Is The Game Too Easy?

[Spanner]

11 hours ago, Preveza said:

Happy for you man. But Barnet winning the UCL in 9 seasons is ludicrous lol.

I have to agree with Preveza here ...Bravo to you @teknotel 

...the way you won the final sounds 100% fair. But it still amazes me that you did it.

Its crazy, i used to live near their home stadium and my mates worked in the burger bar selling and making the burgers/drinks for supporters!!

[teknotel]

8 hours ago, Spanner said:

I have to agree with Preveza here ...Bravo to you @teknotel 

...the way you won the final sounds 100% fair. But it still amazes me that you did it.

Its crazy, i used to live near their home stadium and my mates worked in the burger bar selling and making the burgers/drinks for supporters!!

What Barnet? I grew up very nearby, they were always my local team so I always play as them in FM.

Yeah it amazed me too before. I never set out to win the UCL just get to Prem as fast as I could. 5 Seasons is my PB only stalling for one season in the champ. Even that is very unrealistic.

[goranm]

8 hours ago, grade said:

If you in anyway felt insulted, I apologise.

Don't worry about it, I wasn't insulted

Porto winning the EC in 87 is actually quite well known in my country, since the manager who took over at the end of 86/87 season and won the Super and Intercontinental cups with them was my compatroit.

Quote

But in your own words, Porto is mediocre team, because they haven't won no european titles in a few years or not likely to win the Champions League every year, then in your own words Arsenal, Dortmund, Chelsea, Man. United, Man City, PSG, Inter and Milan are also mediocre teams since there has been a few years since they won the Champions League.

No, it's not the same. There's a difference between a historically great side and a currently great side (current with respect to a particular year). Porto in 2004 was a historically great side, but no one pegged them for UCL winners. They were considered mediocre. Pretty much the same team failed to even qualify for the UCL the season before. The difference between Porto in 2004 and Man Utd today is Porto's previous success in Europe was 17 years before 2004, while Man Utd's was 3 years ago. Same goes for Chelsea, Dortmund, City, PSG, Inter and Liverpool who all had sustained success in Europe over the past 10 years. These teams get into the UCL knockout stages regularly. Porto in 2003 wasn't even playing in the UCL.

Milan today I definitely consider a mediocre side as they've been struggling to even get into the Europa League for the past couple of years. Historically they're giants, but today they're a mid-table Italian team.

Quote

But Mediocre is hardly the correct word to describe a team that has been a regular in Champions League/European Cup since the 1980s. The same goes to Steaua or Red Star or Galatasaray or Benfica or Ajax or any teams that achieve the Champions League group stage.

Well I disagree here. I think mediocre is the perfect word to describe them - the Merriam-Webster definition is "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance". Teams from former Yugoslavia, Romania or Bulgaria are usually punching bags in the group stage, if they even manage to qualify.  Teams like Galatasaray, Benfica or Ajax may have a great season in Europe once in a while, but rarely sustain it. If they're not mediocre, what are they then? They're certainly not elite.

8 hours ago, grade said:

Is Liverpool a mediocre team, as they got knocked out in Round of 16 in this years Champions league? In your vision, i guess so. Okay, got it! 

Again, no, that's you putting words in my mouth. Liverpool is literally the current UCL, PL, CWC, and USC champion, with one of the most dominating displays in a PL campaign. There's nothing mediocre about that. Again, context is key.

[Urotsukidoji]

The game is easy for an experienced player, but for a new player it can be really hard. Imagine playing the game for the first time, and having to make tactics, training, buying players, actually playing the game with absolutely no experience.

 

[grade]

18 hours ago, goranm said:

Don't worry about it, I wasn't insulted

Porto winning the EC in 87 is actually quite well known in my country, since the manager who took over at the end of 86/87 season and won the Super and Intercontinental cups with them was my compatroit.

No, it's not the same. There's a difference between a historically great side and a currently great side (current with respect to a particular year). Porto in 2004 was a historically great side, but no one pegged them for UCL winners. They were considered mediocre. Pretty much the same team failed to even qualify for the UCL the season before. The difference between Porto in 2004 and Man Utd today is Porto's previous success in Europe was 17 years before 2004, while Man Utd's was 3 years ago. Same goes for Chelsea, Dortmund, City, PSG, Inter and Liverpool who all had sustained success in Europe over the past 10 years. These teams get into the UCL knockout stages regularly. Porto in 2003 wasn't even playing in the UCL.

Milan today I definitely consider a mediocre side as they've been struggling to even get into the Europa League for the past couple of years. Historically they're giants, but today they're a mid-table Italian team.

Well I disagree here. I think mediocre is the perfect word to describe them - the Merriam-Webster definition is "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance". Teams from former Yugoslavia, Romania or Bulgaria are usually punching bags in the group stage, if they even manage to qualify.  Teams like Galatasaray, Benfica or Ajax may have a great season in Europe once in a while, but rarely sustain it. If they're not mediocre, what are they then? They're certainly not elite.

Again, no, that's you putting words in my mouth. Liverpool is literally the current UCL, PL, CWC, and USC champion, with one of the most dominating displays in a PL campaign. There's nothing mediocre about that. Again, context is key.

I don't agree with you. Still think Mediocre team is the wrong term to be used here.

[Nahuelzn]

The game is easy because you just need average players to beat better sides. So, with a mid-table team you can do a great season or even win it. You could argue that it happens in real life, Leicester for example. But that's the exception, not the norm. In FM is the norm for human players (which makes sense since we can outsmart the AI). So, just get a good squad and you'll eventually win.

