Football Manager 2016 16.3.0 Feedback Thread

[Kriss]

The game is fun.

Football is not only mathematics; count many random factors, including the luck.

Not always wins the strongest, sometimes wins the smartest or the most "*******".

They don't want to hear common sense Fabio, they're obsessed

[Alexivan]

They don't want to hear common sense Fabio, they're obsessed

But my fullbacks average ratings are stats. Which involves mathematics.

Where is your common sense here ?

[andu1]

But my fullbacks average ratings are stats. Which involves mathematics.

Where is your common sense here ?

I played fine for almost 500 hours never noticing the "Crossing issues". IMO this ME is way ahead of FM 15 which had much more issues than FM 16.

What I noticed is that "long shots" instruction is much more effective for players with 15+ long shot rating. There are some superb goals scored just by ticking it for the right player.

[Kriss]

But my fullbacks average ratings are stats. Which involves mathematics.

Where is your common sense here ?

I mean common sense in that it's just a £15 to £30 game, not a life style and sometimes it doesn't make the cut too well

[santy001]

But my fullbacks average ratings are stats. Which involves mathematics.

Where is your common sense here ?

Almost every journalist for all the major newspapers and media outlets gives their own ratings to players based on the piece-writers own opinion. On a Sunday I can go down the shop, buy one of each of the papers and get different player ratings for the Stoke squad vs whoever they played that week.

My interpretation of player ratings have always been that they're meant to simulate this kind of element of football. Staff also get their estimations of players potential and ability horribly wrong, and they're a stat too by the same measure. 3 out of 5 (stars) is a stat, in the exact same way 6 out of 10 (player rating) is a stat. If I'm wrong, and SI are aiming to have the player rating system as a definitive guide to how players are performing in games then its very much off the mark at the moment but its not game breaking to the point of needing an immediate fix.

[GSevensM75]

The game is fun.

Football is not only mathematics; count many random factors, including the luck.

Not always wins the strongest, sometimes wins the smartest or the most "*******".

True, but if the game markets itself as a simulation then I'd expect it to get within a 10% statistical tolerance. It's the simulated part of the game that many of us find fun.

[GSevensM75]

You need to start by looking at the basics though and make sure you are comparing like for like.

What counts as an assist?

I haven't checked so am presuming here that the number of goals scored is at a similar level to real life as I don't see anyone raising it as an issue. So if we have a similar number of goals in FM compared to RL but many more assists it suggests that FM is recording assists differently & more liberally than RL stats.

Well what counts as a real life assist is easy to define. What SI are counting as an assist in the match engine only they would know. But from what I can tell the logic is the same as it's usually my full back who crossed the ball to the goal scorer.

[Alexivan]

Almost every journalist for all the major newspapers and media outlets gives their own ratings to players based on the piece-writers own opinion. On a Sunday I can go down the shop, buy one of each of the papers and get different player ratings for the Stoke squad vs whoever they played that week.

My interpretation of player ratings have always been that they're meant to simulate this kind of element of football. Staff also get their estimations of players potential and ability horribly wrong, and they're a stat too by the same measure. 3 out of 5 (stars) is a stat, in the exact same way 6 out of 10 (player rating) is a stat. If I'm wrong, and SI are aiming to have the player rating system as a definitive guide to how players are performing in games then its very much off the mark at the moment but its not game breaking to the point of needing an immediate fix.

And what will happen you when go into a supermarket, and every one of the people's you know/meet will tell you Flamini is the next Ballon d'Or ?

[santy001]

And what will happen you when go into a supermarket, and every one of the people's you know/meet will tell you Flamini is the next Ballon d'Or ?

I understand you're trying to make a point here, but I have no idea at all what it is.

[Alexivan]

I played fine for almost 500 hours never noticing the "Crossing issues". IMO this ME is way ahead of FM 15 which had much more issues than FM 16.

What I noticed is that "long shots" instruction is much more effective for players with 15+ long shot rating. There are some superb goals scored just by ticking it for the right player.

I am almost sure of the following things :

- You use a tactic that somehow lowers crosses attempts for and against you

- You never use full detail simulation on any other league, other than then one you play in

- You don't give attention to details

[carrunion22]

I am almost sure of the following things :

- You use a tactic that somehow lowers crosses attempts for and against you

- You never use full detail simulation on any other league, other than then one you play in

- You don't give attention to details

And? You make those points as if they are negative things when they clearly aren't, as andu1 seems to be enjoying the game. So what does it matter?

