Football Manager 2020 Feedback Thread

[KUBI]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Sharkn20:

Which we paid £30 pounds for, don't forget that, is not that you guys gave it away.

They offer to try the demo before you buy it, they update the game regularly. If you buy a book and at page 115 you close it, does the publisher offer an updated version? You really need to put things into proportion.

[callamity]

10 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

All we ever ask is that people are going to criticize the game, to do so constructively. We're not offended by negative feedback, but we won't tolerate comments that take direct pops at the development team, This forum was created specifically to allow people to discuss our game in a way that allows for debate and conversation. It's got harder over the years to expect the development team to engage with users on the forums when they were spending an inordinate amount of time defending themselves and the company against criticism when all they were ever trying to do was create the best version of FM possible. 

We put everything we can into making this game the best we can every year. But we are a company and of course we're run for profit. If we spend more money than we earn every year there would be no more Football Manager. So we have to balance the books in terms of development or order to make sure we're sustainable long term. We never take the money and run - we communicate directly with the community of this game, be it here or via social media every day of the year. We release numerous updates of the game trying our best to improve it with each one. If someone wants to come out with a football management game better than this good luck to them - we're all still fans of the game so if someone can do better than us, we'll likely all end up playing it!  

We get the people just want the game to be the best it can be and we want that too. 

alot of the time is spent developing a large amount of new features which the game can do without, focus on the thing that we use the most, the match engine. it is what the customers want and need to improve the game.

 

improve it yearly untill the negative comments are demnding features such as a medical centre, a development centre, a squad dynamics centre. 

 

bragging about how successful the game is in a growing population is deflecting the issues and fuelling the fire.

[KUBI]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb fournaan:

I don't understand why a pkm is necessary in this instance. It's not a difficult to replicate bug or something, it happens every single game to every single team 

It is, because every match is a single event. 

 

[steviemay17]

23 minutes ago, KUBI said:

No, but 99% of the other parts. Is your life perfect? Do you concentrate only at the parts which aren't? Or do you enjoy it sometimes? In the end we are talking about a computer game.

Again  a perfect example of what I was trying to say, trying to belittle the argument and denigrate the opinion from those criticising rather than taking the feedback and trying to improve.

[KUBI]

vor 1 Minute schrieb steviemay17:

Again  a perfect example of what I was trying to say, trying to belittle the argument and denigrate the opinion from those criticising rather than taking the feedback and trying to improve.

The arguments and facts are posted in the bugs forum. You do not add anything that makes the game better by repeating your view in this thread.

[Tiger666]

50 minutes ago, KUBI said:

It's not about beta or not beta. The ME is never finished, but you always need to decide with version is balanced enough for a release. They could just release one and state, ok that's it, the ME for FM 2020. But they continue to try to make it better. There is no perfect ME that suits everyone. So you will have always people complaining about a part of it. Some want a ME that is fun to watch, other a ME that is for the tactical finesse and other who wants a perfect ME for their seventh divisions matches.

I don't think anyone expects a perfect match engine. I think just about everyone would like a match engine without the current issues of too many shots, poor finishing, too many long balls and bugged set piece instructions. All we know, as far as I'm aware, is the 1 v 1 issue is under review.

[KUBI]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Tiger666:

I don't think anyone expects a perfect match engine. I think just about everyone would like a match engine without the current issues of too many shots, poor finishing, too many long balls and bugged set piece instructions. All we know, as far as I'm aware, is the 1 v 1 issue is under review.

You can be sure that all issues you listed are under review. But again, to see an issue is not to fix it. But the more examples the better. 

[KUBI]

And now, please more feedback about the game. Bug reports please into the bugs forum with some evidence. 

 

[Nick_CB]

Remembering that some of these bugs appeared in the previous version.
Time to fix is no excuse I think

[KUBI]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Nick_CB:

Remembering that some of these bugs appeared in the previous version.
Time to fix is no excuse I think

Which ones?

[Nick_CB]

2 minutos atrás, KUBI disse:

Quais?

Long shots behind the defense, often the reaction of the line of defenders is very strange

[davehanson]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

All we ever ask is that people are going to criticize the game, to do so constructively. We're not offended by negative feedback, but we won't tolerate comments that take direct pops at the development team. This forum was created specifically to allow people to discuss our game in a way that allows for debate and conversation. It's got harder over the years to expect the development team to engage with users on the forums when they were spending an inordinate amount of time defending themselves and the company against criticism when all they were ever trying to do was create the best version of FM possible. 

We put everything we can into making this game the best we can every year. But we are a company and of course we're run for profit. If we spend more money than we earn every year there would be no more Football Manager. So we have to balance the books in terms of development in order to make sure we're sustainable long term. We never ‘take the money and run’ - we communicate directly with the community of this game, be it here or via social media every day of the year. We release numerous updates of the game trying our best to improve it with each one. If someone wants to come out with a football management game better than this good luck to them - we're all still fans of the game so if someone can do better than us, we'll likely all end up playing it!  

We get the people just want the game to be the best it can be and we want that too. 

Neil, I am sure many are like me, and do appreciate the time and effort that the whole of SI put into developing this game. I also appreciate the time you have taken to post here, thanks. I guess like many we all just want the best for FM. For many of us it has been around for as long as we can remember. Hell, I have probably spent more time with FM/CM than I have my wife!

I would like to ask you a direct question if I may. What do you see as the problems with FM at the moment? What are you/the team not happy with? Where do you think we will end up with the ME in FM20, can you honestly see the team rectifying the issues that have been discussed in this thread? 

Sorry, that was like 3 questions, but only short ones! Thanks.

