. The key here is context. Having the media module act like a "proper" media system would probably be impossible without some pretty heavy contextual AI, probably beyond the reaches of time/resources at the moment. Not to say it's impossible, but they're unlikely to throw the number of considerably smart people at the module when the changes would cost a lot in terms of time and money. It's going to be immensely difficult to write the questions so that they seem more human. In the interim, we have them asking a repetitive set of questions.

It'll be interesting to see how they change it for FM16.

[Lawlore]

The one thing I would like to see, but is really hard to implement (I imagine) would be to store enough information in the saves so that they don't necessarily need to have a save from just before a "bug" occurs. Personally, I've seen a few things I would have reported, but by the time I actually observe it, I don't have a save which would reproduce it well enough. I completely understand why they need the things they ask for, but it's often difficult to have those pieces of data unless it's something repeatable.

It's the "save before" that stops me reporting a lot, too, because inevitably we don't know about the bug until it has happened, and my previous will be months before. SI basically need a kind of rewind tool on their end, which will allow them to go back timewise, taking a save from just after the bug and undoing the events of the days before it.

Also, (not to you, formaeuss) uploading saves and PKMs by FTP is no more complicated than moving files on a computer. Uploading being hard is a copout excuse for not doing it.

[forameuss]

It's the "save before" that stops me reporting a lot, too, because inevitably we don't know about the bug until it has happened, and my previous will be months before. SI basically need a kind of rewind tool on their end, which will allow them to go back timewise, taking a save from just after the bug and undoing the events of the days before it.

Also, (not to you, formaeuss) uploading saves and PKMs by FTP is no more complicated than moving files on a computer. Uploading being hard is a copout excuse for not doing it.

It's the one bugbear I have about the bug reporting system, but I know that it's no simple task. If they could say, for example, "Upload your current save, and we'll do the rest", and then go in and be able to call back everything that has happened (within reason) to track down the bug. To be honest, that's probably something they've thought about and gone "wouldn't it be nice" or already completely discounted it, but it's always something I've thought about when it comes to reporting bugs.

Go on then, I'll say it - would be nice if I could hear what the SI devs think about that

[Lawlore]

I'd say - in my opinion at least - they've moved slightly towards "right" in terms of media interaction, but they're certainly taking the long way around. It's still a bit of a chore, but for me it seems less of a chore than it was in previous games. There seems to be more cause and effect behind it in the game world, rather than just being a black-box that spat out changes in morale.

Having said that, there needs to be a definite long look at the module. Perhaps not an overhaul (but then that depends on what they would end up with) but definitely a long look. The key here is context. Having the media module act like a "proper" media system would probably be impossible without some pretty heavy contextual AI, probably beyond the reaches of time/resources at the moment. Not to say it's impossible, but they're unlikely to throw the number of considerably smart people at the module when the changes would cost a lot in terms of time and money. It's going to be immensely difficult to write the questions so that they seem more human. In the interim, we have them asking a repetitive set of questions.

It'll be interesting to see how they change it for FM16.

In terms of variation, it's one of those areas, like with the bland commentary, that is somewhere the community could potentially help. The sheer volume of skins, facepacks, databases, kits, adboards etc show that there are people who will spend time creating these packs- the problem is that doing so for commentary or questions requires delving into actual programming territory. I recall in one of the early CMs (3?), lines of commentary were literally in text docs, so you could customise them at will- SI must have some kind of tool to create these Q&A on their end, so creating a publicly available version seems like a worthwhile endeavour. It doesn't solve the bigger issue that the way media interaction is implemented is clunky, but it would at least allow the community to go on and make what is there that little less of a chore.

[sirgiorgio]

However, there's still likely more to it than a couple soft goals scored on a counter. In particular as in Italy a number of teams are playingi three at the back (with 2, as in the shot above, a successful clearance is far more dangerous). I can't put my finger on it, but formations with three strikers always tend to find space in general. Only the coders know how this could have been influenced, as it is them who constantly tweak things such as marking, off the ball movements, on the ball decision making, passing accuracy. Looking purely at goals, which can paint a wrong picture, marking players frequently lose their man, but that is one reason why the result was a goal in the first place.

A thing to look out for may be the transition stage, i.e. the moment the team facing such a formation that insists on keeping players upfield regains the ball. Do the central midfielders push by those players, leave them unmonitored and advance too quickly? You don't need to get all pinned back to be able to take advantage of attack duty ST/as and AMC/as who right from that moment just slack off and let the other guys do all defending. Additionally, does the way the counter mechanism is triggered in FM provide an inherent advantage with so many players just staying upfield? A counter attack in FM is triggered when there are less than X players between the ball carrier and the goal. Obviously a clearance in the above screenshot will immediately result in the counter mechanism ticking in. If a counter attack isn't started when there's but two players and the keeper in between the ball carrier and the goal, it never is.