That's why I'm in favour on having difficulty settings. The game can't include all type of players with one size to fit all shoes. Some players want an easy game and if they lose 3 matches they'll quit. Others, like me, want a real challenge. I enjoy fighting for every win. And both ways of playing the game are valid since this is a solo-game. So we should be able to fully customize how that game operates. 

 

In the end, FM is a complex game. But being complex doesn't mean it's hard. I think it could be harder but they don't want to because it affects a lot of players. It's reasonable. People like to win and you want people to still play the game. I just would like to have the chance to configure a harder path.

 

 

[MartinGregory84]

On 03/08/2020 at 06:54, nully29 said:

4231 is basically an auto win in FM20. 

I am using a 442 to great effect this year with the odd tactical switch.

[Burbian De Bay]

I remember when I was 13 years old playing CM93, winning absolutely everything with Halifax. Now I am a bit older, and even though I go deep into the details of my FM Touch save game, I struggle when managing lower league teams. I usually get immediate success the first seasons, and then it goes downhill again. In my opinion the game is very well balanced.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Burbian De Bay

[fishjp]

It all varies on the user, the team used, tactics, etc. The game isn't too easy or too hard. It's what you personally make of it. Lots of factors come into it. If you're winning, bloody good on you and well done. If you're finding it tough, that's great too as there's things to work out and improve.

[Svenc]

8 hours ago, Nahuelzn said:

That's why I'm in favour on having difficulty settings. The game can't include all type of players with one size to fit all shoes. Some players want an easy game and if they lose 3 matches they'll quit. Others, like me, want a real challenge. I enjoy fighting for every win. And both ways of playing the game are valid since this is a solo-game. So we should be able to fully customize how that game operates. 

I've always argued that different levels of assistants could act as a (realistic) difficulty setting. Actual managers are working with (tactical / data / training etc. etc. etc.) specialists in real football -- in parts to cover their own acknowledged weakness. What's more, assistants are AI (managers). Improving AI would thus have two benefits: Helping players in the form of assistants, as well as providing additional challenge.

However, difficulty levels come at a price. I think anybody who argues he isn't at all affected by achievements made by players surrounding his -- in particular in this age of social media et all -- is a lier. So for somebody who still finds the game too hard, it may be frustrating to see how many players there are who win absolutely everything. Vice versa, for somebody else it may kill all feeling of achievement if he witnesses the same and that all it takes may be a bit of patience and the right kind of assistants... 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Svenc

[Spanner]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

I've always argued that different levels of assistants could act as a (realistic) difficulty setting. Actual managers are working with (tactical / data / training etc. etc. etc.) specialists in real football -- in parts to cover their own acknowledged weakness. What's more, assistants are AI (managers). Improving AI would thus have two benefits: Helping players in the form of assistants, as well as providing additional challenge.

However, difficulty levels come at a price. I think anybody who argues he isn't at all affected by achievements made by players surrounding his -- in particular in this age of social media et all -- is a lier. So for somebody who still finds the game too hard, it may be frustrating to see how many players there are who win absolutely everything. Vice versa, for somebody else it may kill all feeling of achievement if he witnesses the same and that all it takes may be a bit of patience and the right kind of assistants... 

There is already a way to make the game easier for those that need it.

If you take a moment to think about things your difficulty level suggestion is already possible to a certain extent.

• In-game editor
• Reload and play again if you lose, player gets injured, negotiations fail etc…

These 2 things can help you ‘adjust the level of difficulty’.

For me the above 2 things are cheating but learning from your mistakes or changing whatever you can with the in-game editor will help you.

I do not know what the in-game editor is capable of but by the sounds of it, you can do pretty much whatever you want.

[Etebaer]

FM20 is not an easy game - i have seen on yt vids (Rocket Beans had an FM20 run i.e.) of people play this game and being completely clueless losing game after game with a top 2 team or only winning bcs you have the very superior team of the league and let it carry you (like in said Rocket Beans FM20 play).

With knowledge and experience you can at some point become op but for a player who is new to the game it is maybe not the "Mount Everest" of games but still the "Matterhorn" which can kill you very easy if you do it not very right

[yolixeya]

Most games are fairly easy when you get the hang of it but can be pretty challenging in the beginning. Those who claim that is easy and winning everything are often FM veterans who played the series for years and forgot the time when they struggled as newbie. And you can see that in the tactics & training part of the forum.

I got back to the FM with FM18 and though I don't have a problem with winning, I am not successful with everything I try to do. I recently tried to step out of my comfort zone and tried to make my first tactic with RMD and it was a mixed bag. Tactic worked and I achieved clubs goals but my RMD wasn't the top scorer like I wanted. Game can be challenging when you give yourself specific goals like that.

[Draakon]

For a beginner - no. For experienced players - yes.

But what makes FM so good is that you can always start a new save with a new challenge. Youth only, lower leagues etc.

 

What makes FM easy, at least in the long run (career save): manager reputation + team talks + man management. If you get good enough reputation for your current club/division, so that players respect you, and you know what to say in the dressing room (even clueless beginners figure that out eventually) and you know how to keep your players happy, it gets easier as the game progresses. Winning breeds confidence and leads to following wins, wins increase reputation and attract players (+ money) etc.

What makes FM difficult: your own house rules, whatever kind you wish for.

[EazyEee]

I really hope there is an advanced / expert mode in the future, some sort of difficulty level would make the game more challenging and enjoyable to the more experienced players. I get its a difficult balance though, SI need to make. the game such where going from league 2 to the UCL final is possible to make the game fun.

