Football Manager 2016 16.3.0 Feedback Thread

[Seb Wassell]

Has anybody else noticed their pre-patch free scoring strikers suddenly can't score for toffee? 1 match left of a now unsuccessful season, so will have a good tinker in pre-season, but didn't want to change too much in case I just had a run of "those" games, or whether the patch has effected previously prolific attacking players?

Hey IMT,

It would be very unlikely for the patch to have negatively affected a previously prolific striker. Just one of those things I'd say - power through!

[IMT]

Thought so chaps, cheers.

[H2D2]

That'll be enough gents, if you wish to discuss your difference of opinion further may I suggest a private message exchange.

Thanks.

Lady actually!!

One of the highest hopes that I have for FM17 is that the design a manager is either scrapped (hopefully) or hugely redesigned. The ones for women are a disgrace and they all look like men!

[Guest]

imo both male & female avatars need a lot of work, thankfully it's doesn't impact the game once I've started.

[srvngrc]

It's not a case of whether you "don't like it", to wait. We've been very clear about why this issue wasn't addressed regarding balance of the current match engine, and things in the pipeline will improve things going forward. We'd very much encourage users to give constructive feedback and bug reports in the bugs forum so we can continue to improve the game for future versions. Thanks.

Ok. Let's be clear. We are all customers. You sold us something and it's broken. We said "please fix it" and you said "we know it's broken and trying to fix it. just wait".. And now you're saying "we couldn't fix it. come and BUY a new one next year"...

This is not fair. If a production is broken then the producer should fix it or change it with a new one for FREE i think. Right?

[santy001]

Ok. Let's be clear. We are all customers. You sold us something and it's broken. We said "please fix it" and you said "we know it's broken and trying to fix it. just wait".. And now you're saying "we couldn't fix it. come and BUY a new one next year"...

This is not fair. If a production is broken then the producer should fix it or change it with a new one for FREE i think. Right?

From a purely technical point of view, software is covered by a very different set of rules. It is exempt from many rules a normal purchase comes with. For example, on purchases typically you can receive a product and decide you dislike it or its unfit for purpose and return it and that's a legal right. With software, as soon as you unseal the box then you've pretty much accepted it "as-is" and that is typically how most software is provided.

[HUNT3R]

Ok. Let's be clear. We are all customers. You sold us something and it's broken. We said "please fix it" and you said "we know it's broken and trying to fix it. just wait".. And now you're saying "we couldn't fix it. come and BUY a new one next year"...

This is not fair. If a production is broken then the producer should fix it or change it with a new one for FREE i think. Right?

I'd encourage you to rather be constructive and to read this post: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/453728-Football-Manager-2016-16-3-0-Feedback-Thread?p=10745412&viewfull=1#post10745412

It isn't broken, but improvements can and will be made.

[Guest]

The thing is not everyone is suffering form the problem & based on the feedback from SI those who are form the minority (SI will have used many user saves to establish that ratio) so if the only way they were able to plug the AI deficiency which creates the exploit was to cause more issues within the match AI that negatively impacts the majority he decision that was made is understandable.

btw I was equally disappointed that they were unable to get a working fix for this version but I do not believe I have a right to have a fix above all others & the game is still playable.

[boggy]

I took a long hard look at my wallet I ultimately decided that given potential knock-ons and the major impact it would have had on my finances that it wasn’t something I could tweak without unbalancing cash amount and worsening my financial status.

So sorry SI team, if you can't fix a bug for "balancing" purposes, then I won't buy the next FM for wallet "balancing" purposes.

[Guest]

I took a long hard look at my wallet I ultimately decided that given potential knock-ons and the major impact it would have had on my finances that it wasn’t something I could tweak without unbalancing cash amount and worsening my financial status.

So sorry SI team, if you can't fix a bug for "balancing" purposes, then I won't buy the next FM for wallet "balancing" purposes.

I'll give you credit for making me smile.

[srvngrc]

From a purely technical point of view, software is covered by a very different set of rules. It is exempt from many rules a normal purchase comes with. For example, on purchases typically you can receive a product and decide you dislike it or its unfit for purpose and return it and that's a legal right. With software, as soon as you unseal the box then you've pretty much accepted it "as-is" and that is typically how most software is provided.