[Fabio2013]

True, but if the game markets itself as a simulation then I'd expect it to get within a 10% statistical tolerance. It's the simulated part of the game that many of us find fun.

I agree.

You have to compare the game data with the real ones, but some users talk about individual cases and not statistical data.

[santy001]

To be honest Alexivan, if your criticism of someone comes down to them playing a tactic that reduces the effectiveness of crosses against them (which is an incredibly wise thing to do IMO given the dangerous nature of angled balls into/around the box) your argument about crossing in general loses a lot of weight.

I play a defensive 4-1-4-1 with the left back on defend, and the RCM as a deep lying playmaker so that the RB can attack and there is still cover. Coupled with Ryan Shawcross & Phillip Wollscheid in central defence and this is why I have next to no issues with crosses - my team is built to defend against crosses and by using my midfield to shield the defence it prevents being exploited in the middle as easily.

[forameuss]

I am almost sure of the following things :

- You use a tactic that somehow lowers crosses attempts for and against you

- You never use full detail simulation on any other league, other than then one you play in

- You don't give attention to details

How dare he derive enjoyment out of a game that I don't?! Where does he get off having a differing opinion?! Country's going to the dogs...

[GSevensM75]

So a full-back makes it to the line and cuts it back to his winger, who crosses for a goal. I'd say that's a pretty key pass, so it's clearly not as simple as you're making out.

You talked about a product recall in relation to your car's airbag, which is generally - although not exclusively - there to stop that happening. Unless you just had a bit of a moment and were just letting us know, then I assume you were using that to support your argument that SI should do some kind of "recall" in updating FM16 in line with FM17. It has absolutely no relevance to software, same as any product. Software runs by a completely different set of rules.

Which is actually the issue. It's scandalous. I've run software development teams in my professional career and I find it shocking how many software products (not just games) are released with so many bugs in them. There really is no need for it. It's even worse when the software house releases a new version every two or three years. I'm not insinuating SI do this but I know for a fact that a very prominent software house (not gaming industry) intentionally leaves the older versions flawed enough so that they can effectively be used but still flawed to be annoying. This ensures that the customers purchase the new one each time at the cost of over £3K per licence.

I agree the airbag analogy wasn't a great one to use. A better one would have been the manufacturer selling the car claiming it had 300BHP but due to an engine mapping fault it only produced 250BHP. Other than that the car worked fine and was still drivable. The car manufacturer then tell the customers that the fault will not repaired but if they purchase the new model next year it will have the 300BHP.

[GSevensM75]

Its not really the crossing, its the defending of them thats the problem. Defenfers just standing in the box ball watching, no matter what instructions they have been given

I think it's a bit of both. The wide players, especially if they are coming from deep, definitely aren't picked up, or closed down fast enough, so have a lot of space and time to pick out a cross. The forwards always seem to split the centre halves and the keeper remains rooted to the line.

[forameuss]

Which is actually the issue. It's scandalous. I've run software development teams in my professional career and I find it shocking how many software products (not just games) are released with so many bugs in them. There really is no need for it. It's even worse when the software house releases a new version every two or three years. I'm not insinuating SI do this but I know for a fact that a very prominent software house (not gaming industry) intentionally leaves the older versions flawed enough so that they can effectively be used but still flawed to be annoying. This ensures that the customers purchase the new one each time at the cost of over £3K per licence.

I agree the airbag analogy wasn't a great one to use. A better one would have been the manufacturer selling the car claiming it had 300BHP but due to an engine mapping fault it only produced 250BHP. Other than that the car worked fine and was still drivable. The car manufacturer then tell the customers that the fault will not repaired but if they purchase the new model next year it will have the 300BHP.

Except you kind of are, indirectly. Like saying "no offense, but", before you offend someone.

You've run software development teams, but find it shocking that there's bugs? Really? Your entire post seems to be acting like SI are just putting the bugs in there for a laugh. I'm sure they'd much rather there were no bugs, as most developers would. But given that's virtually impossible, it's pointless to wail and gnash teeth on that subject. There are degrees of bugs, and these aren't even close to the worst the series has experienced.