[janrzm]

56 minutes ago, KUBI said:

They offer to try the demo before you buy it, they update the game regularly. If you buy a book and at page 115 you close it, does the publisher offer an updated version? You really need to put things into proportion.

Hey @KUBI I try to be a constructive poster on here so please accept this comment as such.

I pre-ordered the game and to that end I take my chances. However, had I been playing on the beta, (ME v2016) from memory I'd have been delighted with the game, if the full release comes out and the ME goes backwards as it has IMO then that does throw a different slant on things?

Edited December 17, 2019 by janrzm

[KUBI]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb janrzm:

Hey @KUBI I try to be a constructive poster on here so please accept this comment as such.

I pre-ordered the game and to that end I take my chances. However, had I been playing on the beta, (ME v2016) from memory I'd have been delighted with the game, if the full release comes out and the ME goes backwards as it has IMO then that does throw a different slant of things?

Working on the ME is not a linear process, you don't go from A to B. You try to improve for example some defending movements which could cause an issue with one specific tactic. Some people enjoy a part of a ME but there are reports that another part does not work very well. Improving the other part could have a negative impact to the part you enjoyed. It's very difficult. They try to find a balanced ME for a release, but some specific parts might be worked better in a prior ME. One ME might be better for people who are using defensive tactics another for counter attacks or aggressive attacking play. But of course, if there is a consensus (with bug reports) that some parts do not work as intended they try to fix and adjust it. But then, it can affect other parts. And so on.

[janrzm]

7 minutes ago, KUBI said:

Working on the ME is not a linear process, you don't go from A to B. You try to improve for example some defending movements which could cause an issue with one specific tactic. Some people enjoy a part of a ME but there are reports that another part does not work very well. Improving the other part could have a negative impact to the part you enjoyed. It's very difficult. They try to find a balanced ME for a release, but some specific parts might be worked better in a prior ME. One ME might be better for people who are using defensive tactics another for counter attacks. But of course, if there is a consensus (with bug reports) that some parts do not work as intended they try to fix and adjust it. But then, it can affect other parts. And so on.

I get that working on the ME may not be a linear process but the intention must always be linear, surely? If we advance from E to F during the beta stage and then regress from F to D on release or at some point in the future people will feel disappointment. Of course, with so many variables I accept that "flaws" can be more or less obvious depending on many aspects of the way an individual plays the game. Does that leave us at a point where there has to be more than one version of the ME in play at any given point? As mentioned previously, if I had continued to play the game with the (beta v2016) I'd seriously be wondering what a lot of the fuss was about because there looked so little wrong with it based on how I play. 

 

[rinso]

the evolution of the ME, and indeed the game as a whole, is a ridiculously complicated process.  I wish people could understand that before they turn up on here and rant that SI aren't doing enough, or don't listen.   Think of it as throwing a stone into a lake. How many ripples does one stone create? That's how it is changing something in the coding in the game. ONe ripple may solve your issue but could also create a whole new lake for other people and no stones to even throw into it..  

[Sharkn20]

1 hour ago, KUBI said:

They offer to try the demo before you buy it, they update the game regularly. If you buy a book and at page 115 you close it, does the publisher offer an updated version? You really need to put things into proportion.

I bought the beta because I trusted the developers after years playing FM, this won't happen in FM21, apart from the glaring ME problems, it will also be thanks in part to your input, whoever is your manager should put some effort in helping you developing "Conflict resolution skills" or "Customers relations", they are quite below standard to be honest.

Now am gonna post some files with bugs that I just had in my last game. 6 1vs1 with just one of them scored, and a bug that doesn't let me do any substitutions, tactic changes or sideline shouts. Which is again another FM20 problem.

[KUBI]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb janrzm:

 Does that leave us at a point where there has to be more than one version of the ME in play at any given point? 

Theoretically a solution but practically not, because some stability fixes (likes crashes) are also ME related as the ME is also a 3D representation of the matches. 

And don't forget, this ME and the whole game has to work on an unbelievable amount of different computers, graphic cards and setups.

[GOODNAME]

I think people here just gone way to far with this ME.

I think its a good build, a lot have improved since the last year.. and i dont think there are many of aspects that SI need to fix.. but if they can fix the :

- 1v1 conversion : im playing with Dybala and Hallland up front and im see a lot of 1v1 goals from them. But i see a lot of misses as well, i think the main problem is there is not such a difference between top striker and average and low strikers 

The biggest issue for me is the ball over the top.. i have 2 amazing CB , koulibaly and DIaz and every game there is 4-3 ball over the top against me and it doesn't matter if im using high/low defensive line.. pretty frustrating.

But overall i think it decent ME , i just hope the fix will come before March 

Edited December 17, 2019 by GOODNAME

[Sharkn20]

Another game with loads of 1vs1 and an extra bug during the 2nd half.

 

[janrzm]

2 hours ago, GOODNAME said:

I think people here just gone way to far with this ME.

I think its a good build, a lot have improved since the last year.. and i dont think there are many of aspects that SI need to fix.. but if they can fix the :

- 1v1 conversion : im playing with Dybala and Hallland up front and im see a lot of 1v1 goals from them. But i see a lot of misses as well, i think the main problem is there is not such a difference between top striker and average and low strikers 

The biggest issue for me is the ball over the top.. i have 2 amazing CB , koulibaly and DIaz and every game there is 4-3 ball over the top against me and it doesn't matter if im using high/low defensive line.. pretty frustrating.

But overall i think it decent ME 

In fairness, I've read very few posts that aren't valid to some degree. If there is to be any criticism it's really around the way some people choose to vocalise their frustrations. Deep down, I genuinely see this as a team effort, players and developers, we are ultimately in the same boat.