[Xavier Lukhas]

On 02/08/2020 at 23:16, DasMagicMullet said:

I played regularly from CM93 through to FM2009, then had a decade off to raise kids, work long hours and grow old (I never enjoyed the 3D match engine either to be honest).

I came back to FM20 when it was included with the Xbox Game Pass and also managed to pick up a copy for the Switch. I've now completed 2 seasons on each platform and I'm amazed how easy the game seems.

On the Switch, I spent a season with Altrincham, won the league at a canter, losing only once. At the end of the season I moved to Forest Green and won the league at a canter, losing only once.

On the PC, I'm at the end of my 2nd season and I'm yet to lose a league game. First season I played as Dukla Prague, before moving to Sparta Prague. Both times I was 3rd favourite for the title, but managed to go a combined 66 games unbeaten. No restarts, no save skips.

During the 15-16 years of my heavy playing I was never a master tactician, which is why it's surprised me how easy 20 feels. I've played the same formation with all 4 teams, 4231, but I dunno, seems odd.

For me FM has been "high floor, low ceiling". As noted my others and many threads in this forum, the game for a beginner is almost an obstacle course of confusing wording, things not meaning what they would mean when taken at face value (I'm looking at you, "Exploit Left/Right Flank"), learning not to trust the AI in any way, shape or form because your staff ranges from merely incompetent to untrustworthy to actually downright stupid, learning the hidden options or sub-menus or vice-versa when something that used to be there no longer is (I still don't know where SI put the Agent Offer options in FM20, it used to be in Responsibilities!)... FM always had this thing where unlike most strategy games where the information and inner working is very clearly laid-out and the mechanics and systems are explained, FM is supposed to remain somewhat mysterious in how it actually works, resulting on too many curveball explanations.

It became so unnecessarily complex to the point that in the last few releases, SI tried their best to try to simplify the game; but combined with the addition of more feature, it resulted in more layers of graphical interface and more sub-menus, and options being added and removed; basically more confusing stuff. I'd dare say earlier FMs are simpler despite there being less obviously explained as a result of all that's being added on through the years; and I think it's been echoed in the forums before, so I don't think it's that controversial of an opinion. As such, FM is incredibly reliant on its community to actually help you with the game instead of the game being able to explain itself and tell you how it works without looking up on "what do you mean positional ratings are objective and based on the player's Versatility hidden attribute but role ratings are your staff's opinion and you can disregard it? They're in the same screen!".

But when you actually know how to play FM, there isn't a whole lot more to it. The flaws just jump at your face: the opposition's AI isn't good, your staff is stupid, promises serve no purpose, how the opposition plays you isn't based on scouting or adapting to your tactics but just on Reputation, you'll want to slap your players for spitting you in the face when you congratulate them about their first international goal, the FM's ME hardly looks or play like real football despite SI (or specifically Miles Jacobson) being extremely adamant that FM is the closest there is to the real thing. I suppose he isn't technically wrong in that FM is the closest thing to the real beautiful game; I just wouldn't call it a simulation either.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[Spanner]

On 09/08/2020 at 02:22, Xavier Lukhas said:

For me FM has been "high floor, low ceiling". As noted my others and many threads in this forum, the game for a beginner is almost an obstacle course of confusing wording, things not meaning what they would mean when taken at face value (I'm looking at you, "Exploit Left/Right Flank"), learning not to trust the AI in any way, shape or form because your staff ranges from merely incompetent to untrustworthy to actually downright stupid, learning the hidden options or sub-menus or vice-versa when something that used to be there no longer is (I still don't know where SI put the Agent Offer options in FM20, it used to be in Responsibilities!)... FM always had this thing where unlike most strategy games where the information and inner working is very clearly laid-out and the mechanics and systems are explained, FM is supposed to remain somewhat mysterious in how it actually works, resulting on too many curveball explanations.

It became so unnecessarily complex to the point that in the last few releases, SI tried their best to try to simplify the game; but combined with the addition of more feature, it resulted in more layers of graphical interface and more sub-menus, and options being added and removed; basically more confusing stuff. I'd dare say earlier FMs are simpler despite there being less obviously explained as a result of all that's being added on through the years; and I think it's been echoed in the forums before, so I don't think it's that controversial of an opinion. As such, FM is incredibly reliant on its community to actually help you with the game instead of the game being able to explain itself and tell you how it works without looking up on "what do you mean positional ratings are objective and based on the player's Versatility hidden attribute but role ratings are your staff's opinion and you can disregard it? They're in the same screen!".

But when you actually know how to play FM, there isn't a whole lot more to it. The flaws just jump at your face: the opposition's AI isn't good, your staff is stupid, promises serve no purpose, how the opposition plays you isn't based on scouting or adapting to your tactics but just on Reputation, you'll want to slap your players for spitting you in the face when you congratulate them about their first international goal, the FM's ME hardly looks or play like real football despite SI (or specifically Miles Jacobson) being extremely adamant that FM is the closest there is to the real thing. I suppose he isn't technically wrong in that FM is the closest thing to the real beautiful game; I just wouldn't call it a simulation either.

An interesting comment which has many topics within it.

The area which interests me is '...... As noted my others and many threads in this forum, the game for a beginner is almost an obstacle course of confusing wording, things not meaning.... '

This is true and I remember back in the old Champ Manager days…trying to figure everything out and work my way through the obstacle course, as you say.

Champ Manager was not for the feint-hearted. You needed passion, commitment and a strong desire to play the game which back in those days was very different and more for the hardcore football fan. It definitely was not as popular as it is today.