The part you bolded isn't "the issue". Actually, I'd probably take it back. Software is slightly different, but in a general sense, if a product does not operate as advertised, or does not operate at all, then you'll probably be entitled to a refund. But how often does that happen? As far as I'm aware, it has never happened to FM or CM. Bugs become a very personal thing - plenty have said that the crossing "issues" make the game "broken". That's factually false, even though in some people's opinion it may be correct. Go try and argue that you deserve a refund because of it, and you'll probably get laughed out. Rightly.

[vikeologist]

True, but if the game markets itself as a simulation then I'd expect it to get within a 10% statistical tolerance. It's the simulated part of the game that many of us find fun.

Nowadays I try to avoid commenting on GD, and especially to be critical of someone, but you're saying that you expect the game to get within a 10% statistical tolerance of the behaviour of 22 human beings.

When this crossing thing was first raised, i assumed the problem was that the full backs are rubbish at crossing, because at the level i'm playing the game, I think that's the case. I was therefore surprised that the complaint was the exact opposite.

There seems to be an assertion that the match engine has a flaw that is painfully obvious to the majority of users and is fundamentally not 'fit for purpose'. I simply can't accept that's even vaguely accurate.

The game is full of things that are 'wrong' and not like real life. That's because it is just computer code.

I am looking forward to the day when the players in the game have some degree of artificial intelligence and the match engine (and player interaction) is based on the personality, decisions and actions of autonomous entities. I think one day that's what Football Manager will be, or maybe it's what the successor to football manager will be because SI weren't ambitious enough.

But let's be clear that at the moment Football Manager is just a profoundly flawed reality that if you suspend your disbelief and go with the flow, can be a fun experience. We all have things that we have to ignore. I wish that i could explain to my players that want to leave just how badly that's worked out for almost all their ex-colleagues who forced their way into a lucrative but short-lived career in a bigger club's youth squad.

There's lots of things I wish were possible in the game, but the game is only half of what is necessary. the other half depends on us filling in the gaps, buying into the experience and accepting that the game is what the game is.

Like many of you I want it to be so much more. i really hope that SI do too, because my perception of Si has changed in the last year, but honestly, all this crossing stuff and most of our bugbears about the game and SI itself, that's what they are; perceptions.

[GSevensM75]

Except you kind of are, indirectly. Like saying "no offense, but", before you offend someone.

You've run software development teams, but find it shocking that there's bugs? Really? Your entire post seems to be acting like SI are just putting the bugs in there for a laugh. I'm sure they'd much rather there were no bugs, as most developers would. But given that's virtually impossible, it's pointless to wail and gnash teeth on that subject. There are degrees of bugs, and these aren't even close to the worst the series has experienced.

The part you bolded isn't "the issue". Actually, I'd probably take it back. Software is slightly different, but in a general sense, if a product does not operate as advertised, or does not operate at all, then you'll probably be entitled to a refund. But how often does that happen? As far as I'm aware, it has never happened to FM or CM. Bugs become a very personal thing - plenty have said that the crossing "issues" make the game "broken". That's factually false, even though in some people's opinion it may be correct. Go try and argue that you deserve a refund because of it, and you'll probably get laughed out. Rightly.

No, I am not insinuating that. You were the one who brought up software runs by a different set of rules. So I was talking generically. Something does need to be done with software houses because generally (and again I am not naming anyone specifically) they do get away with releasing so many flawed products comparative to other industries.

And yes I do find that scandalous. It comes down to poor testing scripts. Of course all software has bugs in it but at the release stage most of them should have been caught.

The refund issue is an interesting one. No I don't believe that I should get a refund. Is the game unplayable? No. It's definitely playable. Is the game deeply flawed to render it unenjoyable? For some yes, for some no. Other than the interface, which I think is horrific, I am finding FM16 a lot more playable than FM15 (which I completely abandoned after the final patch as I was completely fed up of players whining about not getting enough first team football even if they'd started 90% of the matches) but now the final patch hasn't resolved many of the flaws I don't think I'll play much beyond another week or two. It's simply too easy to exploit. In terms of exploiting the match engine this is the second easiest version I remember (CM 03/04 was the easiest, which was a shame because to this day I believe it had the best interface of all them).

