Football Manager 2021 Official Feedback Thread

[Whufc10000]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

Top of the league with a GD of +36 after 17 matches with bloody WHUFC in 2021 -- but clearly it's the AI rigging the game when in need of a goal. (I'm sure none of those 3 goals average  scored for WHUFC ever have any issue, they're all brilliant legit football goals scored by definition no doubt).

This is why this game will never get a more competitive AI btw. Every time in a hundred a perceived "****" hits the fan, it's the game being unfair.   

Gamasutra - Analysis: Game AI & Our Cheatin’ Hearts

That's not a dig, btw. It's just that the human mind in general is a thing of many wonders. It's the same psychology at work that regards the RNG of Baldur's Gate 3 (Early Access release) as borked, even when collecting numbers it shows it isn't.  The devs are actually optionally coding in a bias in the form of loaded dice in favor of the player, similar to the Civ developers in the article linked to above (and even that is perceived as suspicious as the human mind is what it is). Baldur's Gate 3 rolls out a hotfix for players who have 'angered the RNG Gods' | PC Gamer

As always you completely miss the point 

[XaW]

14 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

I've seen more than enough on these forums to know that this is a pointless task and a complete waste of time.

There are still issues in this game from the previous 4 or 5 versions(at least)

This screenshot was from my last match. Given offside and absolutely no sign of any VAR lines or a check?????

If you can take the time to post it here, then you might as well post it in the bugs section instead. At least that way SI will have something to actually look at instead of a random screenshot where it's impossible to know what happened. I mean, you aren't even posting a screenshot of the time the ball leaves the foot, so it's impossible to know anything from those images at any rate.

[roykela]

3 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

I've seen more than enough on these forums to know that this is a pointless task and a complete waste of time.

There are still issues in this game from the previous 4 or 5 versions(at least)

This screenshot was from my last match. Given offside and absolutely no sign of any VAR lines or a check?????

Screenshots you're showing are always after the ball has been struck.
Not saying i'm doubting you but you have to show the screenshot from when the ball was struck. This doesn't say anything.

3 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

As always you completely miss the point 

Could be an indication that the point hasn't been communicated well enough.
If you want to prove a point you should clarify.

[ottey_swe]

I've really given FM21 a go now (almost 500 hours), but I think it's a step back from FM20 in terms of match information presentation. Widgets were far superior to the tablet, and I liked the fitness levels being presented in %. Also, I miss having the match odds in the calendar. I play in windowed mode.

Of course it's still a great game, and of course I'll keep playing it, but I can't seem to get over this stuff that's been removed. For me, FM19 & 20 were perfect in terms of presentation. I remember getting really excited about FM19 with the revamped tactics section & GUI in 2018. I'm all for simplification and getting more people to play the game, but I feel this concept has been taken just a step too far in FM21.

Edited July 8, 2021 by ottey_swe

[XaW]

32 minutes ago, ottey_swe said:

I've really given FM21 a go now (almost 500 hours), but I think it's a step back from FM20 in terms of match information presentation. Widgets were far superior to the tablet, and I liked the fitness levels being presented in %. Also, I miss having the match odds in the calendar. I play in windowed mode.

Of course it's still a great game, and of course I'll keep playing it, but I can't seem to get over this stuff that's been removed. For me, FM19 & 20 were perfect in terms of presentation. I remember getting really excited about FM19 with the revamped tactics section & GUI in 2018. I'm all for simplification and getting more people to play the game, but I feel this concept has been taken just a step too far in FM21.

It seems to be a divisive change, but if you want to change it, it seems like everyone agrees this mod works wonders:

Now, not everyone wants to use mods, but if you want something resembling the previous version, at least this will let you do so.

[duesouth]

1 hour ago, ottey_swe said:

I've really given FM21 a go now (almost 500 hours), but I think it's a step back from FM20 in terms of match information presentation. Widgets were far superior to the tablet, and I liked the fitness levels being presented in %. Also, I miss having the match odds in the calendar. I play in windowed mode.

Of course it's still a great game, and of course I'll keep playing it, but I can't seem to get over this stuff that's been removed. For me, FM19 & 20 were perfect in terms of presentation. I remember getting really excited about FM19 with the revamped tactics section & GUI in 2018. I'm all for simplification and getting more people to play the game, but I feel this concept has been taken just a step too far in FM21.

I suggested in feature requests SI offers users a choice of UI, being able to select either the FM21 match UI or the older/"classic" UI:

 

[_mxrky]

Away games are farcical again. There’s no logic to why ai teams just play 50x better and you can’t do a single thing 

[Mcfc1894]

On 27/06/2021 at 13:32, Marko1989 said:

If the game was realistic you would never win any trophies. Playing with some 6th tier English teams would not have sense, because if the game was realistic, you will never be able to lead that team to Premier League. You can always find your ways to make the game harder, but the fact that this game is unrealistic is what makes it fun, because you can take some lover reputation club and win Champions League for example.

If the game was realistic, we would have to play only with best clubs if we want to win trophies so the realism is kept, and I don't want to play with Real, Bayern, Barca, I want to win Champions League with Chievo Verona. 