I'd encourage you to rather be constructive and to read this post: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/453728-Football-Manager-2016-16-3-0-Feedback-Thread?p=10745412&viewfull=1#post10745412

It isn't broken, but improvements can and will be made.

Ok just one another question.. If it's possible to fix the problems in future (crossing, offside and all others) a new (16.4) update can be released right? But SI never did that before. xx.3 is the final version.

I mean an approach like "we will fix it later. come and buy new version" is not fair. If there will be a solution then a new patch should be released not a new version.

[HUNT3R]

Ok just one another question.. If it's possible to fix the problems in future (crossing, offside and all others) a new (16.4) update can be released right? But SI never did that before. xx.3 is the final version.

I mean an approach like "we will fix it later. come and buy new version" is not fair. If there will be a solution then a new patch should be released not a new version.

There are no more updates planned for FM16. The ME is and will always be a work in progress. SI have admitted that there are crossing issues in certain user setups, but it isn't a universal problem.

[Guest]

I've had to delete a couple of posts that are not necessary, we (2 mods & a researcher) have replied too srvngrc therefore there isn't a need for others to comment on their post.

[Jake_SAFC]

Man, people really take FM seriously don't they?

[Boltman]

Ok. Let's be clear. We are all customers. You sold us something and it's broken. We said "please fix it" and you said "we know it's broken and trying to fix it. just wait".. And now you're saying "we couldn't fix it. come and BUY a new one next year"...

This is not fair. If a production is broken then the producer should fix it or change it with a new one for FREE i think. Right?

This has been the story for the last few years and the reason I don't buy FM any more.

FM14 had very obvious issues with the match engine regarding corners, players shooting from ridiculous angles no matter the instructions you gave them, and the fact that roughly one penalty was missed across the entire game world every decade.

SI's answer every time these points were raised and a fix requested...... buy the next iteration.

Err naw, forget it. When I pay money for a product I expect it to work, and if it doesn't I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect it to be fixed or a refund offered. What is totally unreasonable is to be expected to pay the same again for another product from the same manufacturer, which will invariably come with a whole new raft of issues which make the product unfit for purpose. Rinse and repeat.

It's long, long overdue that SI/Sega halted the annual release model and actually provided their customers with a finished product for once.

[Guest]

It does inspire passionate attachment, for the most part that is positive & a reflection on the work SI have done of the year but unfortunately passion can spill over into a more negative opinion. A key reason this genre exists is because we all think we are football experts however FM has developed a superb ability to expose that lie to many of us & in some case that truth is hard to accept.

[Guest]

This has been the story for the last few years and the reason I don't buy FM any more.

FM14 had very obvious issues with the match engine regarding corners, players shooting from ridiculous angles no matter the instructions you gave them, and the fact that roughly one penalty was missed across the entire game world every decade.

SI's answer every time these points were raised and a fix requested...... buy the next iteration.

Err naw, forget it. When I pay money for a product I expect it to work, and if it doesn't I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect it to be fixed or a refund offered. What is totally unreasonable is to be expected to pay the same again for another product from the same manufacturer, which will invariably come with a whole new raft of issues which make the product unfit for purpose. Rinse and repeat.

It's long, long overdue that SI/Sega halted the annual release model and actually provided their customers with a finished product for once.

There's no expectation of repeat purchases, as consumers we're all free to not buy a new release if previous releases have not met your own expectations.

Changing the model to an every other year release cycle is unlikely as that's not how the sports game market works & much of the coding/testing will still be done in the final 9 months prior to release because the real life version is constantly evolving, the alternative is a subscription model but I'm not sure that paying the cost of FMH each month would go down to well.

[batch]

Is this some sort of known issue ? Its been getting on my nerves since the updgrade.

If i sub on a player, even in his best position, the red, orange, green etc line constantly shows red to show hes not suited to a position, even though he is.

I seem to need to go to the tactics screen a couple of times and move the player around, confirm it, and then move them back to their first choice postion when it will eventually show green.

See here with Hendry -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5KTra3MO1PU1JPQkdXM2ZySkk/view?pli=1

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5KTra3MO1PZWpNV3N0Y0xOMEk/view

[Guest]

Are you using the default skin or a custom version? Also have you tried deleted the cache files?