I said last year (or it may have been FM14 which was definitely poorer than 15 and 16) that I personally believe it is time for FM to move to a subscription basis and for new features/player updates to be added as purchasable DLC. I also believe that Football Manager has become stale due to lack of competition in the market place. Most "new features" are gimmicks and what people are really paying for are the data updates anyway. I think most of us would prefer a stable game with few flews and less added features.

[GSevensM75]

Nowadays I try to avoid commenting on GD, and especially to be critical of someone, but you're saying that you expect the game to get within a 10% statistical tolerance of the behaviour of 22 human beings.

When this crossing thing was first raised, i assumed the problem was that the full backs are rubbish at crossing, because at the level i'm playing the game, I think that's the case. I was therefore surprised that the complaint was the exact opposite.

There seems to be an assertion that the match engine has a flaw that is painfully obvious to the majority of users and is fundamentally not 'fit for purpose'. I simply can't accept that's even vaguely accurate.

The game is full of things that are 'wrong' and not like real life. That's because it is just computer code.

I am looking forward to the day when the players in the game have some degree of artificial intelligence and the match engine (and player interaction) is based on the personality, decisions and actions of autonomous entities. I think one day that's what Football Manager will be, or maybe it's what the successor to football manager will be because SI weren't ambitious enough.

But let's be clear that at the moment Football Manager is just a profoundly flawed reality that if you suspend your disbelief and go with the flow, can be a fun experience. We all have things that we have to ignore. I wish that i could explain to my players that want to leave just how badly that's worked out for almost all their ex-colleagues who forced their way into a lucrative but short-lived career in a bigger club's youth squad.

There's lots of things I wish were possible in the game, but the game is only half of what is necessary. the other half depends on us filling in the gaps, buying into the experience and accepting that the game is what the game is.

Like many of you I want it to be so much more. i really hope that SI do too, because my perception of Si has changed in the last year, but honestly, all this crossing stuff and most of our bugbears about the game and SI itself, that's what they are; perceptions.

So a full back getting 40+ assists a year is nothing more than a perception?

[andu1]

So a full back getting 40+ assists a year is nothing more than a perception?

Truth is that you can make all kinds of unrealistic tactics since FM is just a piece of software not real football game and with so many tactical options it's really easy to make a tactic that the AI could never counter.

However if you want the game to be realistic then why are you purposely using unrealistic tactics that no real football manager would use just to exploit a flaw in the ME?

You can make a FB get 40 assist per year? So what, I can make my striker score 80 goals a season but am I gonna do it? nope.

[Long Islander]

This might have been reported earlier, but since the 16.3.0 update my Body Language widget has no information in it except for the players' names.

[Cougar2010]

So what you're saying is : If we implement a hockey engine into FM ME, but the same numbers of goals is scored as IRL, nothing is wrong, right ?

If you can't join in a discussion without twisting peoples words to suit your own agenda I suggest you don't bother commenting at all.

Well what counts as a real life assist is easy to define. What SI are counting as an assist in the match engine only they would know. But from what I can tell the logic is the same as it's usually my full back who crossed the ball to the goal scorer.

I don't think it is easy to define at all, you ask different people what an assist is and you'll get a difference in answers.

You can start with the easy ones like a player makes a pass/cross to another player who scores but what about other situations such as deflected passes/crosses? what about where the opposition mess up the clearance? what about a good passing move where 3/4 players combine before the goal is scored?

From what we've seen on the forums the number of goals scored seems about right while the overall number of assists is higher than RL.

Now you can say what you want but the obvious conclusion here is that FM is classing an assist much more liberally than happens IRL.

Does that bother me? Well not really because I don't always agree with RL stats either.

I think its also worth noting that FM shouldn't really be aiming to get stats 100% identical to RL. Based on stats Leicester shouldn't be top of the Premier League but they are and therefore FM has to cater for tactics that go against the common RL trends. Over time stats IRL change and FM should be just as adapable.

[iAlwaysWin]

Truth is that you can make all kinds of unrealistic tactics since FM is just a piece of software not real football game and with so many tactical options it's really easy to make a tactic that the AI could never counter.

However if you want the game to be realistic then why are you purposely using unrealistic tactics that no real football manager would use just to exploit a flaw in the ME?