 

But that's the whole fun of trying to make a tactic which will make u overachieve with teams who aren't that good. This year FM even if u go badly wrong on a tactic it still feels likely that u will overachieve your goals 90% of the time which I don't see how that's fun unless for the casual gamer 

[andu1]

After around 1000 hours put in FM 21 its time to for me to let it go. Hopefully for FM22 they reworked how 3 at the back systems work. Right now the back 3 stay too rigidly in the defense and there is no way to replicate a modern 3 4 3 or 3 4 2 1.

[StevehFC]

I'm wanting to start a final new save before FM22 comes out and haven't played it since January. Is it worth it? 

[FrazT]

The game is not perfect but it has improved after the updates- you will, however, not get a consensus in here, so best to make up your own mind.

[Federico]

1 ora fa, StevehFC ha scritto:

I'm wanting to start a final new save before FM22 comes out and haven't played it since January. Is it worth it? 

I love this edition - and yeah it has issues, some are annoying really - but it's really up to you. I like the ME really much, truly enjoyable for me.

[Whufc10000]

How do you compete when teams like Liverpool(example) can win 20 games in a row without creating many(if any) decent chances?

[_mxrky]

Players are demanding stupid wages and squad roles for their actual ability.

max aarons demanding important player at my cl winning side with a 240k a week contract when he’s on 75k is ridiculous 

[rdbayly]

13 hours ago, _mxrky said:

Players are demanding stupid wages and squad roles for their actual ability.

max aarons demanding important player at my cl winning side with a 240k a week contract when he’s on 75k is ridiculous 

The impact of league reputation on contract demands is completely out of control, particularly in the Premier League.

I'm playing in Germany at the moment, and it's night and day compared to England. I've signed some of the same players for Leipzig as I did in my Leicester save. The salary demand differences are ridiculous. I'm talking 160k p/w in England, and 80k p/w in Germany.

Edited July 11, 2021 by rdbayly

[Whufc10000]

Does anyone remember the big boost to their attributes Leicester players received in FM after they surprised everyone and won the title in 2015-16?

Why doesn't that happen organically in the game when teams over achieve? So what happens in the game now is that after you have over achieved your club gets a boost, as in you are more highly regarded as a club, but your players don't get that same boost, so in essence, your players have become worse.

Example - I qualify for Champions League with West Ham in season 1 with most of my team regarded as 3 star players or better, but when the next season starts, most of my players have lost stars, meaning that their ability has remained the same or has even dwindled. Those players over proven their ability over a whole season, yet they are not regarded as any better than they were in season 1 and often their ability has regressed?

That makes absolutely no sense. SI themselves gave a massive boost to the Leicester players in the subsequent release of FM, so they are aware that it was necessary, yet achieving the same or similar in the game does not produce the same response???

This is why you see "second season syndrome" and its all to do with the way the game rates every player. I've had strikers who have been the top scorer in the EPL three seasons running, yet I will never receive even a single transfer offer for them, whilst strikers who score between 5 and 8 goals a season are wanted by all the top clubs and are being bought for ridiculous amounts of money every season?

In essence it is an abandonment of realism.

What makes this even more frustrating is that earlier releases of FM saw players desirability, attributes and value rise based on their performances(like real life) why was this abandoned for what we have now, which is a blatant devolution?

 

[roykela]

1 hour ago, Whufc10000 said:

Does anyone remember the big boost to their attributes Leicester players received in FM after they surprised everyone and won the title in 2015-16?

Why doesn't that happen organically in the game when teams over achieve? So what happens in the game now is that after you have over achieved your club gets a boost, as in you are more highly regarded as a club, but your players don't get that same boost, so in essence, your players have become worse.

Example - I qualify for Champions League with West Ham in season 1 with most of my team regarded as 3 star players or better, but when the next season starts, most of my players have lost stars, meaning that their ability has remained the same or has even dwindled. Those players over proven their ability over a whole season, yet they are not regarded as any better than they were in season 1 and often their ability has regressed?

That makes absolutely no sense. SI themselves gave a massive boost to the Leicester players in the subsequent release of FM, so they are aware that it was necessary, yet achieving the same or similar in the game does not produce the same response???

This is why you see "second season syndrome" and its all to do with the way the game rates every player. I've had strikers who have been the top scorer in the EPL three seasons running, yet I will never receive even a single transfer offer for them, whilst strikers who score between 5 and 8 goals a season are wanted by all the top clubs and are being bought for ridiculous amounts of money every season?

In essence it is an abandonment of realism.

What makes this even more frustrating is that earlier releases of FM saw players desirability, attributes and value rise based on their performances(like real life) why was this abandoned for what we have now, which is a blatant devolution?

 

That's not how it works.

For the FM game after Leicester won data was revised and changed, where needed, to achieve the best representation of real life within the frames of of the programming.
That "boost" was to be able to give the game a better chance to achieve something like that.
Do real life players get a boost after a season like that?  No, of course not. Neither do they in-game.

So when the next FM comes the same will happen and it will represent real life football the best way it can, within the borders of possibility of that particular version of the game, with the (new) knowledge aquired.

You are mixing two completely different things and thus coming to the wrong conclusions. 

Ref. West Ham example. Not regarded any better? They're already good enough. Regardless of what the stars say. The stars are a subjective indication by your staff of your players in comparison with one another.
They might be right and they might be wrong. All that matters is what you managed to do with them.
Qualifying for the CL in the 1st season proves that they are good enough within the right playing system.
They don't need a boost. They already have the necessary skills in the right places for that system.
A group of individuals themselves might not be the world's best, but if they find the right click, so to speak, they can most definitely reach heights no-one thought they could.
If they do, do they need a boost? No, of course not. They haven't become much better players individually. Just better as a group.