[Seb Wassell]

Is this some sort of known issue ? Its been getting on my nerves since the updgrade.

If i sub on a player, even in his best position, the red, orange, green etc line constantly shows red to show hes not suited to a position, even though he is.

I seem to need to go to the tactics screen a couple of times and move the player around, confirm it, and then move them back to their first choice postion when it will eventually show green.

See here with Hendry -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5KTra3MO1PU1JPQkdXM2ZySkk/view?pli=1

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz5KTra3MO1PZWpNV3N0Y0xOMEk/view

Hey batch

If what is suggested above by Barside does not work, please head over to the UI bugs forum, found here: http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php/522-User-Interface-Issues

Cheers,

Seb.

[Boltman]

There's no expectation of repeat purchases, as consumers we're all free to not buy a new release if previous releases have not met your own expectations.

Of course, however, my point is that if you were to purchase an item in the high street, you got it home and found out it was faulty, you'd take it back to the retailer and expect it to be exchanged or repaired. If the best they offered was a request that you pay the same again for a different product as a means of overcoming the flaw in the original purchase, you would, quite rightly, tell them to get bent AND remind them of your consumer rights.

SI/Sega seem quite happy to release a flawed product every year full in the knowledge they have no intention of ever remedying the flaws, then simply offering up 'consumer choice' as a fallback when challenged. It's pitiful, and why I no longer either buy FM or have any respect for SI as a company.

[batch]

Are you using the default skin or a custom version? Also have you tried deleted the cache files?

Hey batch

If what is suggested above by Barside does not work, please head over to the UI bugs forum, found here: http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php/522-User-Interface-Issues

Cheers,

Seb.

Using the default skin and have cleared the cache. I'll report on the UI bugs forum now.

[Guest]

Of course, however, my point is that if you were to purchase an item in the high street, you got it home and found out it was faulty, you'd take it back to the retailer and expect it to be exchanged or repaired. If the best they offered was a request that you pay the same again for a different product as a means of overcoming the flaw in the original purchase, you would, quite rightly, tell them to get bent AND remind them of your consumer rights.

SI/Sega seem quite happy to release a flawed product every year full in the knowledge they have no intention of ever remedying the flaws, then simply offering up 'consumer choice' as a fallback when challenged. It's pitiful, and why I no longer either buy FM or have any respect for SI as a company.

The difference is that item probably has one task which allows for a clear fault/no fault assessment, as santy has mentioned software is judged by a different criteria & as your copy is identical to every other copy the fact that others are more than happy with the game is a clear indication that it is not faulty.

You just don't like it, which is fine but it doesn't entitle you to a refund .

[Boltman]

The difference is that item probably has one task which allows for a clear fault/no fault assessment, as santy has mentioned software is judged by a different criteria & as your copy is identical to every other copy the fact that others are more than happy with the game is a clear indication that it is not faulty.

You just don't like it, which is fine but it doesn't entitle you to a refund .

What nonsense!

The fact others are 'happy with the game' is simply down to the fact they haven't noticed or don't care about the very obvious and significant flaws!

Just because some people are satisfied doesn't mean the product is fault-free.

Can't believe you actually tried to make that an argument.............

[Kriss]

Man, people really take FM seriously don't they?

It's a religion to many to those like me it's a fun video game that too many take too seriously

[Guest]

What nonsense!

The fact others are 'happy with the game' is simply down to the fact they haven't noticed or don't care about the very obvious and significant flaws!

Just because some people are satisfied doesn't mean the product is fault-free.

Can't believe you actually tried to make that an argument.............

I made that point because it is the correct one to make, you can disagree with it but that doesn't change the fact that based on all the evidence SI received the issue is only being encountered by a minority of those who have submitted save games & it is an issue that the user can deal with through their tactical decisions until such time that SI can make the ME changes necessary to provide a safe fix.

FM is not broken, it has issues just like every game that has has seen the light of day but as of right now there isn't a single issue that renders the game unplayable.