You can make a FB get 40 assist per year? So what, I can make my striker score 80 goals a season but am I gonna do it? nope.

the AI can also gets a unrealistic amount of assists from fullbacks and rediculous high ratings, not just the human manager.

[Cougar2010]

This might have been reported earlier, but since the 16.3.0 update my Body Language widget has no information in it except for the players' names.

You need to widen the widget, extra information has been included in it.

[Danchinaski]

This might have been reported earlier, but since the 16.3.0 update my Body Language widget has no information in it except for the players' names.

When you open the widget, widen the box and it should appear.

[Raniel3]

Truth is that you can make all kinds of unrealistic tactics since FM is just a piece of software not real football game and with so many tactical options it's really easy to make a tactic that the AI could never counter.

However if you want the game to be realistic then why are you purposely using unrealistic tactics that no real football manager would use just to exploit a flaw in the ME?

You can make a FB get 40 assist per year? So what, I can make my striker score 80 goals a season but am I gonna do it? nope.

That's why you should never judge a ME by its human input extremes, but by how the AI works with it. And as you can see FB average ratings and assists are an issue for AI teams too.

[Cougar2010]

I also don't get why everyone is focusing on just fullback ratings.

If you want to talk ratings why aren't the other ratings issues given more discussion time:

A) More defensive MCs struggling to get more than 7.0.

B) A defensive error leading to a goal for a defender meaning he scores 6.2 or less (When you draw or lose) even if he wins all his headers & tackles.

C) A striker who can have a rubbish game then pop up with a goal getting 7+

D) A player having a good game but missing the target with one too many shots resulting in a low rating.

I know ratings are subjective and different people will have different opinions but just focussing on fullbacks is narrow minded as well when there are other ratings issues.

[GSevensM75]

Truth is that you can make all kinds of unrealistic tactics since FM is just a piece of software not real football game and with so many tactical options it's really easy to make a tactic that the AI could never counter.

However if you want the game to be realistic then why are you purposely using unrealistic tactics that no real football manager would use just to exploit a flaw in the ME?

You can make a FB get 40 assist per year? So what, I can make my striker score 80 goals a season but am I gonna do it? nope.

1) I don't think playing wing backs is unrealistic.

2) The AI's full backs are also averaging 20+ assists a year.

[Alexivan]

I also don't get why everyone is focusing on just fullback ratings.

If you want to talk ratings why aren't the other ratings issues given more discussion time:

A) More defensive MCs struggling to get more than 7.0.

B) A defensive error leading to a goal for a defender meaning he scores 6.2 or less (When you draw or lose) even if he wins all his headers & tackles.

C) A striker who can have a rubbish game then pop up with a goal getting 7+

D) A player having a good game but missing the target with one too many shots resulting in a low rating.

I know ratings are subjective and different people will have different opinions but just focussing on fullbacks is narrow minded as well when there are other ratings issues.

Because E).Fullbacks ratings are extreme and more obvious than the above

[GSevensM75]

If you can't join in a discussion without twisting peoples words to suit your own agenda I suggest you don't bother commenting at all.

I don't think it is easy to define at all, you ask different people what an assist is and you'll get a difference in answers.

You can start with the easy ones like a player makes a pass/cross to another player who scores but what about other situations such as deflected passes/crosses? what about where the opposition mess up the clearance? what about a good passing move where 3/4 players combine before the goal is scored?

From what we've seen on the forums the number of goals scored seems about right while the overall number of assists is higher than RL.

Now you can say what you want but the obvious conclusion here is that FM is classing an assist much more liberally than happens IRL.

Does that bother me? Well not really because I don't always agree with RL stats either.

I think its also worth noting that FM shouldn't really be aiming to get stats 100% identical to RL. Based on stats Leicester shouldn't be top of the Premier League but they are and therefore FM has to cater for tactics that go against the common RL trends. Over time stats IRL change and FM should be just as adapable.

"The final pass or pass-cum-shot which directly leads to a goal scored by recipient of the ball."

[Cougar2010]

Because E).Fullbacks ratings are extreme and more obvious than the above

Absolute rubbish, they are just as obvious if you give as much attention to detail as you claim.

[swansongs]

I also don't get why everyone is focusing on just fullback ratings.

If you want to talk ratings why aren't the other ratings issues given more discussion time:

A) More defensive MCs struggling to get more than 7.0.