[Whufc10000]

16 minutes ago, roykela said:

That's not how it works.

For the FM game after Leicester won data was revised and changed, where needed, to achieve the best representation of real life within the frames of of the programming.
That "boost" was to be able to give the game a better chance to achieve something like that.
Do real life players get a boost after a season like that?  No, of course not. Neither do they in-game.

So when the next FM comes the same will happen and it will represent real life football the best way it can, within the borders of possibility of that particular version of the game, with the (new) knowledge aquired.

You are mixing two completely different things and thus coming to the wrong conclusions. 

Ref. West Ham example. Not regarded any better? They're already good enough. Regardless of what the stars say. The stars are a subjective indication by your staff of your players in comparison with one another.
They might be right and they might be wrong. All that matters is what you managed to do with them.
Qualifying for the CL in the 1st season proves that they are good enough within the right playing system.
They don't need a boost. They already have the necessary skills in the right places for that system.
A group of individuals themselves might not be the world's best, but if they find the right click, so to speak, they can most definitely reach heights no-one thought they could.
If they do, do they need a boost? No, of course not. They haven't become much better players individually. Just better as a group.

I'm not quite sure what you're going on about tbh, all I know is that stars mean better results, its as simple as that.

[roykela]

53 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

I'm not quite sure what you're going on about tbh, all I know is that stars mean better results, its as simple as that.

Stars don't mean better results. Good, consistent performance mean better results.
Stars do nothing other than indicate how your players match up towards each other in quality, from your staff's point of view; which can be both right and wrong.

[Grifty]

2 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

This is why you see "second season syndrome" and its all to do with the way the game rates every player. I've had strikers who have been the top scorer in the EPL three seasons running, yet I will never receive even a single transfer offer for them, whilst strikers who score between 5 and 8 goals a season are wanted by all the top clubs and are being bought for ridiculous amounts of money every season?

In essence it is an abandonment of realism.

What makes this even more frustrating is that earlier releases of FM saw players desirability, attributes and value rise based on their performances(like real life) why was this abandoned for what we have now, which is a blatant devolution?

 

You mean like what happened to Sheff Utd IRL?

[Svenc]

On 10/07/2021 at 11:21, Whufc10000 said:

 

As always you completely miss the point

Not really. Which is why this makes me despair a bit. Player who downloads a knap-a-ttactic (which like any tactic will always have a flaw unless he finds a way to field like 30 outfield players, second half of this post), scores 3 goals average per match with an alright squad and still claims the AI were rigging the game. Not that this would be the sole example. Reddit, et all, are full of posts like that. 

I don't have any issue with any playing style and I don't consider any playing style to be superior over any other, mind. Still, the question stands, where would that leave anyone who's engaged a bit deeper into that part of the game and still wants a bit of a challenge? The AI actually evidently dropped points because of crappy tactical picks on a couple recent releases, with a particular highlight being Guardiola's Bayern ca. FM 2016ish, regularly barely scoring more than 60 goals per season with one of the most domestically dominating squads at that time (and losing up to 8, 9 league games). Barely any competition from AI management like that. The fix to such major bugbears wasn't to code the AI to be more "unfair" or make it "scoring a goal whenetever it wants" (because that's not how the game was ever coded). It was adressing AI tactical flaws. And it would be still like that to this day.

Mind you, as an actual "simulation", the game shouldn't allow there to be actual crappy tactical picks. FM's UI easily allows this, including major contradictions, for both AI as well as human player as the entire tactical UI is basically a puzzle box full of pieces (which don't necessarily all fit well together), which likely makes this a nightmare on the coding front, considering that every AI manager too has edited preferences in formations, favorite roles used, etc. as well as every AI manager making dynamic switches throughout every match based on current scoreline, time left on the clock, etc. 

Also, in your post supposedly showing how AI Liverpool would win matches despite barely creating chances -- there are like two matches in there they won despite having the lower xG. (SI should finally get rid of the broken CCCs and half chances now that this is in-game). Speaking of which, there are xG tables as well as Expected Point tables in-game with which you can compare actual goals scored vs what should have been scored, as well as actual points taken vs. what should have been taken (statistically). The supposedly goal rigging AI on the occasion underderpforms Expected Points by as much as ~15 by the end of a season. Still, should Liverpool (and their forwards) actually outperform their xG over the seasons, that should actually be the case, as the few elite forwards in football long-term actually do score a couple more goals from the chances they have, compared to, well..... bloody West Ham's. That's why clubs are spending those gazillions on those few elite forwards. 

Opta Expected Goals - YouTube

Edited July 11, 2021 by Svenc

[Whufc10000]

42 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Not really. Which is why this makes me despair a bit. Player who downloads a knap-a-ttactic (which like any tactic will always have a flaw unless he finds a way to field like 30 outfield players, second half of this post), scores 3 goals average per match with an alright squad and still claims the AI were rigging the game. Not that this would be the sole example. Reddit, et all, are full of posts like that. 