How are Sampdoria doing on your saves? Their manager has a 4-3-3 as a prefered formations, just as Cagliari's uses semi-regularly. Coincidence? It wouldn't be a cheat in that regard as the AI obviously uses such formations too. And it's no guaranteed win button either. However it's a formation that arguably tips the balance towards the team using it due to a number of factors at play, at least with the right combination of duties, wich will vary from save to save for the AI. In real football no formation inherently is that much better than the other, not the "modern ones" anyway. Formations are the means to an end, not the end itself.

Sampdoria manager usually get sacked in my saves. In general, all teams playing 4-3-3 (AM R/L) in Serie A have their own problems. This may (or may not) be due to the fact that I changed every 3-5-2, 3-4-3, etc. into 5-3-2 / 5-4-1 (specifically: 3-3(DM/WB)-2-2; 3-3(DM/WB)-2-1(AMC)-1; 3-4(DM/WB)-2(AM L/R)-1). This means that, even if the AM + ST are all on attack duty, there are 3 (or even up to 7!) players waiting for them...

Speaking of goals, it doesn't happen very often, but it does tend to happen everytime a goal is scored by such teams, that a defender with very limited skills, or a presumed ball winning midfielder, or even a goalkeeper, turns a seemingly innocent hail-mary pass into a magnificent assist. You call them "successful clearances", maybe coupled with a lapse of concentration from the defender(s), but if you look at the commentary, more often than not you read something like "great VISION by [instert name here] to set up the goal". So, maybe, another thing to look into is passing accuracy. Leave beautiful long balls to players with passing + vision 16+ and possibly the "tries killer balls often"/"tries long range passes" PPM's.

However, what I really don't understand is how is it possible that teams can leave so many players upfield, oblivious of the defensive phase, and still not concede 2-3 goals per match.

[forameuss]

In terms of variation, it's one of those areas, like with the bland commentary, that is somewhere the community could potentially help. The sheer volume of skins, facepacks, databases, kits, adboards etc show that there are people who will spend time creating these packs- the problem is that doing so for commentary or questions requires delving into actual programming territory. I recall in one of the early CMs (3?), lines of commentary were literally in text docs, so you could customise them at will- SI must have some kind of tool to create these Q&A on their end, so creating a publicly available version seems like a worthwhile endeavour. It doesn't solve the bigger issue that the way media interaction is implemented is clunky, but it would at least allow the community to go on and make what is there that little less of a chore.

Definitely an option, but then would these additional questions have any effect? Like at the moment, I can criticise a manager, and he'll respond. What if someone wants to create a media question that should have an effect somewhere the game hasn't handled for? Would that just be a cosmetic question in the end? All rhetorical questions, and to be honest, if someone released an add-on that added 1000 superficial questions with no effect, I'd still use it to give some variety.

[Lawlore]

Definitely an option, but then would these additional questions have any effect? Like at the moment, I can criticise a manager, and he'll respond. What if someone wants to create a media question that should have an effect somewhere the game hasn't handled for? Would that just be a cosmetic question in the end? All rhetorical questions, and to be honest, if someone released an add-on that added 1000 superficial questions with no effect, I'd still use it to give some variety.

Indeed, they're things that would need to be considered- but similarly, they're things that must already be considered with the existing questions. Of course, as you rightly say, opening that up to let users run riot on the effects is a different kettle of fish, but that doesn't automatically make it impossible. And even if the questions were largely cosmetic, well, that's better than nothing.

The other side of it is that the community aren't bound by the same dedication to all sections of the fanbase as SI, particularly relating to language. In terms of anything relating to additional text in the game, there are presumably considerations of translation, which would add significantly to the workload and schedule- it's not as simple for them to simply say, "OK, we're gonna put 1000 new questions in" or "let's add 500 lines of commentary". That text would need to be translated into however many languages the game is now available in, multiplying the actual workload considerably.

[Rich Jones]

It's the one bugbear I have about the bug reporting system, but I know that it's no simple task. If they could say, for example, "Upload your current save, and we'll do the rest", and then go in and be able to call back everything that has happened (within reason) to track down the bug. To be honest, that's probably something they've thought about and gone "wouldn't it be nice" or already completely discounted it, but it's always something I've thought about when it comes to reporting bugs.

Go on then, I'll say it - would be nice if I could hear what the SI devs think about that

Having a save game that reproduces a bug serves two purposes.

Debugging usually involves reproducing the events leading up to a bug and tracing exactly what code is called, to work out what code is not working as it should.