The dividends now, which is paying out bigtime during these corona times, is that an old skool champ manager player can now pick-up and play quite easily the new FM games. As you wrote 'But when you actually know how to play FM, there isn't a whole lot more to it'

I firmly believe, there are 2 key factors as to why an old-skool Champ player can have a 10-15 years break from the game and then come back to play it, have success and find the whole process relatively easy: 

1. Back in the day, we had no forums for quick help or easy fixes.

It was literally your mates helped you out or you were all on your own. Finding another player of the game was like finding gold or oil at the bottom of your garden….absolutely epic!
It was sink-or-swim in many ways and those who did not have the passion, found it too difficult and lost interest in the game….then…. they gave up!

2. Developing tactics and finding the right players have always been the foundation of the game.

I will aim to say the next part with respect and fairness. Tactics was not so much asked about or talked about back in the old champ-manager days. It was more about sharing player names and talking about epic players you found or bought.
There was a sense of ‘you’re a manager so you should be able to take care of the tactics’.

With that mentality, a certain strong management style was generated and it is very visible on today's forums. For example, this very thread / topic of conversation.

[HotDogManUK]

I've found it easier than it should be I feel although I haven't done lower League for some time now.

[yolixeya]

22 hours ago, Spanner said:

2. Developing tactics and finding the right players have always been the foundation of the game.

I will aim to say the next part with respect and fairness. Tactics was not so much asked about or talked about back in the old champ-manager days. It was more about sharing player names and talking about epic players you found or bought.
There was a sense of ‘you’re a manager so you should be able to take care of the tactics’.

Finding right players was way more important in my opinion than tactics. I mostly played CM01-02 back in those days and I must say that tactic creator was very limited. I didn't even bother with wib-wobing and could still win everything if I have the right players.

I stopped playing FM after FM09 and I think I came back too it with FM14 and my experience was totally different. I was sacked halfway through the season with Real Madrid and it was the first time I reached for downloaded tactics. New tactic creator was too much for me and looking back now, I didn't know what I was doing. My experience with previous games meant nothing. Then I only played FM16 briefly before coming back to the series with FM18 and decided to learn to play the game and these forums were very helpful with that.

[Spanner]

3 hours ago, yolixeya said:

Finding right players was way more important in my opinion than tactics. I mostly played CM01-02 back in those days and I must say that tactic creator was very limited. I didn't even bother with wib-wobing and could still win everything if I have the right players.

I stopped playing FM after FM09 and I think I came back too it with FM14 and my experience was totally different. I was sacked halfway through the season with Real Madrid and it was the first time I reached for downloaded tactics. New tactic creator was too much for me and looking back now, I didn't know what I was doing. My experience with previous games meant nothing. Then I only played FM16 briefly before coming back to the series with FM18 and decided to learn to play the game and these forums were very helpful with that.

An interesting comparison which was nice to read. You were very honest in your analysis which was very good of you.

I agree that players were very key back in the old days. I feel that tactics were still important and were part of the game but very often people employed a simple idea of ‘get the right players for my tactics’.
The tactics section has developed since the old days but way too much has been made of it, in my opinion. It almost feels like the actual players have been forgotten about and tactics is everything.

You are the first ‘older’ player I have heard about who struggled to adapt to FM. I don’t know how old you are so I apologies if the ‘older’ tag offends you.

I never played any FM games until FM16. Before that time, I was Champ-Manager for quite some time (yes, I am probably one of the older guys in this forum).

I had no problem getting back to the game and I have never been sacked etc… To be honest I found the game very logical. The only hard part was at the beginning to understand Steam and how it functioned in me being able to play the game. LOL.

I was very impressed with how the game had developed, the options it gave and features it had. A logical sequence was easy to have with coaches, training, delegation of duties, tactics, player searches. Also navigating around was clean and easy to do.

Your honest account does make me wonder if my time in the game (real life) has helped me better play the FM simulated version.

I would like to close by asking a personal question.
Have you ever played football to a pro or semi-pro level? Have you ever played football and had to learn different positions or different roles within a tactic?

[yolixeya]

2 hours ago, Spanner said:

I would like to close by asking a personal question.
Have you ever played football to a pro or semi-pro level? Have you ever played football and had to learn different positions or different roles within a tactic?

No a have not played football pro or semi but I don't think that was the problem. I had no trouble understanding what each role meant but new tactic creator as a whole was too many options for me and I probaly made rookie mistakes you see new players do still to this day. I can't give specifics because it was a long time ago and I don't remember, but I do remember I had way too many team instructions before I even understood what they do in FM and probaly my tactics were unbalanced in some way because I remember in that save with Real Madrid I conceded goals on counter attacks often.

I personally know a lot of people who had the same experience as I did. Some of them are my friends who did play football but still struggled. I even know some people who never moved from CM01-02. One of my frinds tried  FM 2005 and was awful and uninstalled the game without giving it a proper chance. He never played FM ever again. And FM 2005 was still fairly simple compared to nowdays.

 

[jase19]

I've been playing since.. 98?  Yeah playing for years makes it easier than someone who just picked it up.  But no it's not easier than it used to be.  There's much more to it than 10 years ago.  Glad you didn't forget how to play and picked up all the new stuff instantly apparently.

[Marcussy]

On 02/08/2020 at 22:16, DasMagicMullet said:

I played regularly from CM93 through to FM2009, then had a decade off to raise kids, work long hours and grow old (I never enjoyed the 3D match engine either to be honest).

I came back to FM20 when it was included with the Xbox Game Pass and also managed to pick up a copy for the Switch. I've now completed 2 seasons on each platform and I'm amazed how easy the game seems.