I don't have any issue with any playing style and I don't consider any playing style to be superior over any other, mind. Still, the question stands, where would that leave anyone who's engaged a bit deeper into that part of the game and still wants a bit of a challenge? The AI actually evidently dropped points because of crappy tactical picks on a couple recent releases, with a particular highlight being Guardiola's Bayern ca. FM 2016ish, regularly barely scoring more than 60 goals per season with one of the most domestically dominating squads at that time (and losing up to 8, 9 league games). Barely any competition from AI management like that. The fix to such major bugbears wasn't to code the AI to be more "unfair" or make it "scoring a goal whenetever it wants" (because that's not how the game was ever coded). It was adressing AI tactical flaws. And it would be still like that to this day.

Mind you, as an actual "simulation", the game shouldn't allow there to be actual crappy tactical picks. FM's UI easily allows this, including major contradictions, for both AI as well as human player as the entire tactical UI is basically a puzzle box full of pieces (which don't necessarily all fit well together), which likely makes this a nightmare on the coding front, considering that every AI manager too has edited preferences in formations, favorite roles used, etc. as well as every AI manager making dynamic switches throughout every match based on current scoreline, time left on the clock, etc. 

Also, in your post supposedly showing how AI Liverpool would win matches despite barely creating chances -- there are like two matches in there they won despite having the lower xG. (SI should finally get rid of the broken CCCs and half chances now that this is in-game). Speaking of which, there are xG tables as well as Expected Point tables in-game with which you can compare actual goals scored vs what should have been scored, as well as actual points taken vs. what should have been taken (statistically). The supposedly goal rigging AI on the occasion underderpforms Expected Points by as much as ~15 by the end of a season. Still, should Liverpool (and their forwards) actually outperform their xG over the seasons, that should actually be the case, as the few elite forwards in football long-term actually do score a couple more goals from the chances they have, compared to, well..... bloody West Ham's. That's why clubs are spending those gazillions on those few elite forwards. 

Opta Expected Goals - YouTube

Blah, blah, blah 

I don't start playing the game using a downloaded tactic. Its a last resort due to the many failings of the game.

Here's one example.....

I used just one tactic for three full seasons without changing a single thing, not even to shut up shop or chase a goal and yet I was still being informed after three seasons that first team players who were essentially playing every game when match fit were not yet familiar with the tactic 

I mean seriously what is that??? Imagine if I was employing three tactics, one attacking for when we are big favourites, the second more balanced for tight games and a third more defensive tactic for games in which we are expected to lose. I could play for ten seasons with the same eleven men and never have a tactic my players are familiar with. Then what if I made other small changes to take advantage of opponents weaknesses, its ludicrous.

The game is so poor because most people are weird and they either don't want to upset SI or their employees by complaining, or they know by now that complaining gets you banned from the forum, so what's the point when after playing the game for more than ten iterations, you know its never ever going to change.

If people had the balls to say "enough is enough" and not purchase the game until its had a complete overhaul and its many issues, most of which have been in the game for years, are finally taken seriously then SI would have to put some effort into the game. 

Granted, I'm an idiot for buying this years version, but in my defence there has been lengthy lock-downs  meaning a lot of empty hours to while away, so I'm sure this years version broke some kind of sales record, but not because of how good it is.

FM'ers are made to believe that SI are a small company who work hard for not much money and that they put up with a lot by even having these forums, but the truth is, is that all the top execs are multi millionaires with multiple homes and the life of riley, whilst most FM'ers have to save up, or wait for birthdays or xmas, to buy a game that is quite frankly not up to much.

Anyway, I'm sure I've said too much, but it is the truth nonetheless.

SVENC - you need to get it out of your head that the only people pulling the game to pieces are those who download tactics and want/expect to win every game.

[Whufc10000]

1 hour ago, roykela said:

Stars don't mean better results. Good, consistent performance mean better results.
Stars do nothing other than indicate how your players match up towards each other in quality, from your staff's point of view; which can be both right and wrong.

If that's the case, then we'll both start a game with a certain side unedited and then use the editor to add a star onto each player with all other parameters unchanged yeah?

[Whufc10000]

1 hour ago, Grifty said:

You mean like what happened to Sheff Utd IRL?

No, that's not even the same ballpark

[Svenc]

7 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

SVENC - you need to get it out of your head that the only people pulling the game to pieces are those who download tactics and want/expect to win every game.

The perceived quality was not what I was addressing. I don't  care  whether somebody thinks this would be the worst game; or the best thing ever. (If you asked me, it was neither, and I skipped quite a few iterations, but that's besides the point).

What "triggers" me was the claim the AI would have the ability to "score whenever it wants"* and that the game had a coded bias towards AI. It doesn't and it never had. Why do I care? Simple: If the AI one day finally were actually coded to challenge us players who have sussed it all out in spite of the many myths and cheap player excuses going around, the accusations the game wouldn't be playing fair would only increase in numbers, as the AI would become ever more efficient and players increasingly alienated. And key SI staff naturally know this from years of experience and developing their AI, so this isn't quite a conspiracy. From my end, it's worth battling this AI myth for this reason alone. 

I'm glad this stuff is usually deleted at least here, thus (I consider this site to be one of the few with reliable game advice, for which SI's lack of documentation is also to blame, mind). I reckon it's because most mods likewise know how the game works (and quite a few of them outperform AI likewise). Some may also be part of beta testing, and know that any AI bias would render feedback, such as on AI tactical picks, useless. The insistance on such popular game myths also distracts from adressing actual game issues all the same, of which there may be well enough already. 