I posted yesterday in the ME bug thread and listed 6 issues that are keeping me from wanting to play the game, I believe they are all legitimate so I will repeat them here - 

• 1 v 1 - Well documented, but It's not the overall conversion rate that is the issue, its the number of chances created in the first instance, at times it's like watching tennis.
• That ball over the top, you know, the one that's invisible to your defender, the one that creates the 1 v 1 when it's not the defence splitting through ball that your defender also can't see coming.
• Stop my players chasing the ball, keeping it in play and continuing to run past it while the opposition player thanks him for his generosity.
• The vertical header from a cross or corner, the one that your player, regardless of his heading ability can only seem to direct skywards.
• Every goalkeeper is like Gordon Banks in Mexico 70, whilst I didn't believe the day would ever arrive when I'd moan about GK's being improved they've evolved from headless chickens to superhero levels of reflex and agility. Although, to be fair I may have a distorted view of this as many of the outstanding saves are from the "false' 1 v 1's.....
• Defensive headers.....this looked much improved in the beta, now its reverted to every defensive header is basically dinked up in the air and effectively laid off to the nearest opposition player its the football equivalent of the "set" in Volleyball. Actually, I've said this in various other threads, the ME v2016 that we saw earlier looked so, so much better than the one we've ended up with......

EDIT: I should add that these aren't prioritised, some are more critical than others.

Edited December 18, 2019 by janrzm

[Hazerbaijan]

13 minutes ago, janrzm said:

• Defensive headers.....this looked much improved in the beta, now its reverted to every defensive header is basically dinked up in the air and effectively laid off to the nearest opposition player its the football equivalent of the "set" in Volleyball. Actually, I've said this in various other threads, the ME v2016 that we saw earlier looked so, so much better than the one we've ended up with......

 

Got to agree about the defensive headers! It's the one area of the match engine I'd love to be improved.

My main tactic at the moment is a lowish block, counter attacking style. Thanks to Experienced Defender's defending thread my team manage to stifle the opponent's creativity. However, due to defending narrow my team concede a lot of crosses, corners and a few wide free kicks. This should be manageable as I have 3 DCs who are good in the air and manage to get to the ball first most of the time. Unfortunately their headers are so bad that they'd probably be better off not bothering.

What I see are defensive headers from between the six yard box and penalty spot barely clearing the penalty box and often landing inside as if the defender has cushioned the header. The ball is often picked up by an attacker who then gets a shot at goal. This is how the majority of the goals I concede are scored. I could understand this if a defenders momentum is towards their own goal but this happens even if they're set, prepared for the cross, and their momentum is with the direction of the header. In these circumstances I'd expect the ball to be cleared much more effectively, giving my team a better chance of gaining possession or at least a little breathing space. This is quite frustrating as otherwise my defensive strategy appears to be working

It seems to me that these poor headers result in largely inflated shot numbers and I wonder if this contributes to the requirement for low chance conversion to keep scores realistic. I seem to concede around 10 of these shots per game, sometimes more if my team are really up against it.

Is anyone else seeing poor defensive headers and/or poor reaction of the defending side to headed clearances?

[janrzm]

3 minutes ago, Hazerbaijan said:

Got to agree about the defensive headers! It's the one area of the match engine I'd love to be improved.

My main tactic at the moment is a lowish block, counter attacking style. Thanks to Experienced Defender's defending thread my team manage to stifle the opponent's creativity. However, due to defending narrow my team concede a lot of crosses, corners and a few wide free kicks. This should be manageable as I have 3 DCs who are good in the air and manage to get to the ball first most of the time. Unfortunately their headers are so bad that they'd probably be better off not bothering.

What I see are defensive headers from between the six yard box and penalty spot barely clearing the penalty box and often landing inside as if the defender has cushioned the header. The ball is often picked up by an attacker who then gets a shot at goal. This is how the majority of the goals I concede are scored. I could understand this if a defenders momentum is towards their own goal but this happens even if they're set, prepared for the cross, and their momentum is with the direction of the header. In these circumstances I'd expect the ball to be cleared much more effectively, giving my team a better chance of gaining possession or at least a little breathing space. This is quite frustrating as otherwise my defensive strategy appears to be working

It seems to me that these poor headers result in largely inflated shot numbers and I wonder if this contributes to the requirement for low chance conversion to keep scores realistic. I seem to concede around 10 of these shots per game, sometimes more if my team are really up against it.

Is anyone else seeing poor defensive headers and/or poor reaction of the defending side to headed clearances?

Agree.

My recollection of the (ME V2016) was that less of these poor defensive headers were made in the first instance as often the player has time to control the ball, others were actually directed to team mates and/or effectively cleared, the "dinked" up clearance had almost been eradicated. 

It's speculation of course but poor offensive headers is almost certainly down to control of chance conversion, they are too numerous and therefore have to be misses it would seem. I think they could safely be directed towards goal with the keepers current reflexes..... 