[Boltman]

I made that point because it is the correct one to make, you can disagree with it but that doesn't change the fact that based on all the evidence SI received the issue is only being encountered by a minority of those who have submitted save games & it is an issue that the user can deal with through their tactical decisions until such time that SI can make the ME changes necessary to provide a safe fix.

FM is not broken, it has issues just like every game that has has seen the light of day but of right now there isn't a single issue that renders the game unplayable.

So users are hamstrung in tactical flexibility until such time SI make the necessary changes, i.e. FM17 and another £34.99 later, and you maintain FM is not broken?

FWIW, my personal gripe is not with FM16. As I said, I no longer buy SI's products because of the totally unfinished state they left FM14 in and their nonchalant attitude towards that. As it happens, I came into this part of the forum for the first time in months on a whim today. I realised that SI usually release a patch around about this time of the year, and I thought, just maybe, if they've redeemed themselves and shown any intention of actually finishing a title for once, maybe I'd relent and consider buying FM16.

Lo and behold, first thing I come across is a thread full of people complaining that they feel cheated because a significant ME flaw has not been remedied, and it looks very much like a 'wait until November and fork out another £34.99' approach from SI yet again.

You can use any sort of justification you choose, quite simply, it's a shoddy way to treat your customer base. Typical of software companies, that much is true, but still.

[Dagenham_Dave]

It does inspire passionate attachment, for the most part that is positive & a reflection on the work SI have done of the year but unfortunately passion can spill over into a more negative opinion. A key reason this genre exists is because we all think we are football experts however FM has developed a superb ability to expose that lie to many of us & in some case that truth is hard to accept.

This should be SI's mission statement

[Guest]

So users are hamstrung in tactical flexibility until such time SI make the necessary changes, i.e. FM17 and another £34.99 later, and you maintain FM is not broken?

FWIW, my personal gripe is not with FM16. As I said, I no longer buy SI's products because of the totally unfinished state they left FM14 in and their nonchalant attitude towards that. As it happens, I came into this part of the forum for the first time in months on a whim today. I realised that SI usually release a patch around about this time of the year, and I thought, just maybe, if they've redeemed themselves and shown any intention of actually finishing a title for once, maybe I'd relent and consider buying FM16.

Lo and behold, first thing I come across is a thread full of people complaining that they feel cheated because a significant ME flaw has not been remedied, and it looks very much like a 'wait until November and fork out another £34.99' approach from SI yet again.

You can use any sort of justification you choose, quite simply, it's a shoddy way to treat your customer base. Typical of software companies, that much is true, but still.

As you are unable to provide feedback on FM16.3, which is the purpose of this thread, there's no reason for you to continue posting in this thread.

You've made your point on the business model & been given more than reasonable scope by me on that point so there isn't really any need for further comment.

[themadsheep2001]

Barside and Boltman have made their points and no further comments are needed from any other users that are not providing relevant feedback.

[Some Guy!]

To be completely fair, every match engine is going to have things that people complain about, and I'm still yet to see any issues with crossing. The match engine post patch appears (as it seems it should now I look at the notes) to be pretty much the same, and it's one of the better ones there's been in a few years.

This game has appeared, at least to me, to have less issues than FM15 and FM14, and they've fixed some key issues that I saw in the last few versions. To be honest, I'm actually impressed with what SI have done this year, and would say that they've rebuild my confidence in them this year.

[j4y_z]

Man, people really take FM seriously don't they?

Yup, and that's exactly why it is one of the greatest games on earth.

[KlaaZ]

Could there be a problem with assman responsibilities? I just finished my first season with FC United in the Premier League and he didn't set up any friendly games for me although he's set up to do so and has done every year before this one.. Currently july 26th and probably going to have a very screwed up start of the season because of this.

[dkouv]

Hi, can anyone provide more detail on the way SI tested that the crossing issue is only encountered by a "small minority of users"? Seems like they have looked at a number of save games from the feedback above. Does this concern unrealistically high fullback ratings as well as crossing more generally? And how did they measure that the issue exists or does not? Seems hard to do without watching the in-game highlights. E.g. in my experience the goals are split in roughly (x, 1-x) proportions between the cross to far post and run-through-the-middle pull out defender through ball depending on tactic; so it may be difficult to see that there is an issue (lack of goal variety) by only looking at the high-level statistics. But it would be interesting to know whether it's crossing per se or goal variety more generally, for a start.