 

*And that from somebody simply downloading a tactic and then performing in a way no AI manager with West Ham would ever even in a hundred new saves (and by sheer lucky rolls of the internal "match dice" in sequence), which by any sane logic would be ample evidence of the contrary alone.

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Svenc

[fuego]

IMO the game has lost his fantastic union between adherence to reality and good complexity. In the last two edition i find the complexity too hard too manage. Perhaps it’s me but i regret the old 2D editions were it was possibile to play a very astoning game but much more fluent, not easy at all but more friendly to play.

bye.

 

[roykela]

10 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

If that's the case, then we'll both start a game with a certain side unedited and then use the editor to add a star onto each player with all other parameters unchanged yeah?

Sure. Don't need the editor for the stars though.
I'll either succeed or fail due to my own interpretation of the players

[Whufc10000]

[herne79]

21 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

or they know by now that complaining gets you banned from the forum

Contrary to popular opinion, complaining has never got anyone banned.

21 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

I used just one tactic for three full seasons without changing a single thing, not even to shut up shop or chase a goal and yet I was still being informed after three seasons that first team players who were essentially playing every game when match fit were not yet familiar with the tactic 

I mean seriously what is that??? Imagine if I was employing three tactics, one attacking for when we are big favourites, the second more balanced for tight games and a third more defensive tactic for games in which we are expected to lose. I could play for ten seasons with the same eleven men and never have a tactic my players are familiar with. Then what if I made other small changes to take advantage of opponents weaknesses, its ludicrous.

Tactical unfamiliarity after such a long time is indeed perplexing and something which could (should?) be improved upon.  But during those 3 years when you changed nothing how successful were you?  If you overachieved then what issues did that apparent lack of familiarity cause you?  Tactical familiarity has nowhere near as big an impact as having a decent tactic in the first place.

You also seem to be having quite a regular issue with "dominating" games but losing, as your latest post shows.  Once in a blue moon that type of result is not a problem and reflects real life.  However if it happens regularly that is indicative of a tactical system which consistently leaves you exposed.  That's not the game deciding to screw you over, it's something which you are doing and is within your control to change.  If you want to understand how to resolve this, the best thing you can do is head to the tactics forum, post your tactic and ask for help.

[Whufc10000]

9 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Contrary to popular opinion, complaining has never got anyone banned.

That sort of comment on the other hand is when you start to walk a bit of a tightrope as you're saying SI are lying to us.  That goes much further than a mere complaint.

Tactical unfamiliarity after such a long time is indeed perplexing and something which could (should?) be improved upon.  But during those 3 years when you changed nothing how successful were you?  If you overachieved then what issues did that apparent lack of familiarity cause you?  Tactical familiarity has nowhere near as big an impact as having a decent tactic in the first place.

You also seem to be having quite a regular issue with "dominating" games but losing, as your latest post shows.  Once in a blue moon that type of result is not a problem and reflects real life.  However if it happens regularly that is indicative of a tactical system which consistently leaves you exposed.  That's not the game deciding to screw you over, it's something which you are doing and is within your control to change.  If you want to understand how to resolve this, the best thing you can do is head to the tactics forum, post your tactic and ask for help.

I've used a 1000 different tactics, some I've downloaded and many I put together myself, but the outcome is always the same.

As expected the AI(versus AI) win some they should lose and lose some they should win. Its all very balanced, but then you take a look at the human v AI stats and its always massively one sided in favour of the AI, whether you're Liverpool or Fulham.

In my last 8 matches I have conceded 4 "freak" goals, all of which has cost me points. Then I come on here and I'm told "its your tactics". I mean come on 

Just had this in the FA Cup quarter final....

[Pasonen]

1 hour ago, Whufc10000 said:

Just had this in the FA Cup quarter final....

Let's accept ME generates too many shots/headers and corners when all the channels are overloaded. Let's half your shots, corners made and increase your possession by let's say 10. This would give

 Possession 64-36

Shots 12

Corners 7

Would this make you feel so wrongly won? 

Then add some presentation of more counter attack attempts by the away team and voila we're very close realistic numbers and football match. Problem is FM is a bit too arcade like in vertical movement, too static in lateral movement and a bit too divided to defending and attacking areas. So it's hard for a human player to understand what they are doing wrong if they can occupy attacking area so easily and get rarely punished/scared by risks they are taking with attacking roles and mentality.

I'm keeping my hopes up that next FM will take the necessary steps forward and betting sites won't have to buy FM that it can't be used for betting purposes.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Pasonen

[Whufc10000]

Just now, Pasonen said:

Let's accept ME generates too many shots/headers when all the channels are overloaded. Let's half your shots, corners made and increase your possession by let's say 10. This would give

 Possession 64-36

Shots 12

Corners 7

Would this make you feel so wrongly won? 

Then add some presentation of more counter attack attempts by the away team and voila we're very close realistic numbers and football match. Problem is FM is a bit too arcade like in vertical movement, too static in lateral movement and a bit too divided to defending and attacking areas. So it's hard for a human player to understand what they are doing wrong if they can occupy attacking area so easily and get rarely punished/scared by risks they are taking with attacking roles and mentality.

I'm keeping my hopes up that next FM will take the necessary steps forward and betting sites won't have to buy FM that it can't be used for betting purposes.

Look, the whole point of this is that the AI clearly have a different set of rules to the human. If that was not the case then everything would be pretty evened out between what you see the AI do and what the human manager can do, but we are talking completely different ends of the spectrum here.