B) A defensive error leading to a goal for a defender meaning he scores 6.2 or less (When you draw or lose) even if he wins all his headers & tackles.

C) A striker who can have a rubbish game then pop up with a goal getting 7+

D) A player having a good game but missing the target with one too many shots resulting in a low rating.

I know ratings are subjective and different people will have different opinions but just focussing on fullbacks is narrow minded as well when there are other ratings issues.

Only the last of these doesn't reflect how ratings are usually given out in real life. Strikers frequently get motm awards for 89 minutes on anonymity and a goal.

[GSevensM75]

I also don't get why everyone is focusing on just fullback ratings.

If you want to talk ratings why aren't the other ratings issues given more discussion time:

A) More defensive MCs struggling to get more than 7.0.

B) A defensive error leading to a goal for a defender meaning he scores 6.2 or less (When you draw or lose) even if he wins all his headers & tackles.

C) A striker who can have a rubbish game then pop up with a goal getting 7+

D) A player having a good game but missing the target with one too many shots resulting in a low rating.

I know ratings are subjective and different people will have different opinions but just focussing on fullbacks is narrow minded as well when there are other ratings issues.

I agree they're all problems but I think most of us disregarded ratings a long time ago. Same with CCC's being flawed. These are interpretations of stats. The full back issue is more pressing simply because 4 or 5 AI full backs per season getting 20+ assists is massively unrealistic.

[Raniel3]

I also don't get why everyone is focusing on just fullback ratings.

If you want to talk ratings why aren't the other ratings issues given more discussion time:

A) More defensive MCs struggling to get more than 7.0.

B) A defensive error leading to a goal for a defender meaning he scores 6.2 or less (When you draw or lose) even if he wins all his headers & tackles.

C) A striker who can have a rubbish game then pop up with a goal getting 7+

D) A player having a good game but missing the target with one too many shots resulting in a low rating.

I know ratings are subjective and different people will have different opinions but just focussing on fullbacks is narrow minded as well when there are other ratings issues.

No one is ignoring these issues, but they don't nearly have the same magnitude and consequently effects as the FB ratings.

a) This one is true, but hard to fix because unless they are ball-winners there are no stats in the game to measure their real-life effect. Apart from that, they rarely get really bad ratings either.

b) I tend to think that this is rightly so, at least if it was a real error. Same thing as with keepers: If you didn't gain attention during a match, you did your job well. Anyway, defenders AVERAGE ratings are spot on (good defenders get 7.2-7.3, bad defenders get 6.5 to 6.6).

c) Again, I think this mirrors real life, but I agree that offensive players in general are a bit overrated in the game. Which, reflecting, is also true to real life, and guarantees real-life values of offensive players and award wins.

d) This is true, there is unfortunately no measurement of good shots that just missed the target and completely nonsense shots that missed the target

[Alexivan]

Absolute rubbish, they are just as obvious if you give as much attention to detail as you claim.

No they aren't. Actually your A,B,C,D are there since this games was created i think.

While fullbacks ratings....

[Mitja]

Not defending any side, but all of you complaining I would much rather we try to agree what's need to be done for next ME and make sure it's done. Even with issues it has this ME is miles better than any before. Potentaly with some improvements it can become great.

Now if SI felt this issue was too complex and decided not to fix it then we need to accept things as they are. We can maybe take advantage of this situation and help them. Imo if the 17 ME was as improved as 16 that would be a fantastic ME. And there's more than just crossing..

[Cougar2010]

I agree they're all problems but I think most of us disregarded ratings a long time ago. Same with CCC's being flawed. These are interpretations of stats. The full back issue is more pressing simply because 4 or 5 AI full backs per season getting 20+ assists is massively unrealistic.

But that is a totally different issue.

While linked high fullback ratings is a different issue to fullbacks getting a lot of assists.

In fact I thought we had reached a conclusion that high fullback ratings were mostly due to the high number of key passes FM calculates them to make during a game.

[swansongs]

To be honest Alexivan, if your criticism of someone comes down to them playing a tactic that reduces the effectiveness of crosses against them (which is an incredibly wise thing to do IMO given the dangerous nature of angled balls into/around the box) your argument about crossing in general loses a lot of weight.