[Davey Boy]

39 minutes ago, janrzm said:

• 1 v 1 - Well documented, but It's not the overall conversion rate that is the issue, its the number of chances created in the first instance, at times it's like watching tennis.
• That ball over the top, you know, the one that's invisible to your defender, the one that creates the 1 v 1 when it's not the defence splitting through ball that your defender also can't see coming.
• Stop my players chasing the ball, keeping it in play and continuing to run past it while the opposition player thanks him for his generosity.
• The vertical header from a cross or corner, the one that your player, regardless of his heading ability can only seem to direct skywards.
• Every goalkeeper is like Gordon Banks in Mexico 70, whilst I didn't believe the day would ever arrive when I'd moan about GK's being improved they've evolved from headless chickens to superhero levels of reflex and agility. Although, to be fair I may have a distorted view of this as many of the outstanding saves are from the "false' 1 v 1's.....
• Defensive headers.....this looked much improved in the beta, now its reverted to every defensive header is basically dinked up in the air and effectively laid off to the nearest opposition player its the football equivalent of the "set" in Volleyball. Actually, I've said this in various other threads, the ME v2016 that we saw earlier looked so, so much better than the one we've ended up with......

 

I want to echo this, these are the main problems i to am have with the game along with the inside forwards and wingers not squaring/pulling the ball back and shoot into the side net.

And to touch on the poor defensive heading (why do defenders who are in no rush, head the ball out to the opposition instead of taking the ball down and play it out)?

[CityAndColour]

Yep defensive heading has regressed back to FM19 levels. i'd love to see a centre half get some proper distance with a powerful header, instead they all seem to be little dinky ones that conveniently go straight to an opponent and keep an attack going when it should really be dealt with.

[saihtam]

8 hours ago, Davey Boy said:

why do defenders who are in no rush, head the ball out to the opposition instead of taking the ball down and play it out?

I think this is the reason I have yelled at my players the most in all FMs combined.....

Probably it comes down to some mental stats but being so clear but still heading it mindlessly is frustrating.

[Johnny Ace]

Get some reports in then fellas, few of you there bothered by it 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Johnny Ace

[Novem9]

10 часов назад, KUBI сказал:

They offer to try the demo before you buy it, they update the game regularly. If you buy a book and at page 115 you close it, does the publisher offer an updated version? You really need to put things into proportion.

I didn't want to buy FM20 because after the purchase of FM19 I felt cheated. But I checked FM20 demo v2021 or something like this (prev version from current) and it was fine for me. But next update ME2026 ruined FM for me. If I buy a book, there are the same pages during all year. There are no update from publisher in mid of year which killed dramaturgy or something else.
What a sence in demo if next patch could change ME totally and issues killed any pleasure? Even personally for me? And I can't refund my money, but in fact I bought different game (different ME)

Concerning issues. I stopped to publish almost all issues excepting very specific because I can't realize why QA can't do the same? It is their work to play FM in different styles and notice bugs aren't? Let's pay for us in this way and we give A LOT issues but do it pernamently for free? Almost all bugs are typical.

And last thing - I wrote in November, guys there are issue with pace players and marking of them, there are issue of broken DL which high for all settings and all teams, there are mentality issues where are AI underdog can't realize how to play. All issues were with detailed examples. Almost all things were ignored and what we have now? These bugs in released version. I lose twice - spent my time for free work which ignored and spent my money for game which I can't enjoy.

Just give me a version which I bought and I will continue play in FM20 and leave this thread with a pleasure. And I will update for 20.3 if it will good or not, but I bought v2021 and I want to play this version. I didnt buy v2026 and I never would have bought.

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Novem9

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, Novem9 said:

Concerning issues. I stopped to publish almost all issues excepting very specific because I can't realize why QA can't do the same? It is their work to play FM in different styles and notice bugs aren't? Let's pay for us in this way and we give A LOT issues but do it pernamently for free? Almost all bugs are typical.

They already do. As you say - it's their job. It's a small team though and any reports or examples the community do add saves time. Especially concerning the ME, they need a lot of examples of the same thing, then to log it and then it gets worked on. The community can help speed up that process. Even if it's an 'obvious' bug, it frees the testers up to just log it and move onto bugs that require more time and effort to find examples of.

FWIW, no one is required to report bugs or provide examples. The testing team is grateful to those who do though and we all benefit.

[Novem9]

9 минут назад, HUNT3R сказал:

It's a small team

I cant dictate to other people how to conduct their business, but probably this is clear point about how to fix this problem  

anyway as I said - one real problem for me - I bougth different ME version and I want to play this one

Edited December 18, 2019 by Novem9

[Mikke]

10 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

I cant dictate to other people how to conduct their business, but probably this is clear point about how to fix this problem  

anyway as I said - one real problem for me - I bougth different ME version and I want to play this one

I'm almost certain that SI would love to have a bigger testing team, if you pay their salaries.

Regarding the ME version, if you'd ever played any previous version of FM, you would have known that the match engine usually changes with every patch, and the final ME version comes with the final patch. You are not buying any particular ME version, you buy the game and by doing so you accept that there will be updates.

[Jesper9000]

7 minutes ago, Mikke said:

I'm almost certain that SI would love to have a bigger testing team, if you pay their salaries.

Regarding the ME version, if you'd ever played any previous version of FM, you would have known that the match engine usually changes with every patch, and the final ME version comes with the final patch. You are not buying any particular ME version, you buy the game and by doing so you accept that there will be updates.

Profit and money to pay salaries is generated by releasing a product for your customers that is working and will make them comeback. I have bought the game every since CM, but I am not sure I will do it next year. 

Too many issues with FM20, and communication from SI is not good enough. I don't require them to enter this thread to "defend" their product, but they could issue a statement about the development of next patch. No wonder that people is getting frustrated and loss their patience, when SI don't give any information or time line. 

 

[Etebaer]

The question is not if this ME is perfect - the question is if this ME is better than the Iteration b4 it and if this "better" is statistical, visual, phylosophical, whatever - in the end: Does it make the game as realistic and enjoyable as humanly possible?