On the Switch, I spent a season with Altrincham, won the league at a canter, losing only once. At the end of the season I moved to Forest Green and won the league at a canter, losing only once.

On the PC, I'm at the end of my 2nd season and I'm yet to lose a league game. First season I played as Dukla Prague, before moving to Sparta Prague. Both times I was 3rd favourite for the title, but managed to go a combined 66 games unbeaten. No restarts, no save skips.

During the 15-16 years of my heavy playing I was never a master tactician, which is why it's surprised me how easy 20 feels. I've played the same formation with all 4 teams, 4231, but I

 

On 02/08/2020 at 22:16, DasMagicMullet said:

I played regularly from CM93 through to FM2009, then had a decade off to raise kids, work long hours and grow old (I never enjoyed the 3D match engine either to be honest).

I came back to FM20 when it was included with the Xbox Game Pass and also managed to pick up a copy for the Switch. I've now completed 2 seasons on each platform and I'm amazed how easy the game seems.

On the Switch, I spent a season with Altrincham, won the league at a canter, losing only once. At the end of the season I moved to Forest Green and won the league at a canter, losing only once.

On the PC, I'm at the end of my 2nd season and I'm yet to lose a league game. First season I played as Dukla Prague, before moving to Sparta Prague. Both times I was 3rd favourite for the title, but managed to go a combined 66 games unbeaten. No restarts, no save skips.

During the 15-16 years of my heavy playing I was never a master tactician, which is why it's surprised me how easy 20 feels. I've played the same formation with all 4 teams, 4231, but I dunno, seems odd.

No offence but when I clicked on to your post, I expected to read that you had taken Altrincham or Forest Green to Champs League glory in 6-7 seasons dominating all domestic divisions along the way. Or that you had won Champs league with Dukla or Sparta in the space of a couple of seasons.

Your achievements are definitely notable - but I'm genuinely puzzled as to how that leads to a question of whether the game is too easy? You've had a couple of seasons of decent success with 4 small teams - shouldn't you be doing a fair bit more before asking that?

[Marcussy]

On 07/08/2020 at 06:28, Nahuelzn said:

The game is easy because you just need average players to beat better sides. So, with a mid-table team you can do a great season or even win it. You could argue that it happens in real life, Leicester for example. But that's the exception, not the norm. In FM is the norm for human players (which makes sense since we can outsmart the AI). So, just get a good squad and you'll eventually win.

That's why I'm in favour on having difficulty settings. The game can't include all type of players with one size to fit all shoes. Some players want an easy game and if they lose 3 matches they'll quit. Others, like me, want a real challenge. I enjoy fighting for every win. And both ways of playing the game are valid since this is a solo-game. So we should be able to fully customize how that game operates. 

 

In the end, FM is a complex game. But being complex doesn't mean it's hard. I think it could be harder but they don't want to because it affects a lot of players. It's reasonable. People like to win and you want people to still play the game. I just would like to have the chance to configure a harder path.

 

 

There are plenty of ways you can make it more difficult if you find it too easy.

- Start with Sunday league experience and no coaching badges

- Start in the lower leagues with a weak team and set european glory as your target 

- Get a DOF and let them do all your transfer business 

- Use the editor and put a non-league team into the prem and see if you can win it.

Etc etc

Saying that because you can win the league with a midtable side, the game is easy...isn't really that strong a point.

[Impacto]

Generally, I feel that the game is a bit too easy compared to prevoius versions. But then again, the game is more popular now than ever before. I personally have to set myself restrictions in order to make it interesting, but there are some instances where the game is challenging without that. The main issue is that the AI managers, especially the strong ones are not performing as they should. AI teams are too inconsistant and it's too easy for the human manager to beat them. 

I remember how hard it was on FM 08 to get more than a few wins in a row even with a beast team. Now it's a lot easier once you learn how to talk to the team. Also, I feel like there needs to be some more randomness. I can 99% of the time win against bottom teams or against teams in CL outside of the top 6 leagues. This is not the case in RL.

Lastly, I hate it when I am in a thight spot on the last day of the season and the AI bottles it 9 times out of 10. It's like I have this magic advantage that I do not want. The wins need to feel earned, otherwise why do we even bother. 

I understand that there needs to be a balance so that casuals and hardcore players can enjoy the game, and I think the balance right now is slightly off. Just my 2 cents. 

That being said, this is still the best game ever made for me. 

 

 

[Fosse]

The user has massive advantages over the Ai, even if you're an average player you'll do well in the long term because you'll easily build a better squad than who you're up against. I'd say I'm decent at the game but still find it a struggle to break into the top 4 with Leicester in the first few seasons. This year feels a bit easy compared to others because there's a bit of meta with set pieces and crossing, if you utilise those property you can turn an average team into an unrealistically successful one

[Spanner]

On 11/08/2020 at 15:43, yolixeya said:

No a have not played football pro or semi but I don't think that was the problem. I had no trouble understanding what each role meant but new tactic creator as a whole was too many options for me and I probaly made rookie mistakes you see new players do still to this day. I can't give specifics because it was a long time ago and I don't remember, but I do remember I had way too many team instructions before I even understood what they do in FM and probaly my tactics were unbalanced in some way because I remember in that save with Real Madrid I conceded goals on counter attacks often.

I personally know a lot of people who had the same experience as I did. Some of them are my friends who did play football but still struggled. I even know some people who never moved from CM01-02. One of my frinds tried  FM 2005 and was awful and uninstalled the game without giving it a proper chance. He never played FM ever again. And FM 2005 was still fairly simple compared to nowdays.

 

Gotcha,
its good to hear some very honest accounts of playing the game.