Running the game in debug mode allows us to see all this and find out what's triggering the bug, but we can't do that if the bug already exists in the save.

Also, to verify something has been fixed we need a save game that reproduced the issue with code prior to the fix, which then doesn't reproduce the bug when run with the fix in. It's fundamental to how fixes are tested.

Therefore by providing save games that reproduce bugs you are not only helping coders with debugging, but also speeding up testing as well. So we are always grateful to anyone that takes time to do so.

[forameuss]

Having a save game that reproduces a bug serves two purposes.

Debugging usually involves reproducing the events leading up to a bug and tracing exactly what code is called, to work out what code is not working as it should.

Running the game in debug mode allows us to see all this and find out what's triggering the bug, but we can't do that if the bug already exists in the save.

Also, to verify something has been fixed we need a save game that reproduced the issue with code prior to the fix, which then doesn't reproduce the bug when run with the fix in. It's fundamental to how fixes are tested.

Therefore by providing save games that reproduce bugs you are not only helping coders with debugging, but also speeding up testing as well. So we are always grateful to anyone that takes time to do so.

Yeah, totally get that. I know why you need the saves prior if at all possible, but from the customer side, that isn't always possible unless it's something that's repeatable and you have a particularly aggressive rolling save strategy. I've had lots of things that - hands up - I should have reported, but by the time I've noticed them, evaluated and realised that, yeah, it's probably a bug, the previous save was probably too far back that I couldn't have reproduced it had I gone back. It would be nice if there was a facility from your side that could "rewind" in some way so that those without pre-bug saves could still be helpful.

I imagine though that's like saying "it'd be nice if cars could run on air and good intentions"...

[Rich Jones]

Yeah, totally get that. I know why you need the saves prior if at all possible, but from the customer side, that isn't always possible unless it's something that's repeatable and you have a particularly aggressive rolling save strategy. I've had lots of things that - hands up - I should have reported, but by the time I've noticed them, evaluated and realised that, yeah, it's probably a bug, the previous save was probably too far back that I couldn't have reproduced it had I gone back. It would be nice if there was a facility from your side that could "rewind" in some way so that those without pre-bug saves could still be helpful.

I imagine though that's like saying "it'd be nice if cars could run on air and good intentions"...

Yeah we understand that it's not always possible.

It's precisely for that reason that save games that do reproduce an issue are like gold dust sometimes. Especially if it's a particularly rare bug or incredibly time consuming to reproduce from scratch.

Some bugs are fixable from a current save, where a coder can make a best guess at what's happened and work backwards from what they see (so it's usually better than nothing at all)

But for complex issues we nearly always need to be able to reproduce the issue live. As I say, not just to debug it, but also to prove it's fixed afterwards.

[forameuss]

Even if you do not have a save that consistently reproduces a bug reporting it & as best you can providing details on what you done to get there will at the very least alert us to an issue that we might not be aware of & from there we (the testing team) can use our experience to try & recreate the issue.

Of course it's always nice to have a save before the bug event happens but that's not always possible & at the end of the day part of our responsibilities as testers is to investigate & reproduce issues that are reported by the community, right now I'm looking into why a club would not have an embargo lifted after it was reported by a forum user.

Very true Alex, and like I say, I hold my hands up and accept that there's probably things I should have reported that wouldn't have helped, even without the full data behind it.

I guess from our side, it often seems like the same "PKM and a save" line is put out whenever there is a bug. Of course that's the desired, but maybe if people were encouraged to report without it seeming like they have to have those pieces before they do, more might do it. Of course then there's the worry that you'll get a rubbish report with a lot of back and forth I suppose. Swings and roundabouts.

Anyway, was just something I often thought about around the whole having some kind of past data to help with testing in saves.

Yeah we understand that it's not always possible.

It's precisely for that reason that save games that do reproduce an issue are like gold dust sometimes. Especially if it's a particularly rare bug or incredibly time consuming to reproduce from scratch.

Some bugs are fixable from a current save, where a coder can make a best guess at what's happened and work backwards from what they see (so it's usually better than nothing at all)

But for complex issues we nearly always need to be able to reproduce the issue live. As I say, not just to debug it, but also to prove it's fixed afterwards.

The joys...certainly know the feeling of the difference between fixing something reproducable and not, so you have my sympathies

[akkm]

No. Just...no.

If 500 people report a crime, do the police need evidence for it? If not one of this nebulous "everyone" gives any evidence behind the bug, then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it? Do you understand how bugs are actually fixed?

I know what you're trying to get at but its an idiotic analogy giving an interesting insight.