 

[kiwityke1983]

There are lots of things to admire about FM20. The development centre and club vision are excellent additions that have made my long term save far more interesting than it usually is at this stage. 

But I dunno if I'll still be playing FM20 in 2 or 3 months as the ME just frustrates and bores me to tears. 

Just rip out the ME put in FM19s and you'd have the best FM of all time by miles. As it stands it's probably the most disappointing in a decade. 

Even just rolling back to the release ME (which had issues but nothing as bad or as glaring as this one) and you'd have the best FM ever IMO. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

24 minutes ago, Jesper9000 said:

I don't require them to enter this thread to "defend" their product, but they could issue a statement about the development of next patch. No wonder that people is getting frustrated and loss their patience, when SI don't give any information or time line. 

 

Ok, I'll bite. 

So, SI updates the entitled people on this forum that an update is being worked on and should be ready in three days. 

Three days passes, no update, as they've noticed something else and want to make sure it's properly tested before updating the current game.

Cue meltdown everywhere. 

Updates are like the pre-release beta. They are ready when they're ready. 

[kombinat13]

11 hours ago, KUBI said:

They offer to try the demo before you buy it, they update the game regularly. If you buy a book and at page 115 you close it, does the publisher offer an updated version? You really need to put things into proportion.

this is a bad example. if i read a book and i think it is not good i just don´t buy anymore books from that author. so i go in a bookstore and buy a better book out of the genre. but in this case we have no other choice, there is only this product. 

we are like junkies. we are addictetd to a certain product wich only is offered from one company. and for most people it is not satisfying for the money we payed. and now we are here and have a problem and trying to find a solution. also in the longterm.

and i think it was not worth the money. if it was a DLC for a third of the price it would be a another issue. i think this would actually value th state of this game.

by the way is 30 pounds 55 euros? i paid 55 euros and this is a price of a triple A game. do you think this is a triple A game?

[Neil Brock]

There's a number of issues which have been raised by the community, but having spoken to the match team in more depth, there's a few things on the radar. With one-on-ones it's not as simple as say 'players are missing too many', first of all, why are they missing them? Are they ignoring players in better positions and taking on shots from worse angles? Sometimes yes. But then we can't always have the players making the right decisions every time as that isn't realistic either. It's a real balancing act. We can't just up their ability to score one on ones, it's not that simplistic. But yes, conversion and how these chances are taken is something we're looking at.

We're also aware that defending longer balls through the middle requires attention and appreciate everyone who has raised examples. We've also seen a number of people raise issues with missed penalties. This is more of an odd one as our stats taken over thousands of seasons to get an average suggest that the overall number of penalties converted per season is about right - so we've got a bit more of a theory that perhaps there's an issue specifically with highly rated penalty takers. This is something under review, but as with everything else it's not always quite as obvious as it seems. 

We're also aware of an issue related to clear cut chances being record inaccurately - sometimes chances are being marked as CCC when if you watch them back they may be considered half chances or even less. This is giving an inflated view that lots of chances are being missed which should be scored. That's not to try and say that conversion rates are perfect and it's just the stats showing it wrong, but we do think this could do with some tweaking alongside the match AI. Just because I've not mentioned other specifics doesn't mean other issues are being ignored. There are hundreds of areas we'd like to try and improve, some of which are more realistic than others given our resources. What we always aim for is a balanced, fair match engine which outputs the kinds of results which the appropriate team strengths and tactical setups should be achieving. We do feel like we have that now, but of course we're aware of feedback and as said, are always striving to improve the game where we can. 

Realistically the match engine is not an easy area of the game to improve and given the amount of work and testing required to make sure any changes do as we expect and don't have any knock-ons, we're going to need time. Whilst the old adage of never say never, with the holidays approaching it's unlikely we'll be able to release any further changes to the match engine until the New Year. We really do appreciate anyone who takes the time to raise any issue or add additional examples via the match engine bug forums. We'll still be adding to and logging new issues into our bugs database to make sure everything is recorded and can be investigated by our match team. Appreciate those who take the time to read these types of messages from us. We are busy so don't always have the time to respond to every post, but we do try to make sure as much as possible is read.

Also would appreciate at this time of year remember the Mods on these forums are volunteers. They're not paid for helping out, they do so as they just want people to try and enjoy the game and when on these forums, be able to engage with each other in the best way possible. Whilst you don't always have to agree with them (or us for that matter) please try to respect their opinions. Likewise everyone at SI and within the Mod team tries to respect your opinions, even if they're critical of us. All we'd ask is if you are criticising please try and keep it constructive. We don't want to be in a position where we're restricting anyone's access to these forums, but direct attacks on other users, moderators or the development team won't be tolerated. 

Cheers. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

2 minutes ago, kombinat13 said:

but in this case we have no other choice, there is only this product. 
 

You do have a choice. Don't buy it. People on here talk as if they are forced to buy FM every year. Honestly, I've beaten this drum many times, but if you don't enjoy something, why put yourself through the agony of continuing to buy/play it? It makes absolutely no sense. And the 'there no alternative' doesn't wash either. There's always an alternative. Do something else. 

 

6 minutes ago, kombinat13 said:

do you think this is a triple A game?

I currently have around 500 hours into this game, and it's one month from its release date. The most amount of hours I've ever put into a AAA game is Skyrim which I must have over 200 hours on, and that's been out nearly 10 years. So, yes, while FM doesn't have a AAA budget, the value for money in terms of the amount of hours you get from it is unbeatable. 