Even the stats the game allows you to see are pretty much worthless. Try looking a bit deeper at the hidden stats like how often the AI score with their first effort on goal, both against the human player and against other AI managers. The results will shock you believe me.

There are hundreds of other stats that will blow your mind and you'll be left wondering how you haven't noticed it before.

[Pasonen]

6 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

Even the stats the game allows you to see are pretty much worthless. Try looking a bit deeper at the hidden stats like how often the AI score with their first effort on goal, both against the human player and against other AI managers. The results will shock you believe me.

It's risk and reward. If you play high mentality high tempo which human player often do you will get scored on more often with that one shot. If it's over risky you will bombard opponent with shots but it will also give ball to opponent more often and that gives more chances for AI to score.

[HUNT3R]

10 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

Look, the whole point of this is that the AI clearly have a different set of rules to the human. If that was not the case then everything would be pretty evened out between what you see the AI do and what the human manager can do, but we are talking completely different ends of the spectrum here.

Even the stats the game allows you to see are pretty much worthless. Try looking a bit deeper at the hidden stats like how often the AI score with their first effort on goal, both against the human player and against other AI managers. The results will shock you believe me.

There are hundreds of other stats that will blow your mind and you'll be left wondering how you haven't noticed it before.

You're better off looking at xG over a longer period than a game or two. There are always shock results, in FM and IRL. Things even out more over the course of a few months.

Look at this over the course of a season: 

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

Then I come on here and I'm told "its your tactics". I mean come on 

Until you take ownership of your issues and accept that it's not the game somehow messing with you, you will continue to have issues.  I really do recommend you visit the tactics forum.  Just look at how often you are showing us those type of results.  That's not a coincidence and is totally indicative of how you are approaching the game - it's a pattern and should be throwing up red flags to you that tell you you need to change your approach, at least in certain matches.

Go on, try it.  What have you got to lose?

[Whufc10000]

36 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

You're better off looking at xG over a longer period than a game or two. There are always shock results, in FM and IRL. Things even out more over the course of a few months.

Look at this over the course of a season: 

Yeah I get all that, but those stats are easily manipulated by the odd game or three.

I'm talking about all the hidden stats, like AI percentage of scoring from their first shot versus the human manager percentage, meticulously tested with many tactics over many excruciating seasons.

These are the stats that will shock you, the AI is over 10000% more likely to score in this scenario 

Doesn't sound fair does it? 

[HUNT3R]

24 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

but those stats are easily manipulated by the odd game or three.

You say you get it, but then write this. The 'odd game or 3' will not influence those figures significantly. That's the point of looking at them over a period and not picking out random matches. They're over the course of 38 matches, so stats will 'even out' to give you a better view of how you're doing in the medium to long term.

 

Anyway,  you seem to ignore advice, so good luck.

 

[Whufc10000]

9 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Until you take ownership of your issues and accept that it's not the game somehow messing with you, you will continue to have issues.  I really do recommend you visit the tactics forum.  Just look at how often you are showing us those type of results.  That's not a coincidence and is totally indicative of how you are approaching the game - it's a pattern and should be throwing up red flags to you that tell you you need to change your approach, at least in certain matches.

Go on, try it.  What have you got to lose?

With all due respect it will make no difference, the game is coded to work a certain way and the stats I collect back up what I'm saying 100%

We will never agree on the matter because you are always either going to believe what SI say, or you have to continue rolling out the rehearsed rhetoric. 

[herne79]

7 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

With all due respect it will make no difference, the game is coded to work a certain way and the stats I collect back up what I'm saying 100%

We will never agree on the matter because you are always either going to believe what SI say, or you have to continue rolling out the rehearsed rhetoric. 

As a West Ham fan I also play West Ham a lot, can easily get them into (and winning) the CL, yet I never see the same issues that you do.  Why do you suppose that is?

I'm trying to help you fella, help you understand there is more that you can do to relieve your frustrations, but you have to be willing to try.

[Whufc10000]

7 minutes ago, herne79 said:

As a West Ham fan I also play West Ham a lot, can easily get them into (and winning) the CL, yet I never see the same issues that you do.  Why do you suppose that is?

I'm trying to help you fella, help you understand there is more that you can do to relieve your frustrations, but you have to be willing to try.

I don't know, maybe you are part of the inner circle and as such you know how the game is coded so you know how to avoid the pitfalls as you have all the answers.

Seriously I don't know, but I do know that my testing is 100% correct, so maybe one of is not being completely honest.

I've ran these tests with multiple different teams with multiple different tactics over multiple seasons, yet the outcome is always the same. You could try collecting your own similar stats.

[herne79]

12 minutes ago, Whufc10000 said:

I don't know, maybe you are part of the inner circle and as such you know how the game is coded so you know how to avoid the pitfalls as you have all the answers.

Seriously I don't know, but I do know that my testing is 100% correct, so maybe one of is not being completely honest.

I've ran these tests with multiple different teams with multiple different tactics over multiple seasons, yet the outcome is always the same. You could try collecting your own similar stats.

I offered advice, you clearly don't want it, so best of luck.

[Whufc10000]

12 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I offered advice, you clearly don't want it, so best of luck.

No worries, although it does seem strange that I have collected statistics that show the AI are 1000% more likely to score with their first shot on goal than a human manager, tested with many tactics, teams and seasons, yet you show no interest. Its almost as if you were already aware? 