I'm still curious to find out whether I've just been unlucky to encounter these serious flaws in this year's game, or if the issue is more widespread, which I thought was the case judging by the feedback. And also to ensure I/SI understand where the problem lies, and this is hopefully fixed in the future.

[Touristas3]

That will be my formation until FM17 comes

[WillyBroadband]

Is there a way of offering a player to another club (transfer not loan) and setting the 'Selling Team Wage Contribution' amount to £0? This seems to have disappeared since 16.3. I can't see that this has been asked elsewhere, apologies if it has been.

[Some Guy!]

That will be my formation until FM17 comes

Cool story bro.

Let us know how it goes. I have a suspicion that you'll be completely mauled in midfield though.

The interesting part in all this "the game is all about crossing" stuff, is that I have a very successful team that actually doesn't cross much, with my best player being my advanced playmaker. I avoid using wingers, and it works well for me.

Hi, can anyone provide more detail on the way SI tested that the crossing issue is only encountered by a "small minority of users"? Seems like they have looked at a number of save games from the feedback above. Does this concern unrealistically high fullback ratings as well as crossing more generally? And how did they measure that the issue exists or does not? Seems hard to do without watching the in-game highlights. E.g. in my experience the goals are split in roughly (x, 1-x) proportions between the cross to far post and run-through-the-middle pull out defender through ball depending on tactic; so it may be difficult to see that there is an issue (lack of goal variety) by only looking at the high-level statistics. But it would be interesting to know whether it's crossing per se or goal variety more generally, for a start.

I'm still curious to find out whether I've just been unlucky to encounter these serious flaws in this year's game, or if the issue is more widespread, which I thought was the case judging by the feedback. And also to ensure I/SI understand where the problem lies, and this is hopefully fixed in the future.

Feedback tends to exaggerate issues quite significantly. People are more likely to post if there's an issue, yet oddly the "crossing is OP" crowd appears to still be the minority.

I'd say it's probably more an issue with how people are setting themselves up tactically. I know a friend who had real issues defending against crossing, pointed me towards some post on twitter going "look, it happens to other people", then upon looking he was effectively playing 4 strikers and an attacking midfielder, with two box to box midfielders behind that, with wingbacks instead of fullbacks leaving his "ball playing centrebacks" exposed.

[Some Guy!]

[accidental double post]

[themadsheep2001]

Can we simply stick to constructive feedback of 16.3 only?

Thanks

[pedrosantos]

Okay, it seems my text wasn't constructive enough:p

[themadsheep2001]

Okay, it seems my text wasn't constructive enough:p

Check your PM pedro.

[Tony Wright 747]

There's no expectation of repeat purchases, as consumers we're all free to not buy a new release if previous releases have not met your own expectations.

Changing the model to an every other year release cycle is unlikely as that's not how the sports game market works & much of the coding/testing will still be done in the final 9 months prior to release because the real life version is constantly evolving, the alternative is a subscription model but I'm not sure that paying the cost of FMH each month would go down to well.

You are right we have a choice to buy or not, that's why I have not bought FM16 but the most diissapointing thing is that it was so close to being the best release by far

So near yet so far

[terrorsquad]

Does anyone know how many new teams was added?

[Welshace]

Have there been any new teams coming into existence in the last 6 months or so?

[jmc1980]

Anyone else having issues with player faces not loading since the update?

[Seb Wassell]

Anyone else having issues with player faces not loading since the update?

Have you tried clearing your cache?

[Jake_SAFC]

Only think I can say is a bit of a snag is that I'm conceding more goals at the near post, that's about it.

[pedrosantos]

Anyone else having issues with player faces not loading since the update?

That happens sometimes, its just a matter of clearing the cache. The worse thing you'll have to do is leaving the game and reload it.

[jmc1980]

Have you tried clearing your cache?

Yeah I did. Nothing changed. I can bring up 2 player faces out of all my squad players. Really weird.

[jmc1980]

I even tried clearing cache again and then starting a new game. Still only the two player faces showing up in my game. Maybe I should uninstall the game and reinstall it to see if that fixes it.