[BigV]

4 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

There's a number of issues which have been raised by the community, but having spoken to the match team in more depth, there's a few things on the radar. With one-on-ones it's not as simple as say 'players are missing too many', first of all, why are they missing them? Are they ignoring players in better positions and taking on shots from worse angles? Sometimes yes. But then we can't always have the players making the right decisions every time as that isn't realistic either. It's a real balancing act. We can't just up their ability to score one on ones, it's not that simplistic. But yes, conversion and how these chances are taken is something we're looking at.

We're also aware that defending longer balls through the middle requires attention and appreciate everyone who has raised examples. We've also seen a number of people raise issues with missed penalties. This is more of an odd one as our stats taken over thousands of seasons to get an average suggest that the overall number of penalties converted per season is about right - so we've got a bit more of a theory that perhaps there's an issue specifically with highly rated penalty takers. This is something under review, but as with everything else it's not always quite as obvious as it seems. 

We're also aware of an issue related to clear cut chances being record inaccurately - sometimes chances are being marked as CCC when if you watch them back they may be considered half chances or even less. This is giving an inflated view that lots of chances are being missed which should be scored. That's not to try and say that conversion rates are perfect and it's just the stats showing it wrong, but we do think this could do with some tweaking alongside the match AI. Just because I've not mentioned other specifics doesn't mean other issues are being ignored. There are hundreds of areas we'd like to try and improve, some of which are more realistic than others given our resources. What we always aim for is a balanced, fair match engine which outputs the kinds of results which the appropriate team strengths and tactical setups should be achieving. We do feel like we have that now, but of course we're aware of feedback and as said, are always striving to improve the game where we can. 

Realistically the match engine is not an easy area of the game to improve and given the amount of work and testing required to make sure any changes do as we expect and don't have any knock-ons, we're going to need time. Whilst the old adage of never say never, with the holidays approaching it's unlikely we'll be able to release any further changes to the match engine until the New Year. We really do appreciate anyone who takes the time to raise any issue or add additional examples via the match engine bug forums. We'll still be adding to and logging new issues into our bugs database to make sure everything is recorded and can be investigated by our match team. Appreciate those who take the time to read these types of messages from us. We are busy so don't always have the time to respond to every post, but we do try to make sure as much as possible is read.

Also would appreciate at this time of year remember the Mods on these forums are volunteers. They're not paid for helping out, they do so as they just want people to try and enjoy the game and when on these forums, be able to engage with each other in the best way possible. Whilst you don't always have to agree with them (or us for that matter) please try to respect their opinions. Likewise everyone at SI and within the Mod team tries to respect your opinions, even if they're critical of us. All we'd ask is if you are criticising please try and keep it constructive. We don't want to be in a position where we're restricting anyone's access to these forums, but direct attacks on other users, moderators or the development team won't be tolerated. 

Cheers. 

Thanks Neil I think this is something people have been crying out for, some explanation to why or what yous think are happening behind the scenes. Much appreciated!! 

[Eschaba]

12 hours ago, KUBI said:

They offer to try the demo before you buy it, they update the game regularly. If you buy a book and at page 115 you close it, does the publisher offer an updated version? You really need to put things into proportion.

 

So what if you played the demo and thought this isn't too bad actually, and was enjoying it etc, and decided to purchase the full game, and not long after, an update (or several!) came out and made the game worse, play-wise and possibly started crashing, and it was too late for a refund?? Technically speaking, it's a different ME/game than the one the demo represented, and surely that's false advertising?

[Sharkn20]

11 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

There's a number of issues which have been raised by the community, but having spoken to the match team in more depth, there's a few things on the radar. With one-on-ones it's not as simple as say 'players are missing too many', first of all, why are they missing them? Are they ignoring players in better positions and taking on shots from worse angles? Sometimes yes. But then we can't always have the players making the right decisions every time as that isn't realistic either. It's a real balancing act. We can't just up their ability to score one on ones, it's not that simplistic. But yes, conversion and how these chances are taken is something we're looking at.

We're also aware that defending longer balls through the middle requires attention and appreciate everyone who has raised examples. We've also seen a number of people raise issues with missed penalties. This is more of an odd one as our stats taken over thousands of seasons to get an average suggest that the overall number of penalties converted per season is about right - so we've got a bit more of a theory that perhaps there's an issue specifically with highly rated penalty takers. This is something under review, but as with everything else it's not always quite as obvious as it seems. 

We're also aware of an issue related to clear cut chances being record inaccurately - sometimes chances are being marked as CCC when if you watch them back they may be considered half chances or even less. This is giving an inflated view that lots of chances are being missed which should be scored. That's not to try and say that conversion rates are perfect and it's just the stats showing it wrong, but we do think this could do with some tweaking alongside the match AI. Just because I've not mentioned other specifics doesn't mean other issues are being ignored. There are hundreds of areas we'd like to try and improve, some of which are more realistic than others given our resources. What we always aim for is a balanced, fair match engine which outputs the kinds of results which the appropriate team strengths and tactical setups should be achieving. We do feel like we have that now, but of course we're aware of feedback and as said, are always striving to improve the game where we can. 

Realistically the match engine is not an easy area of the game to improve and given the amount of work and testing required to make sure any changes do as we expect and don't have any knock-ons, we're going to need time. Whilst the old adage of never say never, with the holidays approaching it's unlikely we'll be able to release any further changes to the match engine until the New Year. We really do appreciate anyone who takes the time to raise any issue or add additional examples via the match engine bug forums. We'll still be adding to and logging new issues into our bugs database to make sure everything is recorded and can be investigated by our match team. Appreciate those who take the time to read these types of messages from us. We are busy so don't always have the time to respond to every post, but we do try to make sure as much as possible is read.