I play a defensive 4-1-4-1 with the left back on defend, and the RCM as a deep lying playmaker so that the RB can attack and there is still cover. Coupled with Ryan Shawcross & Phillip Wollscheid in central defence and this is why I have next to no issues with crosses - my team is built to defend against crosses and by using my midfield to shield the defence it prevents being exploited in the middle as easily.

Not every team wants to be Classic Stoke, though.

Football is not just about defending crosses but FM16 feels like it is at the moment. I can deal with disproportionately high fullback ratings because I don't pay attention to them anyway (beyond occasional praising of players to up morale), but the tactical focus this year is not something I'm finding fulfilling. It's like every opposition team has a world-class dangerman you have to specifically prepare for. Very limiting.

[Cougar2010]

No one is ignoring these issues, but they don't nearly have the same magnitude and consequently effects as the FB ratings.

How do the fullback ratings have a different magnitude & effects when you play compared to the others I listed?

What knockon effect do the fullback ratings cause for you as the user playing the game?

b) I tend to think that this is rightly so, at least if it was a real error. Same thing as with keepers: If you didn't gain attention during a match, you did your job well. Anyway, defenders AVERAGE ratings are spot on (good defenders get 7.2-7.3, bad defenders get 6.5 to 6.6).

Take two players who have identical stats for passing, tackling, heading etc in a game.

If you win the game he'll get 7.2/7.3, if you lose he'll get 6.7/6.8 its not a question of good & bad.

[Cougar2010]

No they aren't. Actually your A,B,C,D are there since this games was created i think.

While fullbacks ratings....

Even if they were there since the game was created why are they less important than the fullback ratings?

[Cougar2010]

Not defending any side, but all of you complaining I would much rather we try to agree what's need to be done for next ME and make sure it's done. Even with issues it has this ME is miles better than any before. Potentaly with some improvements it can become great.

Now if SI felt this issue was too complex and decided not to fix it then we need to accept things as they are. We can maybe take advantage of this situation and help them. Imo if the 17 ME was as improved as 16 that would be a fantastic ME. And there's more than just crossing..

I trust that SI know more about what needs fixed than me as a user but in general my feelings are:

A) GKs should come out & claim more crosses.

B) Defenders should make runs a little better therefore cutting out more crosses.

C) fullbacks have a habit of tucking in as the opposition attack the last third of the pitch which leaves a lot of space out wide until the fullback closes the wide player down.

But whatever the issues the most important factor is that its the same for both teams therefore the human user isn't at a disadvantage.

[vikeologist]

So a full back getting 40+ assists a year is nothing more than a perception?

The fact that you think it's a problem rather than just a feature of the game is a perception. Same with all the other things that happen in the game that don't happen in real life.

[Raniel3]

How do the fullback ratings have a different magnitude & effects when you play compared to the others I listed?

What knockon effect do the fullback ratings cause for you as the user playing the game?

Ratings have massive impact on things like AI transfer targets, market values, wage demands, player progression (not directly IIRC, but indirectly through morale and especially through increased playing time due to the high ratings), player morale, AI team selection, award winning, player reputation... well basically everything, just like in real life the perception of the best player in a league will have quite an impact on real life. This is true for every position, but its impact is much higher for players that are having +0.8 average ratings compared to how they are supposed and designed to be (which is mostly due to key passes, you are right). That's why DMC ratings bothered me in all those years, but didn't massively change the gameworld and thus were tolerable, not taking away from the enjoyment.

[santy001]

Not every team wants to be Classic Stoke, though.

Football is not just about defending crosses but FM16 feels like it is at the moment. I can deal with disproportionately high fullback ratings because I don't pay attention to them anyway (beyond occasional praising of players to up morale), but the tactical focus this year is not something I'm finding fulfilling. It's like every opposition team has a world-class dangerman you have to specifically prepare for. Very limiting.

But that's the beauty of formations, and to an extent what every FM's tactical screen is about though - you set how you want your team to defend through the formation screen. You use roles, PI's & TI's to shape your team on the attack. As my defensive 4-1-4-1 functions as a highly counter attacking 4-3-3 (it anchors the defensive line nicer than actually using the counter attacking mentality though). If anyone is playing an overly attacking tactic (I've seen quite a few being popular this year) where you have 4 wide men and all 4 are pushing high up the pitch leaving 2 or 3 players to keep your team safe then quite rightly you are going to get utterly savaged by crosses and angled balls between the defenders.