Perhaps it’s just something that i love, have been involved in and really enjoy in general. I think the ease with which you can navigate around or through the options in each category has helped me.

I also have a strong playing DNA and coaching idea.... so pre, in-game and post decisions have never been stressful for me in these areas. Player hunting and contract negotiations were fairly straight forward as well.

Having to deal with a Director of Football was hard for me and that took some time to get to grips with.

Sounds like i have been lucky and missed some really bad FM games as well (for example, FM05 as you wrote).

Thanks for sharing your experiences and comparisons 

[Spanner]

On 11/08/2020 at 22:47, Marcussy said:

 

No offence but when I clicked on to your post, I expected to read that you had taken Altrincham or Forest Green to Champs League glory in 6-7 seasons dominating all domestic divisions along the way. Or that you had won Champs league with Dukla or Sparta in the space of a couple of seasons.

Your achievements are definitely notable - but I'm genuinely puzzled as to how that leads to a question of whether the game is too easy? You've had a couple of seasons of decent success with 4 small teams - shouldn't you be doing a fair bit more before asking that?

Hi Marcussy,

Let me help.

In the old champ-manager days i never won the league with Westham..... The best i did was UEFA cup success and a 4th place finish after many many seasons.

Fast forward to FM16 and i won the league with Newcastle in my 1st season, then on a different FM16 save i won the league with Westham in my 1st season plus in my 2nd season i won the champions league!!

Take a moment, think about it and lets be honest......Westham and Champions league don't really fit together do they.

DasMagicMullet is correct in his analysis based on his experience. I can personally say that the game has become easier but that doesn't have to apply to all players of the game. 

Success in the game and the ease of the game is all relative. 

[Erimus1876]

On 04/08/2020 at 08:17, sporadicsmiles said:

I have used the same basic setup for my teams for about years now (probably 5 or so). It works every year because it is built around actual solid ideas to create chances in football matches. And it does make the game harder when you play this way, because you are not trying to cheese goals from the AI (again, if thats how you want to play fair enough, this is not a veiled insult). So you lose games you should win, you win games you should lose. I find it much more rewarding. And despite having success with this, I do not find the game easy. I have to pay attention to matches, respond to what is happening in games, make changes etc. While there are games I just win, more often than not I have to at least pay some attention.

Could you please PM me your tactic?  It sounds like something I've been trying to setup myself for a while - something that doesn't exploit weaknesses in the match engine.  I'm looking for a tactic that tasks me to micro manage the actual match as and when needed during play, and not have the hands off approach because my tactics overpower the opposition due to flawed AI logic.

[Etebaer]

One of the very goals of Tactic is to find flaws in the oposition tactic be it HI or AI to be exploited!

If there are no obvious flaws then you need better players that can simply overpower the oposition players and tactic...

Players are still the most influencing factor as every other thing is fully depending on them - you can make good players worse with bad training and flawed tactics but you can NOT make bad players good with superior traning and flawless tactics!!!

That is a truth about football that is somtimes forgotten!

[Marcussy]

6 hours ago, Spanner said:

Hi Marcussy,

Let me help.

In the old champ-manager days i never won the league with Westham..... The best i did was UEFA cup success and a 4th place finish after many many seasons.

Fast forward to FM16 and i won the league with Newcastle in my 1st season, then on a different FM16 save i won the league with Westham in my 1st season plus in my 2nd season i won the champions league!!

Take a moment, think about it and lets be honest......Westham and Champions league don't really fit together do they.

DasMagicMullet is correct in his analysis based on his experience. I can personally say that the game has become easier but that doesn't have to apply to all players of the game. 

Success in the game and the ease of the game is all 

Fair points. Your personal examples defo make a stronger argument for being too easy than the OP's I'd say.

I had a Newcastle save and won prem in 3rd season and Champs League in 4th, which isnt very realistic granted but I'd still hold back from saying 'too easy'.

And as mentioned in my second post, there are ways to make the game more difficult if people genuinely think it's too easy. In my opinion, it's a bit of a non sequiter to say the game's too easy if you win the league with a lesser team in first season but have given yourself world class managerial attributes.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Marcussy

[Jtomsett11]

1 hour ago, Etebaer said:

 

Players are still the most influencing factor as every other thing is fully depending on them - you can make good players worse with bad training and flawed tactics but you can NOT make bad players good with superior traning and flawless tactics!!!

That is a truth about football that is somtimes forgotten!

I would disagree with this. Superior training in real life develops players, while tactics can help hide huge weaknesses in players and bring out the strengths. I remember watching Reading in the prem as a season ticket holder when we finished 8th. Most of those players were not as good as the teams performance suggested and most failed to kick on when moving to other teams, while the next season wish showed the realistic ability of the squad. There are many other examples of teams who exceed expectations through their style of play, overcoming the natural limitations of the individual players. 

This is definitely possible to achieve on FM, otherwise you couldn't achieve things like multiple promotions in a row (which isn't very common at all in real life) without significant improvements to your squad. When starting with a lower league team there's often 1-2 players who are rated pretty badly but will stay with me until they retire due to their attributes suiting my style of play. They're definitely not up to the standards of my squad but they get high ratings anyway. 

[DasMagicMullet]

On 11/08/2020 at 21:47, Marcussy said:

 

No offence but when I clicked on to your post, I expected to read that you had taken Altrincham or Forest Green to Champs League glory in 6-7 seasons dominating all domestic divisions along the way. Or that you had won Champs league with Dukla or Sparta in the space of a couple of seasons.