Also would appreciate at this time of year remember the Mods on these forums are volunteers. They're not paid for helping out, they do so as they just want people to try and enjoy the game and when on these forums, be able to engage with each other in the best way possible. Whilst you don't always have to agree with them (or us for that matter) please try to respect their opinions. Likewise everyone at SI and within the Mod team tries to respect your opinions, even if they're critical of us. All we'd ask is if you are criticising please try and keep it constructive. We don't want to be in a position where we're restricting anyone's access to these forums, but direct attacks on other users, moderators or the development team won't be tolerated. 

Cheers. 

Thanks for this reply, is a good part of what the community is asking for, communication.

[Eschaba]

Seeing too, as the ME is built on the same platform/mechanics every year, and a 'new game' comes out every year. It's like if I write on a piece of paper and then erase it out all the time, and re-write on it. It's still the same piece of paper.

[kombinat13]

55 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

You do have a choice. Don't buy it. People on here talk as if they are forced to buy FM every year. Honestly, I've beaten this drum many times, but if you don't enjoy something, why put yourself through the agony of continuing to buy/play it? It makes absolutely no sense. And the 'there no alternative' doesn't wash either. There's always an alternative. Do something else. 

 

I currently have around 500 hours into this game, and it's one month from its release date. The most amount of hours I've ever put into a AAA game is Skyrim which I must have over 200 hours on, and that's been out nearly 10 years. So, yes, while FM doesn't have a AAA budget, the value for money in terms of the amount of hours you get from it is unbeatable. 

i think you miss understood this. we want to play a football manager game. so it is the only choice right now. yes you can avoid it and do something else. but thta was not the point.

and time doesn´t reflect a triple A game. you have so many hours in one game because you like it. but it is not likely a triple A game. But nevermind. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by kombinat13

[bitzu_rock]

45 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

There's a number of issues which have been raised by the community, but having spoken to the match team in more depth, there's a few things on the radar. With one-on-ones it's not as simple as say 'players are missing too many', first of all, why are they missing them? Are they ignoring players in better positions and taking on shots from worse angles? Sometimes yes. But then we can't always have the players making the right decisions every time as that isn't realistic either. It's a real balancing act. We can't just up their ability to score one on ones, it's not that simplistic. But yes, conversion and how these chances are taken is something we're looking at.

We're also aware that defending longer balls through the middle requires attention and appreciate everyone who has raised examples. We've also seen a number of people raise issues with missed penalties. This is more of an odd one as our stats taken over thousands of seasons to get an average suggest that the overall number of penalties converted per season is about right - so we've got a bit more of a theory that perhaps there's an issue specifically with highly rated penalty takers. This is something under review, but as with everything else it's not always quite as obvious as it seems. 

We're also aware of an issue related to clear cut chances being record inaccurately - sometimes chances are being marked as CCC when if you watch them back they may be considered half chances or even less. This is giving an inflated view that lots of chances are being missed which should be scored. That's not to try and say that conversion rates are perfect and it's just the stats showing it wrong, but we do think this could do with some tweaking alongside the match AI. Just because I've not mentioned other specifics doesn't mean other issues are being ignored. There are hundreds of areas we'd like to try and improve, some of which are more realistic than others given our resources. What we always aim for is a balanced, fair match engine which outputs the kinds of results which the appropriate team strengths and tactical setups should be achieving. We do feel like we have that now, but of course we're aware of feedback and as said, are always striving to improve the game where we can. 

Realistically the match engine is not an easy area of the game to improve and given the amount of work and testing required to make sure any changes do as we expect and don't have any knock-ons, we're going to need time. Whilst the old adage of never say never, with the holidays approaching it's unlikely we'll be able to release any further changes to the match engine until the New Year. We really do appreciate anyone who takes the time to raise any issue or add additional examples via the match engine bug forums. We'll still be adding to and logging new issues into our bugs database to make sure everything is recorded and can be investigated by our match team. Appreciate those who take the time to read these types of messages from us. We are busy so don't always have the time to respond to every post, but we do try to make sure as much as possible is read.

Also would appreciate at this time of year remember the Mods on these forums are volunteers. They're not paid for helping out, they do so as they just want people to try and enjoy the game and when on these forums, be able to engage with each other in the best way possible. Whilst you don't always have to agree with them (or us for that matter) please try to respect their opinions. Likewise everyone at SI and within the Mod team tries to respect your opinions, even if they're critical of us. All we'd ask is if you are criticising please try and keep it constructive. We don't want to be in a position where we're restricting anyone's access to these forums, but direct attacks on other users, moderators or the development team won't be tolerated. 

Cheers. 

Considering the many issues (bugs) found while playing by the entire community, maybe the game should be released every 2 or 3 years? I am sure that you knew about the 3D match issue (impossible not to be found while testing), but probably for marketing consideration you released the game anyway...i am curios to find out if the community prefers a new game released rarely and without the obvious issues... i guess we all can play a previous game version we believe is not so annoying... anyway my opinion is that from menus and game display there is no much to add...the only issue is the action on the pitch (not even the stadiums representation)...

So instead of annual released you could say..hey! we want to bring a game with 100% no annoying bugs (or 3D weird action during a match), but it will take some time...and when you finally release it....just to be playable in such a manner that only tinny issues to be reported by users.

Just a thought....

[Alannnnn]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

There's a number of issues which have been raised by the community, but having spoken to the match team in more depth, there's a few things on the radar. With one-on-ones it's not as simple as say 'players are missing too many', first of all, why are they missing them? Are they ignoring players in better positions and taking on shots from worse angles? Sometimes yes. But then we can't always have the players making the right decisions every time as that isn't realistic either. It's a real balancing act. We can't just up their ability to score one on ones, it's not that simplistic. But yes, conversion and how these chances are taken is something we're looking at.