[roykela]

1 hour ago, Whufc10000 said:

No worries, although it does seem strange that I have collected statistics that show the AI are 1000% more likely to score with their first shot on goal than a human manager, tested with many tactics, teams and seasons, yet you show no interest. Its almost as if you were already aware? 

Or to turn it around. You seem to not show any interest in any advice that could either prove or disprove your conclusions by testing different approaches.
It's like you've already made your mind up but don't want others to actually look into it 

Create/find a tactic. Head over to the tactics forum and provide your findings. Try things others recommend. If it is what you say it is you will get that confirmed, for sure, by others.
If it isn't the way you say it is you will have learned and discovered more.
Nothing to lose. It's a win/win for you.

[Whufc10000]

1 hour ago, roykela said:

Or to turn it around. You seem to not show any interest in any advice that could either prove or disprove your conclusions by testing different approaches.
It's like you've already made your mind up but don't want others to actually look into it 

Create/find a tactic. Head over to the tactics forum and provide your findings. Try things others recommend. If it is what you say it is you will get that confirmed, for sure, by others.
If it isn't the way you say it is you will have learned and discovered more.
Nothing to lose. It's a win/win for you.

I've already done it all. I read and followed tons of advice when I made my own tactics.

With lengthy testing I found out that by sticking to just one tactic at all times gives me the most consistency. I don't even change things if I need a goal or to hold onto a lead because testing shows this as completely pointless.

Types of goals I concede...

My attacking throw in, my player throws straight to the opposition and that player runs at least half the length of the pitch through 5 or 6 of my defenders regardless of ability or pace.

Freak goals

Set piece headers where an opposing 5"2 player with jumping 3 and heading 4 "towers" above my 6"4 centre back with 16 jumping and heading ability

My players are facing the wrong way like he was chatting to his mate in the crowd and as such misses his interception

Above is probably 80% of goals I concede 

[XaW]

Route one goal (3 touches total) with an audacious lob to finish it. Some Ederson-level of kicking from my goalkeeper! I really love the diverse types of goals I score in this version.

 

[Svenc]

The AI has never operated under different rules. It's always had the same options available as the human player, visibly, except that the human player can use those options far more creatively. That's an excuse for own failings (or at least a testament to a lack of proper official game documentation / pitfall tactical UI). And that's not defending the game but stating facts in the hopes of ever improving at least optional AI that may also provide a challange for players who delve a little deeper than the next download. It may appear that the AI had an "edge" sometimes, sometimes even due to bugs, but that's different. Whilst the AI back then was much more immediately apparent to outperform (seasonal ratio of Shots on Target per goal as recorded clearly being much inferior to a decent player), as it used the Tactics Creator in really simple ways: This thread is still a classic on the perception at play, btw. Why is the AI so much better at finishing? - Football Manager General Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com) (Heavy spoiler: Despite some severe tactical issues that were adressed by users, the OP's conversion was actually much superior to the AI right from the start).

I don't know how many weird tactical picks or nonsensical changes at HT (or during a match) I have witnessed or reported in the public bug forums throughout the years (also in AI vs AI matches), clearly costing the AI points and/or leading to freaky results. It is only when they were adressed and acknowledged by SI staff that the AI became more robust. Additionally, until a couple iterations ago, the AI became this defensive this readily, IF IT SCORED AT ALL, it was always either from a fluke, set piece, or even a bug, as AI manager tactics rarely pushed enough men forward for long enough to construct decent moves from play during a match (technically lower mentalities plus like half a team plus including both wide backs on "defend" hold position duties for like 90 minutes even when the AI was managing Portugal in an Euro semis). User types similar to Whufc1000 perceived this as a "cheating AI" all the same as the AI always exclusively scored from flukes, if at all, never any decent play. The more common "complaint" is naturally that it would be always the AI that would score off few/er shots. If you can't do that likewise, the burden is on you. And always will be. (Luckily the game has introduced a bit better (statistical) feedback by now, even though it may need furhter tuningn throughout the years).

An introduction and a question about (contextual) feedback and stats in the game - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

I reckon anybody involved with reporting AI glitches could attest to similar stories. And players like Rashidi et all, if you would face them online, would do things to you far more nasty than any AI manager, as actually good players don't merely make somewhat "logical" decisions based on match situations and scorelines and make switches in-match accordingly (as an AI manager does). Not merely for reporting bugs, they can actually read the second by second match play and draw conclusions, which the AI will never be able to.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Svenc

[roykela]

3 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

I've already done it all. I read and followed tons of advice when I made my own tactics.

With lengthy testing I found out that by sticking to just one tactic at all times gives me the most consistency. I don't even change things if I need a goal or to hold onto a lead because testing shows this as completely pointless.

Types of goals I concede...

My attacking throw in, my player throws straight to the opposition and that player runs at least half the length of the pitch through 5 or 6 of my defenders regardless of ability or pace.

Freak goals

Set piece headers where an opposing 5"2 player with jumping 3 and heading 4 "towers" above my 6"4 centre back with 16 jumping and heading ability

My players are facing the wrong way like he was chatting to his mate in the crowd and as such misses his interception

Above is probably 80% of goals I concede 

Then you should (also) take it to the Bugs Forum there and present everything very detailed. Won't get far here.