Your achievements are definitely notable - but I'm genuinely puzzled as to how that leads to a question of whether the game is too easy? You've had a couple of seasons of decent success with 4 small teams - shouldn't you be doing a fair bit more before asking that?

Not really, 2 league defeats across 4 seasons with 4 different clubs is enough to ask the question.

[sporadicsmiles]

20 hours ago, Erimus1876 said:

Could you please PM me your tactic?  It sounds like something I've been trying to setup myself for a while - something that doesn't exploit weaknesses in the match engine.  I'm looking for a tactic that tasks me to micro manage the actual match as and when needed during play, and not have the hands off approach because my tactics overpower the opposition due to flawed AI logic.

I can give you the link to the thread I wrote about the tactic (and other things) in FM19. Everything still holds exactly the same as before, because I am trying to use football logic. 

The first post pretty much describes how and why I set up as I do. 

[Etebaer]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Jaketomsett:

I would disagree with this. Superior training in real life develops players, while tactics can help hide huge weaknesses in players and bring out the strengths. I remember watching Reading in the prem as a season ticket holder when we finished 8th. Most of those players were not as good as the teams performance suggested and most failed to kick on when moving to other teams, while the next season wish showed the realistic ability of the squad. There are many other examples of teams who exceed expectations through their style of play, overcoming the natural limitations of the individual players. 

This is definitely possible to achieve on FM, otherwise you couldn't achieve things like multiple promotions in a row (which isn't very common at all in real life) without significant improvements to your squad. When starting with a lower league team there's often 1-2 players who are rated pretty badly but will stay with me until they retire due to their attributes suiting my style of play. They're definitely not up to the standards of my squad but they get high ratings anyway. 

Well, i especially said "bad players" and this means you can with no training make people develop beyond the limits of their talent without using illegal drugs.

That some Teams overperform is the result of a mutlitude of factors and is not solely related to training and tactic but on many other factors that play a role in the outcome of a game.

You will usually see a Team overperform for the occasional Season and the fall back into their natural performance limits despite having the same training and tactic used as in the overperorming season bcs the external factors that made that possible have changed or gone missing.

So i stand by what i said with utmost cerrtainty!

[Overmars]

It's easy. A big reason why is because you can conduct your player acquisition business with very limited competition. Human managers have huge advantages in squad building. Once you have a squad as good as anyone else in your league then you'll almost certainly win because of the other minor advantages humans have over the AI.

The tougher part of the game is winning when other teams have better players. If you somehow limit your own advantages in squad building then the game will remain challenging. Masking attributes, banning trials, limiting the number of players you can sign per season, limiting where you can sign players from, etc. are all excellent at adding difficulty.

The game also lacks nuance in some interactions. "Get creative!" is pretty much a perfect shout in FM20, but if I yelled that at players in real life, they might go for a risky pass or dribble that catches them out of position and yields a good counter chance. The game doesn't provide enough downside risk to balance out the upside to some managerial decisions, so you end up with things you automatically do no matter what.

[Jtomsett11]

4 hours ago, Etebaer said:

Well, i especially said "bad players" and this means you can with no training make people develop beyond the limits of their talent without using illegal drugs.

That some Teams overperform is the result of a mutlitude of factors and is not solely related to training and tactic but on many other factors that play a role in the outcome of a game.

You will usually see a Team overperform for the occasional Season and the fall back into their natural performance limits despite having the same training and tactic used as in the overperorming season bcs the external factors that made that possible have changed or gone missing.

So i stand by what i said with utmost cerrtainty!

In real life there is no 'potential ability' of a player. Yes, some people are much more talented than others, but a good example of how training has an impact is Cristiano Ronaldo. He has trained his body to exceptional levels through putting in significantly more effort than the average, or even top level professional does. Lots of articles on how he improved his jumping for example. If a very good player can become an all time great through dedication and training, it stands to reason a bad player can become better through training.

Totally agree with you about multitude of factors, but I can't agree that bad players can't be made better at all through tactics and training. Yes they may go back to their 'normal' level, but for that period of time they were better due to, among other factors, tactics and training.

I have a feeling we may have to agree to disagree, but that's what these forums are about really! 

[Etebaer]

Exactly

[Justin Tomlinson]

Hmm, I’ve been pondering this... (Great thread btw!)

I have played every version since the first CM and I’d consider myself to be a good manager - more of a wheeler dealer than a master tactician, but racked up plenty of trophies.

Anyway, no, it isn’t too easy.

My teams do well, BUT that is because I have had the advantage of playing say 50 seasons per version, game must be close on 30 years, so approx 1,500 seasons. Plenty of time to learn from mistakes, and crucially iron out those fine margins that now make it easier...

Imagine in real life you could have all this experience, yet seemingly be starting a fresh, working up from the bottom ‘against the odds’ - hey even Neil Warnock would have finally kept a team in the Premier League!
 

Whilst we benefit from significant experience we can still make it harder, choosing teams with constraints, limiting wage budgets etc - so always something to keep you playing one more match before you save!

 

[Fosse]

Increasing attribute masking or adding more ambiguity to external players’ attributes is probably something that should be phased in. It’s unrealistic that after a weeks scouting that you know a player’s natural fitness or concentration. 
 

For most clubs now it’s not the manager that says make a bid for player x, maybe the player should encouraged away from that behaviour.

[nextqprmanager]

Since from playing the first original Championship Manager game [ yes I`m old ish - young at heart! ], on and off over the years ; playing FM20 following a few years gap, my views :

lots of things are the same eg morale, determination, but what is different, which I am struggling with are Tactics. Due to time, ( I only play a few hours week day evenings ), I have tended to download Tactics eg Knap`s, but I cannot understand in this FM20 for example same Tactic, almost identical players vs Fulham I win 7-0, then draw 1-1 then lose on pens ???.