We're also aware that defending longer balls through the middle requires attention and appreciate everyone who has raised examples. We've also seen a number of people raise issues with missed penalties. This is more of an odd one as our stats taken over thousands of seasons to get an average suggest that the overall number of penalties converted per season is about right - so we've got a bit more of a theory that perhaps there's an issue specifically with highly rated penalty takers. This is something under review, but as with everything else it's not always quite as obvious as it seems. 

We're also aware of an issue related to clear cut chances being record inaccurately - sometimes chances are being marked as CCC when if you watch them back they may be considered half chances or even less. This is giving an inflated view that lots of chances are being missed which should be scored. That's not to try and say that conversion rates are perfect and it's just the stats showing it wrong, but we do think this could do with some tweaking alongside the match AI. Just because I've not mentioned other specifics doesn't mean other issues are being ignored. There are hundreds of areas we'd like to try and improve, some of which are more realistic than others given our resources. What we always aim for is a balanced, fair match engine which outputs the kinds of results which the appropriate team strengths and tactical setups should be achieving. We do feel like we have that now, but of course we're aware of feedback and as said, are always striving to improve the game where we can. 

Realistically the match engine is not an easy area of the game to improve and given the amount of work and testing required to make sure any changes do as we expect and don't have any knock-ons, we're going to need time. Whilst the old adage of never say never, with the holidays approaching it's unlikely we'll be able to release any further changes to the match engine until the New Year. We really do appreciate anyone who takes the time to raise any issue or add additional examples via the match engine bug forums. We'll still be adding to and logging new issues into our bugs database to make sure everything is recorded and can be investigated by our match team. Appreciate those who take the time to read these types of messages from us. We are busy so don't always have the time to respond to every post, but we do try to make sure as much as possible is read.

Also would appreciate at this time of year remember the Mods on these forums are volunteers. They're not paid for helping out, they do so as they just want people to try and enjoy the game and when on these forums, be able to engage with each other in the best way possible. Whilst you don't always have to agree with them (or us for that matter) please try to respect their opinions. Likewise everyone at SI and within the Mod team tries to respect your opinions, even if they're critical of us. All we'd ask is if you are criticising please try and keep it constructive. We don't want to be in a position where we're restricting anyone's access to these forums, but direct attacks on other users, moderators or the development team won't be tolerated. 

Cheers. 

So the issue is this: Why do you chop and change it every year, KNOWING, there's going to be bugs? I mean, how many years now do you change things in the match engine once you iron out all the issues in FM19( after many patches), to releasing a horrendous mess with glaring issues the next year? Who's ripping up the match engine every year to go and sell some garbage? Who's actually making this decision? It's ridiculous. It's like releasing a FPS where the gun only shoots some times. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Alannnnn

[roykela]

2 minutes ago, bitzu_rock said:

Considering the many issues (bugs) found while playing by the entire community, maybe the game should be released every 2 or 3 years? I am sure that you knew about the 3D match issue (impossible not to be found while testing), but probably for marketing consideration you released the game anyway...i am curios to find out if the community prefers a new game released rarely and without the obvious issues... i guess we all can play a previous game version we believe is not so annoying... anyway my opinion is that from menus and game display there is no much to add...the only issue is the action on the pitch (not even the stadiums representation)...

So instead of annual released you could say..hey! we want to bring a game with 100% no annoying bugs (or 3D weird action during a match), but it will take some time...and when you finally release it....just to be playable in such a manner that only tinny issues to be reported by users.

Just a thought....

What do you mean by 3D match issue and what are the annoying bugs and obvious issues?

[alian62]

6 minutes ago, bitzu_rock said:

Considering the many issues (bugs) found while playing by the entire community, maybe the game should be released every 2 or 3 years? I am sure that you knew about the 3D match issue (impossible not to be found while testing), but probably for marketing consideration you released the game anyway...i am curios to find out if the community prefers a new game released rarely and without the obvious issues... i guess we all can play a previous game version we believe is not so annoying... anyway my opinion is that from menus and game display there is no much to add...the only issue is the action on the pitch (not even the stadiums representation)...

So instead of annual released you could say..hey! we want to bring a game with 100% no annoying bugs (or 3D weird action during a match), but it will take some time...and when you finally release it....just to be playable in such a manner that only tinny issues to be reported by users.

Just a thought....

2 or 3 years they would go broke . Turnover is the key every year to release just enough new stuff to keep people interested 

[roykela]

Just now, Alannnnn said:

So the issue is this? Why do you chop and change it every year KNOWING, there's going to be bug. I mean, how many years now do you change things in the match engine once it was quite good in FM19( after many patches), to releasing a horrendous mess with glaring issues? Who's actually making this decision? It's ridiculous. It's like releasing a FPS where the gun only shoots some times. 

There will ALWAYS be bugs. It's a computer software program. A rather large and complicated one as well.
It was quite good for you, perhaps. There were still people who thought FM19's ME was the worst one ever.
What glaring issues are you specifically pointing towards?

[bitzu_rock]

2 minutes ago, roykela said:

There will ALWAYS be bugs. It's a computer software program. A rather large and complicated one as well.
It was quite good for you, perhaps. There were still people who thought FM19's ME was the worst one ever.
What glaring issues are you specifically pointing towards?

The ones reported on the forums....

Edited December 18, 2019 by bitzu_rock

[roykela]

Just now, bitzu_rock said:

The one reported on the forums....

The one? There are hundreds there, so which one?