I used to play with one tactic and never change it. Went alright but never brilliantly. Then i started making tiny tweaks based on a lot of things. Form, morale, match development, happiness, etc.
It made an impact. Doing a lot better that way.

Those kind of goals are as good as non-existent in my game. As good as. They do happen, of course, but nowhere near the scale you're mentioning.
The curious side of me just keeps coming back the question, "Why is that?".

Every time i've seen tendencies for anything remotely close to that starting to happen i've made changes.
Tweak the tactic, drop a player, sell a player. I will change things around. It works.

I don't play with just one single tactic any longer. I play with one formation, yes. But the tactic will see a little tweak here and there, now and then.
Of course i change the formation sometimes during a match, but only when it's really needed. Otherwise i'm just fiddling about with team instructions, roles and duties.
As soon as i see the beginning of a tendency i don't like, i tweak something.
Fun part is; the AI gets FM'd way more often than i do and they make more glaring errors than my players do as well (Relatively speaking. Doesn't happen very often overall) 
But i must have the right players for it. If i don't it'll be a disaster. Don't need the best players (which i can't get anyway) but the right mix.
I don't give a hoot what stars the players have. If they're performing well then that is all that matters.

Got me promoted twice, prematurely, with my previous team. Players were terrible on paper but were good at doing what i needed them to do.

If those goals are 80% of what you concede then you really need to change something. I know, i know......but you have to look into tactics vs players. There is something fundamentally wrong there.

[Svenc]

8 hours ago, roykela said:

Those kind of goals are as good as non-existent in my game. As good as. They do happen, of course, but nowhere near the scale you're mentioning.
 

You can already tell he's exaggerating a few things, as well as second-guess the conversions of both AI as well as his team are nowhere near his perception from looking at all the screenshots he's posted in knap's thread in like the last couple of months. Shots showing actual seasonal results rather than hand-picked matches (speaking of which, Guardiola likewise always concedes or drops the points in tendency when his opposition has much fewer shots and, naturally, lower xG, given that his sides sometimes concedes like 6 shots seasonal average -- and he's probably adapting a tad more). Speaking of which, if knap's wouldN't outconvert any AI left right front and centre even with just alright players on their level (which naturally is never worth reporting for a game issue as wins are wins), they wouldn't be as popular.

His set piece settings for instance may naturally very well trigger marking bugs the AIs' don't, which is all very well possible and worth a report. For a good chunk, and this is long-term experience, this will be another case of wonderful perception bias (own goals are never checked for whether they may be somewhat buggy or "lucky" -- and some of them inevitably will be given the sheer volumes), as well as possible AI tactical issues I was hinting at before. E.g. if the AI were playing too defensively for a bit too long periods of a match (and that argument was brought up for FM21 by at least some, linking it to a perceived lack of difficulty as the AI would try too late to get back into matches etc.), it means they won't regularly construct moves from open play, and as such get more of their (few/er) shots throughout the season from set pieces, flukes, errors, and the like than "realistically" they should have. Some of those will still inevitably during a season lead to goals. Some of them will then cost points and matches.

Back then with the AI at their most rigidly defensive, I was starting fun saves with a top team considered match favorite every week from the start anyway (so the AI expected to be beaten or at best draw the match and chosed tactics "accordingly"), trying how many match days I could go without conceding a single goal. However, by around match day 10, the AI was awarded another corner (which was the only time they put volumes in the box), or whatever, from which eventually a goal was scored. That was ca. FM 2015ish, btw. Even AI managed top sides, e.g. Bayern Munich in the Bundesliga, could go with conceding less than 10 goals throughout the season with a bit of luck, as too, they likewise faced the same rigidly defensive AI opponents every week (admittedly counter attacks and the like were also pretty tame on that release). 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Svenc

[Neil Brock]

22 hours ago, Whufc10000 said:

Yeah I get all that, but those stats are easily manipulated by the odd game or three.

I'm talking about all the hidden stats, like AI percentage of scoring from their first shot versus the human manager percentage, meticulously tested with many tactics over many excruciating seasons.

These are the stats that will shock you, the AI is over 10000% more likely to score in this scenario 

Doesn't sound fair does it? 

I've seen three posts from you in the last 24 hours which have claimed it's 10000% more likely, 1000% more likely and 100% more likely. 

If you've got proof, feel free to post it. But on these forums we've been extremely clear via the house rules that these forums are intended to be a source of help and information to SI's consumer base, and this purpose is obscured when team members have to spend inordinate lengths of time defending themselves against snipes, insults, deliberate falsehoods, prejudiced misinterpretations and destructive attacks on their integrity and ability. 

Baseless claims definitely fall into that Garry. 

[samuelawachie]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

I've seen three posts from you in the last 24 hours which have claimed it's 10000% more likely, 1000% more likely and 100% more likely. 

If you've got proof, feel free to post it. But on these forums we've been extremely clear via the house rules that these forums are intended to be a source of help and information to SI's consumer base, and this purpose is obscured when team members have to spend inordinate lengths of time defending themselves against snipes, insults, deliberate falsehoods, prejudiced misinterpretations and destructive attacks on their integrity and ability. 

Baseless claims definitely fall into that Garry. 

I suppose it's getting less and less likely, going by the falling %'s.

Why do these kind of theories always arise every single year? It just seems that because we humans can't see the computer thinking, we assume it's not got a brain and must be cheating its way to stuff..

It's so intriguing how our species think. 

EDiT: That should be how our "minds" work.