If 500 people report a crime...then the police will investigate it. If no one gives evidence then its the job of the POLICE to go out and garner evidence THEMSELVES to attempt to solve the crime...that's their job. The 'nebulous' is the crime itself not your 'everyone'...its the job of the police to clear the haze as best they can...not have an attitude of just to sit back and rely on customers to provide feedback/evidence and if no feedback is forthcoming then sit back and shrug their shoulders and go 'neh, what do you expect us to do?!!' (I'm not actually suggesting that's the attitude of SI). Also police provide a public service so expectancy that the public will do their best to assist solve a crime is fair enough...if it doesn't happen though the expectancy that the police will do their job anyway. SI is not a public service so an expectancy that the public doesn't have to do SI's job is also fair enough.

SI is not a public service so, yes, absolutely if many customers 'report a crime' you ask 'then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it?' That's a ridiculous question to ask...their job...maybe try and get behind it themselves if there's no customer evidence.

It's not a direct criticism of SI per se in that they do absolutely great work but there's no question they have become more reliant on feedback here from customers (which again is fair enough give the increasing complexity of the game). This approach absolutely has its merits in that it progresses the game itself and has done through these forums and the community feedback which has proven invaluable to SI is terrific to be honest and its a process which works well but your attitude that if customers don't provide evidence then what's SI supposed to do is nonsensical...they should do their job. Yes if customers can help then great..things will work better but its simply NOT the job of customers to provide whatever to enable SI to fix it which is the becoming increasingly the servile attitude of some...criticising a customer for expecting SI to job their job is unnecessary and more an act of ingratiation than anything else.

[forameuss]

I know what you're trying to get at but its an idiotic analogy giving an interesting insight.

If 500 people report a crime...then the police will investigate it. If no one gives evidence then its the job of the POLICE to go out and garner evidence THEMSELVES to attempt to solve the crime...that's their job. The 'nebulous' is the crime itself not your 'everyone'...its the job of the police to clear the haze as best they can...not have an attitude of just to sit back and rely on customers to provide feedback/evidence and if no feedback is forthcoming then sit back and shrug their shoulders and go 'neh, what do you expect us to do?!!' (I'm not actually suggesting that's the attitude of SI). Also police provide a public service so expectancy that the public will do their best to assist solve a crime is fair enough...if it doesn't happen though the expectancy that the police will do their job anyway. SI is not a public service so an expectancy that the public doesn't have to do SI's job is also fair enough.

SI is not a public service so, yes, absolutely if many customers 'report a crime' you ask 'then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it?' That's a ridiculous question to ask...their job...maybe try and get behind it themselves if there's no customer evidence.

It's not a direct criticism of SI per se in that they do absolutely great work but there's no question they have become more reliant on feedback here from customers (which again is fair enough give the increasing complexity of the game). This approach absolutely has its merits in that it progresses the game itself and has done through these forums and the community feedback which has proven invaluable to SI is terrific to be honest and its a process which works well but your attitude that if customers don't provide evidence then what's SI supposed to do is nonsensical...they should do their job. Yes if customers can help then great..things will work better but its simply NOT the job of customers to provide whatever to enable SI to fix it which is the becoming increasingly the servile attitude of some...criticising a customer for expecting SI to job their job is unnecessary and more an act of ingratiation than anything else.

So I made a flippant analogy that didn't really stand up. Oh well.

As SI employees have said, they can try and investigate issues without evidence. And they do. But I'm talking about the ones that say "this isn't working". And that's it. Reporting a bug with no save/PKM but giving full details of your system/specs/what you were doing/any other supplementary evidence is good, and can give SI a direction to go in. I'm not getting at those people. But if you just say something is broken then often it can be a struggle to find even a direction to go in. At that point, should SI travel down what could end up being a massive rabbit-hole, or should they fix the things that they have reproducable evidence for first because it'll probably end up being less of a time-sink?

There needs to be a balance in this - just saying that it isn't your responsibility and demanding SI "do their job" is short-sighted. They will continue to do their job, but a lot of the time they need our help in that. I don't think that's too much to ask. But users helping with bug reports is not doing SI's job for them.

[Shake Appeal]

The ME seems kinda wackily on a knife-edge between absolute despair and absolute dominance. I started my second season at Norwich unable to buy a win (two draws, four defeats) with my 4-3-1-2 that bossed the Championship. Changed exactly three player roles (DLFs to F9, AF to CFa, BBM to CMa) and turned off one team instruction (Retain Possession) and went the next six unbeaten (five wins, one draw). That draw was away at Man City where I created 8 CCCs to their one. I also enjoyed a 3-0 victory over reigning champions Arsenal at home, with 9 CCCs to their two.

That's bonkers, and it's not the first time it's happened to me. You stumble along at about the game's expectations of you for a season or two until you hit upon some perfect combination of players and roles and then you barely need to do any maintenance to steamroller teams from then on.