No team sets out to defend poorly through their tactical line up, but some people are using formations which by design are poor defensively to try and gamble that their overwhelming surge down the flanks will prove more potent than the opposition doing the same.

[GSevensM75]

The fact that you think it's a problem rather than just a feature of the game is a perception. Same with all the other things that happen in the game that don't happen in real life.

A feature implies a tactical or strategic decision on SI's part to include it. I sincerely doubt that SI have intentionally programmed the ME for this to happen.

[Cougar2010]

Ratings have massive impact on things like AI transfer targets, market values, wage demands, player progression (not directly IIRC, but indirectly through morale and especially through increased playing time due to the high ratings), player morale, AI team selection, award winning, player reputation... well basically everything, just like in real life the perception of the best player in a league will have quite an impact on real life. This is true for every position, but its impact is much higher for players that are having +0.8 average ratings compared to how they are supposed and designed to be (which is mostly due to key passes, you are right). That's why DMC ratings bothered me in all those years, but didn't massively change the gameworld and thus were tolerable, not taking away from the enjoyment.

I could be wrong but I think you are overestimating the effect in many of those areas.

The rating has nothing to do with market value, wage demands, or AI team selection or if it does its very minimal.

Also in terms of of AI team selection & AI transfer targets fullbacks are being compared against other fullbacks so it doesn't make any difference if the ratings are inflated or not for that position except in the fairly rare cases where a player is natural in both the fullback & another position (DC, DM, MC, MR/L).

Player progression I'll give you and is the main one which would lead to fullbacks developing quicker than players in other positions but again the knockon effect is fairly minimal because all fullbacks will be progressing at a slightly faster rate and aren't competing with players in other positions for squad places.

[CityAndColour]

Just got Bromley promoted into League Two for the first time in their history. At the post-game press conference, the first question is whether we'll get a new stadium and the second question is how I feel about Torquay's manager getting sacked.

Never change, FM media

[balldoktor81]

in reference to the so called "crossing issue", i think it's not the amount or the accuracy but the way the players are positioning themselves on the pitch. they are to narrow! as far as i remember it was already mentioned weeks ago that def. players are standing to close to each other. BUT you can! counter it!!! just a few minutes ago gebre selassie of werder bremen annoyed the heck out of me with his insane crossing attempts. my Fullback was always too far away of him. yes i had him on "closing down - always" but i did not help. SO i said to myself, hmm lets get real dirty on him and let's handcuff him real tight i told my fullback to mark this fella for the rest of my game. and gebre selassie still tried some crosses, but i never felt nervous like before, when you would find me sending prayers and hope nobody would tap it in... you can counter almost everything, sometimes it takes a little time to understand what could really work and help you winning games. even if it means, wolfsburg (me) playing counter against bremen and going home with a victory 2-0... before i would still go with my "number one" tactic which helped me string a few wins together. this time i had the feeling bremen will go for it and i decided to counter them it worked beautiful!!! by the way i play the "full game". in my opinion it's the best way to see and find out what's going wrong and what the flow of the game is. I'm having fun again although Bayern is running away at the top with me being 3rd, pushing for CL (don't want to break promises i made to L.Gustavo and Draxler )

[Mitja]

I trust that SI know more about what needs fixed than me as a user but in general my feelings are:

A) GKs should come out & claim more crosses.

B) Defenders should make runs a little better therefore cutting out more crosses.

C) fullbacks have a habit of tucking in as the opposition attack the last third of the pitch which leaves a lot of space out wide until the fullback closes the wide player down.

But whatever the issues the most important factor is that its the same for both teams therefore the human user isn't at a disadvantage.

D) long passes and switching flaks are too easily employed even without sufficiant width.

F) these long passes are too accurate and too easily controled by FBs. It should take a few moments more to control the ball well for example. First time volley cross after 50 meter long pass happens once in hundred years irl..

G) poor deefending of wide area. Irl it is usually wingers responsible for cutting those long passes to FBs on final third.

And if all this we are mentioning was fixed then there would hardly be any goals from crosses. I just want to say that it shows how complex just this issue is. I would much rather see if the crossing thing is looked from defensive side of things. FBs are getting into too many crossing oportunities in the first place. Add the fact that they dwell on many occasions which could even increase crossing numbers.