I think Rep has a greater impact and dynamics, which were not so important / in previous FM`s. Overall, it is more complex. I would not say it is easy. Sometimes unrealistic, esp getting in superstars etc. ; but then again the Transfers are fun.

[EazyEee]

Firstly, It's too easy to totally revamp a squad and assemble a world beating squad, being able to spread payments over 24 months means you can spend crazy amounts of money as a small team.

Secondly, it's too easy to dominate possession, even as a smaller club with a lesser squad its pretty easy to dominate possession, on top of this, you can press extremely urgently with little consequence. Man United's most recent game vs Sevilla is case and point that you can't maintain an all out pressing assault for the entire 90 minutes. But in FM, players on a low fitness % don't really perform any differently.

Finally, in my experience, once you go on a winning run, its like playing in auto-pilot, my teams (even newly promoted ones) frequently go on 10-12 game unbeaten runs even in the Premier League. I know Sheff United done a crazy run last season but its rare in the Premier League.

For me this FM has been the easiest in a while, to the point where I've stopped playing it. I'd personally like to see a Civilization style difficulty mode to make it more challenging. 

 

 

[Icy]

After several struggles this year, basically trying to setup counter or defensive tactics, I decided to join the bandwagon for fun. Developed two attacking tactics based on possession and high pressing. One from 4-1-4-1 Deep and another from 4-2-3-1.

Keys:

- Set a positive or attacking high pressing possession tactic and even good teams will just allow you to have the ball 60% of the time and get chance after chance. You will suffer from time to time of a loss when you have shot 30 times and the opposition only 1, but usually you will win.

- Set proper set piece routines, not even using exploits but not the default ones.

- Praise your players for good training, soon they will love you.

- Use the right team talks and shouts.

- Sign young players for free after they have been cut by top teams.

- To make money, sell some of your top young men if needed for a few M and send a few for loan with 100% salary paid by the other club.

Result:

Started with Crewe, promoted to League 1 first season, promoted to Championship second season and now I sit 1st half league, so promotion to the premier looks close as well. I also reached the 4th final of the FA cup and the 4th final of the Carabao, beating teams like Arsenal in the way. All mainly with free signed players.

I'll keep this save trying to make Crewe a team dominating Europe with young players but I must admit sometimes it gets boring and I set games to key moments only as soon as I see that my team is dominating. If the other teams has more chances/possession in the first 15 mins, change the tactic a bit to adapt. The fun for me i this save is basically from signing young players and developing them, but is not very challenging.

The problem for me is that attacking high pressing tactics seems overpowered for two straight years while setting other kind of tactics is much harder because the lack of proper information and confusing terms in the tactics creator.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Icy

[henryzz]

This thread seems to be full of people overachieving partly due to the opposition underestimating them. It is often far easier to do well in the first season or 2 after being promoted because you are being underestimated continuously. Attacking tactics will suffer at times due to quality difference but will also often find a lot of space.

[Preveza]

What really annoys me is playing a 4231 will nearly almost always let you win the possession battle irrespective of opponent. Im Heerenveen, away against Ajax, 61:39. Another example was when managing Lommel; first season in the top tier, I was winning possession in every single game, as relegation favorites. 4231 that is. When i switch to 41221 with a DM, im always losing possession. Makes it feel cheesy

[Spanner]

My feeling after reading this thread is that people make the game harder via self-imposed restrictions.

As a result, the game itself is easy because we have to make it harder by making up extra rules. 

Expressions like "there is always a way to make it harder" just highlight that the game itself is easy.

[Icy]

hace 16 minutos, henryzz dijo:

This thread seems to be full of people overachieving partly due to the opposition underestimating them. It is often far easier to do well in the first season or 2 after being promoted because you are being underestimated continuously. Attacking tactics will suffer at times due to quality difference but will also often find a lot of space.

That might be one of the issues, that is why we need a more complex AI that setups tactics more based on your own and not mainly on odds.

[Artin]

On 02/08/2020 at 20:02, DasMagicMullet said:

all whilst not really doing anything other than playing the players in roles they want to play and making sure the tactics page is green.

don't do any of that then.

better yet, edit the UI skin so you can hide those things (it's extremely easy). or ask someone in the UI section to hide them from you.

[EazyEee]

4 hours ago, henryzz said:

This thread seems to be full of people overachieving partly due to the opposition underestimating them. It is often far easier to do well in the first season or 2 after being promoted because you are being underestimated continuously. Attacking tactics will suffer at times due to quality difference but will also often find a lot of space.

Probably is a major factor. There is a clear advantage for positive/attacking high press tactics. IRL few teams can do this successfully also, not every team who is successful presses high, e.g. Inter Milan. Its too easy to hold possession as AI teams early press in the same way or just back off despite having superior squads.

I get there is a delegate balance to make it fun for as many people as possible, but the introduction of some sort of hard mode would make things more interesting for the longer-term players too.

[Gee_Simpson]

10 hours ago, Preveza said:

What really annoys me is playing a 4231 will nearly almost always let you win the possession battle irrespective of opponent. Im Heerenveen, away against Ajax, 61:39. Another example was when managing Lommel; first season in the top tier, I was winning possession in every single game, as relegation favorites. 4231 that is. When i switch to 41221 with a DM, im always losing possession.

I definitely have found this to be the case the past few years at least. It seems to be easier to achieve high possession with the 4231 vs the 4123, despite people saying the 4123 is good for possession.